Amsterdam2015.eu

REPORT ON THE ACADEMIC CONCEPT

Amsterdam2015.eu2

Executive Summary

This report details the innovations of the Amsterdam concept: a new academic concept tried out during the 3rd International Forum of EYP the Netherlands in Amsterdam from 9 - 16 April 2015. In addition to describing each new element and its content, the report critically evaluates all aspects of the concept for the benefit of its future implementation. Additionally, it provides concrete materials and methods used during Amsterdam 2015.The report gives an overview of the idea behind the concept and all its elements, subsequently outlining the delegate preparation, the Interactive Modules, having two General Assemblies, the Revision Day, and the contributions made by the Media team. Each chapter describes an element of the concept and discusses its greatest opportunities and most apparent weaknesses. The report is based on evaluations by the Chairs, Media Team, as well as delegates. One chapter is dedicated to recommendations for future implementation, including tips and tricks for adopting the concept within the framework of a shorter session. The final chapter is a collection of methods the Chairs developed to implement this particular concept.

Many of us, participants of Amsterdam 2015, are fascinated by this academic concept. Thus, we will be happy to provide more information and discuss it further. To anyone hoping to implement its elements again, we will be happy to offer support, further develop it together or simply cheer you on.

Amsterdam2015.eu 3

Organising Team

Head-organisers: Titus Verster, Willem KoelewijnCaroline Opperman, Henok Ghebrenigus, Jasper Meijer, Nastassia Winge, Cassie Tingen, Josephine Dattatreya Andela, Karina van den Berg, Kees Foekema, Kim Peters, Marissa de Swart, Midas Boeke, Mighel Molenkamp, Samuel Nelemans, Sanne Lith, Steffan Oberman, Zephyr Brüggen

Media Team

Editors: Alex Proctor, Hammu VarjonenCara Pacitti, Catalina Dragoi, James Bradfield, Kimberly van der Laan, Laure Steinville, Leo Sjöberg, Louis Shankar, Maya Moss, Silja Tuovinen, Silvia Fiore, Veronika Wilhelmova

Chairs TeamBoard: Bram van Meldert, Franziska Maier, Saga Eriksson, Hugo DürrBeth Thayne, Dorothea Weber, Isabel Cantalapiedra, Juan Estheiman Amaya, Lia Pachler, Louis Wouters, Nora Wilhelm, Raphael Bek, Rebecca Smith, Tuna Dökmeci

We welcome further questions or comments on this report to franziska.maier@eyp.de, bram.vanmeldert@eyp-europolis.be, hugo.durr@eup.se, saga.eriksson@live.fi

Amsterdam2015.eu4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction to the Academic ConceptII. Delegate PreparationIII. Interactive Module IIV. Lobby NightV. General Assembly IVI. Revision Day and Interactive Module IIVII. Media Team ContributionsVIII. Recommendations for the future implementation of the Amsterdam conceptIX. Method Collection

Amsterdam2015.eu

Amsterdam2015.eu 5

INTRODUCTION TO THE ACADEMIC CONCEPT

The Academic Concept for Amsterdam2015 focused on a collaborative effort of all session participants to produce innovative, well thought-through and effective results. EYP sessions usually succeed at allowing participants to take a deep look at one specific topic whilst granting only a superficial insight into other issues discussed at the session. This often leads to debates in General Assembly not living up to the high standards delegates set in Committee Work. Additionally, there is no mechanism that allows for the integration of suggestions to improve resolutions. Amsterdam2015 succeeded in engaging all participants into several topics and allowed them to make a meaningful contribution to resolutions other than their own. This allowed for the critical review of others’ work , a process of developing constructive ideas, improvements and alternatives during the session as well as truly well-considered and opinion-driven debates.

To support these aims, a generally more interactive delegate allocation was chosen. Based on the topic preferences they had submitted in the beginning, delegates were allocated to two additional committees next to their home committee. This made them members of this committee’s Focus Group, a group of delegates who have a deeper insight into the committee’s work and contribute to it regularly. 1. Delegate PreparationHome committee preparation was based on individualised Action Plans designed by the Chairs.For a period of two weeks, delegates turned their attention to Focus Group preparation. Three tasks had to be completed, the results of which were publicly shared. 2. Interactive Committee Module ITwice during the session, delegates had the chance to participate in the work of the committees in their focus groups during so-called interactive modules. The first module took place after the knowledge-sharing phase of Committee Work. It allowed delegates to get an overview of the knowledge the proposing committee deemed most relevant and the conflicts it had identified. Delegates from the cluster then had the chance to add their view on the issues the committee should solve.

Amsterdam2015.eu6

3. Lobby Night: Preparation for General Assembly IFor the first General Assembly, each committee proposed draft resolutions. On the evening before this General Assembly, a lobby night allowed the delegates to exchange first viewpoints on the resolution drafts and gather support for any amendments they would like to propose. Each committee had a table to present its resolution, with a flipchart detailing tabled amendments. Amendment sponsors were to gather signatures for their amendments for them to pass to the selection of amendments by the board. The lobby night was a collaborative effort of the entire CJO team. 4. General Assembly IThe aim of this first General Assembly was primarily to improve the resolutions by considering the advantages and disadvantages of the most controversial solutions and by giving constructive input to the proposing committee. Additionally, it represented a slightly more accurate representation of the real parliamentary process, because amendments voted upon here were binding in character (meaning that the proposing committee somehow had to include an idea into their resolution if an amendment on it was passed, and had to exclude ideas for which amendments failed.)

Procedure of GA I Defence Speech by home committee (2 min.) Discussion of amendment I (10 min.) Reading of amendment I Defence speech on the amendment by proposer (1,5 min) Attack speech on the amendment (1,5 min.) Open debate on the amendment (5 min) Closing statement by committee (1 min.) Binding vote Discussion of Amendment II (10 min.) Open debate on remaining resolution (8 min)

I loved the new academic concept as I had the feeling that people actually care for what I had to say, that my point

of view mattered and that it was more about creating than competing. I just can’t wait to be able to say to people one day “Hey, I’ve been there, I saw that being done for the first time”. Anyhow, the most memorable thing was the constant fear of being killed while crossing bicycle lanes.” Weronika

Betta (delegate, INTA I (Poland))

Amsterdam2015.eu 7

5. Revision Day and Interactive Module IIA revision day after the first General Assembly gave delegates the time to revise and perfect their resolutions, and to include amendments. In order to get input on the final version of the resolution the second interactive module took place. The Focus Group could challenge the home committee by taking a Devil’s Advocate position. Many home committees also used this chance to get an additional view on issues which were yet unresolved or controversial within the committee.

General Assembly IIThe second General Assembly followed a classic procedure and was focused entirely on debate, rather than being a platform for asking questions. Its aim was for delegates to share opinions and exchange arguments, on which they could base their vote at the end of the debate. The second General Assembly showed that delegates had gained a good overview of solutions proposed in the run of the session.It was especially active and points made were high in quality .

6. Useful links:Session Documentary https://vimeo.com/125946732 Session Programme http://amsterdam2015.eu/?page_id=74 Resolution Booklet I http://issuu.com/eypthenetherlands/docs/resolution_booklet_ Resolution Booklet II http://issuu.com/eypthenetherlands/docs/resolution_booklet_ii____ Amendment Booklet http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/amendment_bookletAmendment form http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/lobby-amendment_submission_form Instructions for the Lobby Night http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/lobby_info_compiled Session Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/amsterdam2015Session homepage http://amsterdam2015.eu/ Twitter Feed of EYP the Netherlands (including live feeds of both GAs) https://twitter.com/EYP_NL

Amsterdam2015.eu8

DELEGATE PREPARATION

The aim of delegate preparation was to equip delegates with a solid insight into their own topic, while simultaneously giving a good overview of their Focus Group topics. In order to fulfill these aims, each Chair set up an individual preparation plan for the home committee. In this plan, two weeks were reserved for Focus Group preparation. The Focus Group preparation phase ended about one and a half weeks before the session, so as to allow delegates to re-shift their attention back to the home committee topic.

Because delegates were spread randomly across Focus Groups the Chairs team needed to develop a harmonised approach for Focus Group preparation. For this purpose, the team agreed that each Chair would keep track of their home committee, so as to avoid that delegates receive tasks and reminders from many different members of the Chairs team. To develop ideas of the tasks for delegates to pursue, the Chairs team conducted a thorough brainstorming which can be found here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CyzDYUaQl-CqLi_6iqijz5mBb_Xb5mDXlgh-e-Bb5Zg/edit

For Focus Group preparation, the plan developed and implemented with the help of the Media Team was as follows:

TASK 1: Delegates received the task of reading only the topic and explanatory paragraph (not yet the overview) and send in a visualisation of the topic’s issues as they understood them (what is at the core of the topic? what will the topic be about? can they include things that they already know about this topic without doing extra reading?) This can be a drawing, an infographic, a mind-map, a video, a comic - anything they would like. All the visualisations were posted online in a gallery (Marc 8th - March 15th). See some examples here. http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/example_visualisatins

Amsterdam2015.eu 9

TASK 2: Delegates received the task of reading the entire overview and the essential links. They then had to do two things (March 15th - March 22nd) send in 250 w. on either their opinion/ preliminary position on the topic OR a statement on why this topic is relevant to them, (this was not made public, but uploaded to the Chair’s internal Google Drive so each Chair could check the submission by their focus group)

post two questions that they had about the topic in a forum on the Media Team homepage. The questions could not be the same ones asked in the topic overview

TASK 3: Next to this, we combined the question forum with an online knowledge bank ordered by committees, where anyone could upload research materials or links for further reading

Example e-mail sent to the delegates “ DEAR DELEGATESToday, we will begin work in our so-called focus groups, which are a special part of Amsterdam2015. You will have time in the following two weeks to look into the topics of your focus group in more detail, and will be asked to complete some tasks in connection to it. To help you do this, we are also happy to present the final prep kit to you - have a look through it, as it also includes explanations of the academic concept of the session, the session’s theme, and some ideas for doing research on topics next to all of the topic overviews.

What is a focus group?

Based on your topic preferences, you have been assigned to two further topics (next to your own “home committee topic”) for which you are a member of the focus group. We have tried to arrange this in a way that people in the same committee are part of as many different focus groups as possible, so that expertise on all topics is present in all committees. You will find your focus group allocation in the attached list. Please do note that switching is not possible here, because it may change the fact that expertise is spread through committees.

Amsterdam2015.eu10

This will allow you to work constructively on other topics and resolutions, and help your fellow delegates come to a better result. It should also lead to a higher quality of debates in GA. Read more about this in the prep kit.

How will we work in the focus groups?

Twice during the session, you will visit the committees of your focus group, hear what they have been working on, and have the opportunity to add your own ideas, or to improve existing ones. How this will look is detailed in the prep kit. For this to work, it is of course necessary that you arrive knowing something about these topics already. Please do at least 2 things: 1. Read the two topic overviews for your focus group topics2. You may skip doing additional research, but do look at the links under the last section “Essential Links”, which was put together by the home committee chair especially for you.3. Complete the focus group tasks

What are the focus group tasks? TASK 1: Read only the topic and explanatory paragraph (not yet the overview) and make a visualisation of the topic’s issue as you understand it (what is at the core of the topic? what will the topic be about? can you include things that you already know about this topic without doing extra reading?) This can be a drawing, an infographic, a mind-map, a video, a comic - anything you would like.To submit the visualisation, you will be able to post it in an online gallery on the media team’s homepage. We will make the link available to you sometime in the run of the week. You’ll then be able to browse through all of the other visualisations for all topics in this gallery. Deadline: March 15th TASK 2: Read the entire overview, and essential links. Then submit the following tasks by March 22nd: send in 250 w. on either your opinion/ preliminary position on the topic OR a statement on why this topic is relevant to you to me (your own chair) post 2 questions that you have about the topic in a forum, which will be on the same website mentioned above. The questions cannot be the same ones asked in the topic overview. Everyone can look through the questions, and has the opportunity to post replies, or even begin a discussion! Please do so also for your own topic.

Amsterdam2015.eu 11

TASK 3: next to this, we will have an online knowledge bank ordered by committees, where anyone can upload research materials or links for further reading. Please upload any interesting materials you find on your topics there to share it with the others. This will then hopefully also become a good resource for you to browse through to do additional research.”

Full Schedule for Delegate and Chairs Preparation in Amsterdam ongoing - preparing your own committeeongoing - work in chair’s taskforces (taskforces were formed on chairing Focus Group meetings, the lobby night, connecting teambuilding and committee work, and chairs cooperation)March 9th - March 22nd - Focus Group Prep (for two weeks)March 22nd - Chairs receive task for preparing for own resolution (issue tree, mind map, or resolution skeletonend of March - Chairs receive an outline of the pre-session training programmeApril 1st - final deadline for the reports by chairs taskforces

“When I arrived in Amsterdam and met my fellow commit-tee members, I felt as if half of teambuilding had already

been done.” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu12

INTERACTIVE MODULE I

The first Interactive Module was aimed at giving the Focus Group the chance to highlight problems they hoped the committee would address. As a guideline, Chairs had agreed to allow the Focus Group to brainstorm on the question “I think the committee should solve the problem of…”.The module took place after a half day of Committee Work (three hours.) For Interactive Modules, delegates of the same Focus Group were split into two relatively equally sized groups. They spent 30 minutes in their first Focus Group, had 15 minutes to switch rooms, and finally spent another 30 minutes in their second Focus Group. The Chair led the first module without a member of the home committee staying behind.

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGESChairs mainly struggled with three issues:a. not having enough time to finish knowledge sharing before the Interactive Module;b. choosing a useful structure for leading the Interactive Module, and;c. integrating input from the Focus Group meetings into Committee Work efficiently.

a. Not having enough time to finish knowledge sharing before the Interactive ModuleMany Chairs chose to use Interactive Module I as a deadline to finish knowledge sharing, and put an effort into making knowledge sharing presentable. In some cases this resulted in knowledge sharing being rushed and therefore less of a focus on the committee’s own aim of writing a resolution . Designing Committee Work around the Interactive Module proved to be ineffective and disrupted the flow of of Committee Work for the home committee.All the while, other Chairs used the time to set the boundaries of their topic, work on the committee’s vision for the resolution, or focus only on the basics of knowledge sharing.

Consequently, it seems advisable to keep focus on the work of the home committee rather than trying to produce a certain outcome for the Focus

Amsterdam2015.eu 13

Group. In general it might be worth pushing the Interactive Module to the end of the first Committee Work day. This would give Chairs more flexibility as to what to present and avoid delegates having to go through knowledge sharing in three different committees in a row.

b. Choosing a useful structure for leading the Interactive ModuleInteractive Modules were very differently structured. While all modules began with an introduction round and a topic presentation, when it came to input selection, some Chairs focused on gathering as much input as possible, while others aimed at allowing for a discussion of the most important points.

Some Chairs showed an introductory video to add to the topic presentation, others had presented their knowledge on several flipcharts or in one big mind-map. Input was collected by discussing points together with the Chair taking notes, or by the group brainstorming on papers and post-its. For example, one Chair used post-its in different colours depending on whether the input was a question, a recommendation, or a fact they wanted to add. Another Chair limited the input to one post-it per person on what they wanted to communicate to the home committee.

The fact that the module lasted only for 30 minutes led to a very quick introductory round. Having no committee member was present led to the Focus Group not having a delegate to relate to from the home committee. Having a home committee member present could have facilitated further exchange on the progress of the committee’s work between Interactive Modules. In addition, not having a home committee delegate present puts additional pressure on the Chair to collect input in a presentable way. Having a committee member present might pose an additional channel for presenting input to the committee later on.

Preparation was spread unevenly in the Focus Groups, which led to some Chairs spending a lot of time on giving a topic crash-course. A few Chairs found it challenging to present knowledge in a compact way. Additionally, many Chairs ran into timing difficulties or missed the opportunity of collecting input because of too much time spent on knowledge sharing. All

Amsterdam2015.eu14

in all, output was more valuable when the priority was gathering input from those that had prepared. It seemed to go better for Chairs who limited their own presentation time and focused on discussing with the Focus Group.

The set-up of the Interactive Module was designed to avoid a large amount of unworkable input for the home committee. Nonetheless, some modules focused on collecting as much input as possible within the limited time. This often led to the impression of time being too short and to an amount of input that could not be integrated well into Committee Work. The main challenge here was the lack of a precedent and thus very few set methods being available. This meant that each Chair had to come up with a new methodology from scratch. We would recommend future sessions build on the existing experience to build up some concrete examples for methodological approaches.

c. Integrating input from the Focus Group meetings into Committee Work efficiently As the aforementioned section suggests, integrating the input from the Interactive Module into Committee Work was challenging. At times this required additional filtering by the committee, as well as grouping the collected points. How well this process was pre-structured seemed to rely on how thoroughly structured the interactive module itself had been. Insufficient structure led to many points being lost entirely .

If points were not somehow put into a context they proved to be difficult to understand and summarise. Simply asking for written input without a discussion or reading out of ideas did not work well in most cases.

Lastly, it took quite some time for the delegates to return into the mindset of their own topic and committee. This went well when Chairs took the time to debrief the Focus Group experiences with their committee, even though it took additional time that must be accounted for.

Amsterdam2015.eu 15

CHANCES AND OPPORTUNITIESThe Interactive Module proved beneficial for the overall session cohesion, as delegates not only got an insight into what was happening in other committees, but also got to contribute to several processes. Delegates actively felt that their input mattered and that they could influence what happened in other committees. Allowing for delegates to discuss and influence several resolutions brought about notions of ownership, participation, and responsibility. In addition, it encouraged discussion amongst and mingling between delegates of different committees. For the Chair, too, it was an exciting experience to get to know more delegates and perspectives on the topic.

In general, the more structured the approach to gathering input, the better the outcome. It is recommendable for Chairs to take notes of their own to contextualise input. Good experiences were had when there was a free flow of discussion with Chairs noting down the gist of it to pass on to the committee. In addition, using a structured flipchart to gather input worked very well for many Chairs. The Focus Group was told to brainstorm under three possible headings: - “I want the resolution to tackle...” - “Opinions / Ideas” - “I think the committee should prioritise”

The time limit also ensured that the input from the Focus Group was not too overwhelming and thus easier to integrate. In addition the fact that the Chair was leading the module allowed for a quick and effective filtering and summarising of input created. In some cases it was fun and good practice for the Chair to pitch the topic and work of the committee in brief. To make this possible, the Chair must follow the discussion actively before the module.

In all cases, the Interactive Module gave participating delegates a good idea of what the topic was about and what different directions the committee could take on it. It gave delegates a better understanding of what a resolution could entail early on, therefore laying a solid foundation for in-depth discussions. It also proved to be a good warm up for delegates to become immersed into, be passionate about, and actively discuss other topics.

Amsterdam2015.eu16

Beyond this, getting an outside input challenged the home committee on agreed upon points, offering an opportunity for them to strengthen their argumentation in favour of a certain direction to take. Some committees benefited from a preliminary impression of public opinion on some points.

EVALUATION OF THE QAULITY AND ADDED VALUE OF THE INPUTDifferent valuable outputs were created during the interactive module. Delegates were given the chance to voice whether the topic was sufficiently covered by the points agreed upon by the committee. Thereby the Focus Group could act as a safeguard against missing any big issues. This also prevented points that were off-topic and criticism on the scope of the resolution during GA. In another example, the Focus Group participated in the vision-building for the resolution. In other instances, the input from the Focus Group helped in narrowing down the topic and identifying priorities of a resolution based on the points that were mentioned most frequently. In connection with this, the input often helped accumulate more concrete examples and suggestions.

All the while, output was less valuable when it was not well structured, there were too many different points to process, the points were too concrete or the points were off topic.

“I very much liked the fact that we were able to engage more closely in the other committees topics and to see the progress and development of our focus group committees. It was interesting to see the thoughts that went into the re-solution and it was easier to understand the problems and

challenges of the topics.” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu 17

OUTPUT WAS NOT USEFUL WHEN :

OUTPUT WAS USEFUL WHEN :

Too open or loosely posed questions:Which problems should the commit-tee address?What possible solutions do you see?

With the most important problems or areas defined already: Has the committee addressed the most important issues?

Lack of quality control:Input was collected on paper only without delegates explaining their points to the Chair.The Chair did not have the chance to summarise or synthesise individual points.

Seeing what issues a resolution would have to clarify: What questions do you have about this topic?

With a presentation of possible directi-ons or visions for the resolution: Which general direction should the resolution take? Under which of the al-ternative visions should the committee continue their work?With key questions of the resolution defined:How could the key questions of this topic be answered?Which key questions are the most im-portant?

Amsterdam2015.eu18

LOBBY NIGHT

The Lobby Night took place the evening before GA I (9 pm – 12 am). The main aim of the evening was to collect amendments and allow all delegates to familiarise themselves with the different resolutions so as to be well prepared for GA I. A secondary goal was to let delegates experience the political process of exchanging and gathering support for ideas. As the vote on amendments during GA I was binding, the night also allowed delegates to influence the final text of all resolutions. The Lobby Night was organised in an open-space environment with a table for each committee functioning as the centre of the activities concerning that committee’s resolution. Delegates walked around freely in this setting. A delegate who wanted to submit an amendment had to go the table of the committee whose resolution was to be amended and ask the committee Chair for an Amendment Submission Form. http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/lobby-amendment_submission_form The Chair would check the completed form and accept, refuse or suggest improvements for the amendment. As soon as the Chair accepted an amendment, the delegate who proposed it could start gathering support. Delegates could support an amendment by going to the relevant committee table and signing the amendment. An amendment with signatures from 15 delegates from at least three different committees and five countries, would be considered by the Board for discussion during GA I. As soon as an amendment was accepted, the Chair entered the details of the amendment in an online overview file. After the event the Board evaluated all amendments and chose at most two for each resolution to be discussed duri ng GA I. See the Lobby Night’s instructions for delegates and chairs here. http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/lobby_info_compiled Besides the Chairs, who needed to be constantly present at their committee table, the Lobby Night needed support from the Media Team and organisers. The Media Team and organisers jointly ensured that it was clear for everyone how many amendments there were for each resolution and how many signatures the amendments had. This was done first of all

Amsterdam2015.eu 19

by having a flipchart for each committee indicating the amendments with their amount of signatures (each amendment had a code). In addition to this there was a live twitter wall and a host with a microphone to make announcements and keep everyone up to date. Journalists also assisted chairs at the committee tables. To set the mood music was played and mocktails were planned (but not served in the end).

Strengths and opportunities“I loved it, and delegates went crazy about the Lobby Night as well.

What I particularly liked was the chance to discuss EU-related matters with delegates in this framework. My committee was very motivated to

answer questions of other delegates, this strengthened the team spirit and cooperation within the committee.”

“IT WAS AWESOME! I really enjoyed Lobby Night. It was particularly exciting

and gratifying to see members of my committee discuss with delegates from other committees, and defend the stance they had taken during CW and in the resolution. Also, the giant board, keeping track of amendments and signatures, resembled some kind of stock market and was super cool. I think the delegates really enjoyed it as well. Besides, it did indeed feel a bit

more like real policy making and that was very cool.”

“I think it was really fun, and most of the delegates in my committee enjoyed it a lot. People actually thought about their amendments, came up to the table looking for explanations to ensure that their point made

complete sense. When my delegates were around, it was incredible to see how even those that seemed more shy during discussions in the committee

were really engaged in the conversations with other people, either explaining the resolution, or talking about their background information, or even having a discussion on why they thought the amendment was good/

bad.” The quotes from the Chair’s evaluation of the Lobby Night indicate what made Lobby Night a success: it included all session participants in a setting created for engaging in face-to-face discussions about topics, resolutions and their rationale in a dynamic atmosphere. The feeling that something was at stake as voting on amendments was binding, contributed to the enthusiasm. Also, it was just very fun.

Amsterdam2015.eu20

The Lobby Night is a unique opportunity for delegates to gain insight into the ideas of delegates of other committees and to gather input on their work. On the other hand it enables delegates to engage with all topics and influence the outcome of the work of all committees. In Amsterdam the value of the input lie more in the discussions than in the amendments themselves. As one Chair said: “The fact that people had engaged with the resolution and found holes in it was so valuable to the revision day discussions and it boosted creativity and lateral thinking in the committee.” Weaknesses and possible improvementsThe main issue in Amsterdam was ensuring productivity and quality in terms of amendments. In total 40 amendments were submitted for 10 resolutions and 17 amendments were discussed during GA I. The aim was to discuss two amendments for each resolution, but in the end there were three resolutions for which only one amendment was debated because the quality of the submitted amendments was considered insufficient. Amongst the 17 debated amendments, there were only few very good amendments http://issuu.com/amsterdam2015_report/docs/amendment_booklet There was also a discrepancy in the amount of amendments that were submitted for the different resolutions. The minimum submitted per resolution was two amendments and the maximum six. Further, some resolutions got amendments relatively early, whilst other resolutions only got their first amendment when the Lobby Night was almost over. Naturally, more technical topics got a bit less attention. In general there clearly was more attention paid to some resolutions over others, with some Chairs struggling to handle the workload at their table whilst others did not have anything to do at certain moments during the night. The workload for Chairs should not be underestimated. In Amsterdam most committees did not have any structure for ensuring that delegates of the committee were present at the committee table, leaving only the Chair and at times the journalist. This causes two issues. First, it implies officials have to answer questions about the topic and resolution, which is not always ideal as it leads to a lecture by the Chair rather than a debate between delegates on an equal level (note that Chairs will have to engage with delegates about the topic in any case as they have to check the

Amsterdam2015.eu 21

amendments). Secondly, at some tables a queue of delegates was forming, as they were waiting to discuss, ask questions or submit an amendment with the Chair and journalist being too busy to handle all the requests. In general it took quite a while (about an hour) before the first amendments started to come in and before the interaction really got up to speed. The reason is that delegates of course needed some time to read through the resolutions first. The Chairs team finished the resolution booklet an hour before the start of the Lobby Night, but it took until after the start of the Lobby Night before all delegates had access to the booklet (naturally printing takes some time and with unreliable internet digital distribution was not very effective). Delegates thus only received the resolutions quite late, impacting both the amount and quality of submitted amendments. A huge challenge essential for a successful Lobby Night is thus getting the resolutions to all delegates as soon as possible. Questions also remain with regards to what to do with the signatures. On the one hand they are definitely a good tool in stimulating dialogue and added to the fun factor. On the other hand gathering signatures takes quite some time which we did not have in Amsterdam. In the end not many amendments reached the threshold and thus the threshold was not taken into account by the Board when selecting amendments. Also, organisationally the event demands the support of nearly the entire officials team (at least in the way we did it). Chairs are needed at their tables, journalists ideally supporting the Chairs and then officials are needed to ensure everyone is knowledgeable about which amendments are open for signatures, how many signatures an amendment has and how many amendments a resolution has. It is also nice if some officials can add to the atmosphere e.g. by taking care of the music, hosting the event, and serving some refreshments. The Board ideally has an overview of the whole event to coordinate and support when and where necessary.

“Lobby Night was really good, mostly because it allowed me to receive input from fellow delegates and to understand

their point of view, which is something delegates usually don’t get until GA. It was amazing to see everyone discuss, share

opinions, and act like true politicians!” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu22

GENERAL ASSEMBLY I

Core to the Academic Concept, Amsterdam2015 hosted two General Assemblies: one following two days of Committee Work, and the second following an additional day to revise resolutions and integrate input from GA I. As such, GA I was the result of the first two days of Committee Work in the form of resolution drafts, which were discussed. The aim of this General Assembly was primarily to improve the resolutions by considering the advantages and disadvantages of the most controversial solutions, and by allowing all delegates to give constructive input to the proposing committee which could thereafter actually be integrated.

During each debate, two amendments were discussed, being an outcome of the Lobby Night from the previous evening. From those submitted, the Board chose which two amendments were to be up for debate during General Assembly I, with the amendments not selected still passed on to the proposing committee and available to discussion in the Open Debate.

The procedure of each debate was as follows:1. Introduction Speech by Home Committee (2 min, from podium)2. Discussion of Amendment I a. Defence Speech on the Amendment by the sponsor (1,5 min, from podium) b. Attack Speech on the Amendment (priority was be given to committees other than the home committees – 1,5 min, from podium) c. Open Debate on Amendment (5 min, from floor) d. Closing Statement by committee (1 min, from floor) e. Vote on Amendment3. Discussion of Amendment II a. (Repeat above procedure)4. Open debate (8 min, from floor)

It is also important to mention that the votes made on amendments were binding, meaning that if the Assembly approved an amendment, the committee had to include it in their resolution. Conversely, if an amendment was not approved, then it could not be included in the resolution in the

Amsterdam2015.eu 23

form it was presented. This meant that there was something at stake in all the debates, leading to that little extra investment from delegates and also cohering more with the genuine parliamentary procedure. In addition, to ensure that the proposing committee took as many ideas and considerations as possible from this debate, time to respond to points raised for the proposing committee was limited. Chairpersons served as secretaries to the debate on their committee’s draft resolution.

Strengths and Opportunities

“GA I not only added value to the session academically but also it added a lot in terms of atmosphere and outlook on the session. I think for some

delegates it really changed the way they viewed being a delegate and their outlook and EYP and what it was meant to achieve.

I really appreciated that the debates were so targeted (on the amendments), it meant there could be a much more constructive

discussion than often seen in GA.”

“People were really engaged in the discussions, which also showed that many of them actually knew what was going on and had an opinion on the

issue and the topic itself.”

“GA became less about criticism and proving yourself and showing off with the knowledge you have, but was something that was truly constructive. And I think this is something really crucial with sessions like these where

there is no selection procedure.”

“I loved it, and some delegates went crazy about it as well. My committee was very motivated to answer questions of other delegates, leading to more active debates in which delegates had an incentive to speak up: namely the feeling that there is a chance that their ideas will make it in

other resolutions. That incentive was definitely noticeable in my committee.” These above quotes are gathered from the Chairs team evaluation, and as this sample shows, the concept of General Assembly I hit home with Chairs as well as Delegates. As expected and confirmed, the major benefit of this programme element was the possibility for committees to gather a vast

Amsterdam2015.eu24

amount of input on their topic, as well as specific amendments, in a short, structured, and concrete manner. Even if certain resolutions presented a somewhat timid set of solutions, there was still discussion and input was still submitted.

Furthermore, certain specific aspects of the General Assembly I were identified as particularly refreshing and favourable: amongst them, the fact that votes on amendments were binding, as well as the structure of the debates. As mentioned above, because the amendment votes were binding, something was at stake in all debates. This was evident throughout the entirety of the day, with enthusiasm and excitement for the great majority of all debates. Additionally, because there was so much to cover, the strict yet mixed structure of the debates allowed to delegates to focus on specifics in the form of amendments, but also gave room for general and open-ended discussions in the Open Debate. This led to high-quality, interesting debates. Weaknesses and Improvements

The main challenges concerning the General Assembly I relate back to Lobby Night: For a good General Assembly I, good amendments are needed.

The main issue is rooted in the disparity of amendments made and focus of delegates input. This resulted in some either uncontroversial, or simply unfitting amendments submitted. Essentially, there is little one can do about a poor amendment debate during the assembly, instead there needs to be a better coordination the night prior.

Further, on one occasion for one amendment debate, there were two submitted amendments which proposed opposing ideas, and thus were debated together in opposition of each other. Confusion arose in this case during the voting procedure, where delegates were unable to vote against both amendment without having to abstain i.e. in case neither of the proposals were favoured.

Another issue which came to light concerns the binding nature of votes.

Amsterdam2015.eu 25

For one debate, an amendment was submitted and debated, where the amendment proposed changing a clause. After review, it turned out that the home committee would rather add the amendment as an additional clause, and keep the original, as the two were not mutually exclusive. With the binding voting system, this wish could not be carried out.

On a more menial note, there arose understandable complaints from Chairpersons as to their roles during their home debate. The duty of active Chairing alongside active note-taking was often difficult to balance effectively.

“It was great to be able to discuss and debate on clauses which were written in order to improve other resolutions. It

felt as if we were all part of one big team.” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu26

REVISION DAY AND INTERACTIVE MODULE II

The second Interactive Module was originally planned to take place during the second day of Committee Work, but it was decided this might make the schedule of that day too hectic and that the home committee needed at least one full day just to focus on their own resolution before the first GA. Therefore the second Interactive Module was moved onto the revision day between the two GAs. It took place after lunch so that the home committee would first have time to integrate comments and passed amendments from GA I into their resolution, and then the Focus Group could be used as a final check on the resolution before finalising it for GA II. The structure of the module was that one member of the home committee would stay behind to answer questions from the Focus Group, take notes and correct the Focus Group on any factual mistakes. They would also collate any input of ideas for changes from the Focus Group and explain these to the rest of the committee. The organisational procedure was otherwise identical to that of the first Interactive Module.

Strengths and opportunities

The added value of IM II is in having a chance to explain your resolution, clarify concepts and answer questions on issues that members from other committees had in GA I. Therefore even if a member of another committee did not get to make a point in GA I on one of their Focus Group topics it was still possible to make that point during the module. It was a chance to filter out points that would not add value to GA II and have the Focus Group act as Devil’s Advocate for the resolution or more generally give feedback on it. This would hopefully result in resolutions being true consensus texts. The module helped polish the last details of the resolution and clarify the phrasing. In some committees this module even lead to delegates re-writing clauses slightly to make them more understandable. In general it was an event through which the home committees decisions and process could be explained and justified. One Chair stated their goal for this IM to be for the Focus Group to understand how the short-term proposals of the committee contributed to the long-term vision they had as many delegates thought these two were in contradiction.

Amsterdam2015.eu 27

Another opportunity of this module is for the home committee to get a second opinion on questions they are still unsure of or points that they have not found solutions for. It can be helpful for the committee to get an external opinion on a solution the committee internally has trouble completely agreeing on. In one case the home committee had a list of questions they came up with when discussing solutions to ask the Focus Group. This way they got feedback in whether particular ideas were clear enough or what the Focus Group thought of them generally. This however requires organisation to get the Chair to allocate time for the committee to write down questions they want to ask the Focus Group prior to the module.

Having one delegate from the home committee stay behind was one of the other great opportunities this module offered as it meant the Chair could also observe the committee’s own understanding of the topic and any grey areas they had (which would be visible if the delegate from the home committee looked at the Chair for guidance when faced with a difficult question). Where it is good to leave behind a delegate who is for instance responding to points in open debate to give them practice, or leave behind the delegate who you feel is most clued up on the topic, it can also be helpful to leave behind a delegate who struggles with some part of the topic as it can be beneficial for that delegate to learn themselves by having to explain the topic and resolution to others. Regardless of which delegate stayed with the home committee, this module is a great exercise for them in learning to moderate discussion and summarise input.

For Chairs IM II was a great opportunity to take some time to look over the resolution and map out what still needed to be finalised when the home committee came back from their Focus Groups. This way the last few hours could be spent in a very productive way evaluating the resolution and using some of the methods we have in EYP for this to their full potential. The key here is also for Chairs not to rush the process and to finalise something too early just because they can. Having a draft resolution in existence already

“At first I was a bit skeptical regarding the focus groups. Nonetheless, by the end of GA I, I realised how important it was to dig deeper and find more concrete and well thought points, since all the superficial ones had already been ad-

dressed.” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu28

alleviates the immediate panic of not finishing a resolution in time and it can be hard to go back and evaluate things once they feel finalised. This was probably the reason many Chairs in this module were reluctant to truly open up the discussion for input from the Focus Group. However if the delegate staying behind was trusted to collate incoming suggestions in an implementable form during IM II, contributions from the Focus Group could be quickly run by the home committee once they were back and added immediately. This would really not take a huge amount of time.

Weaknesses and possible improvements

Having this module in the middle of the last day of committee work runs the risk of breaking the flow of the committee in the final run up to a final resolution. Many people seemed to be very tired and in addition to this too deep into their own topics to truly add value here. It is also crucial that the home committee has had time to complete the discussion on input from GA I and integrate amendments from there. Otherwise there is a risk of repeating discussions and debates that were had in GA I and not having time to discuss other aspects of the topic.

As we saw with IM I it always takes some time to reorient to committee and get them back to the mindset of their own topic, therefore stretching out the time that is in reality taken up by the module. Especially a discussion on what each delegate had experienced in the focus group was very time consuming and perhaps does not serve much of a purpose.

One of the main challenges of the module was time and the fact that after the module ended there was only a few hours of Committee Work left. Therefore if IM II is opened up to getting a lot of input from the Focus Group there is a tight timeline to discuss and implement this input. Thought needs to be put into how to integrate this input, as otherwise delegates may feel the resolution is unfinished or input from the Focus Group is made less meaningful.

This led to many Chairs opting for not gathering additional input at all but rather focusing on answering final questions and making sure the Focus Group understood the resolution to the fullest. However a downfall of this

Amsterdam2015.eu 29

was the module being very repetitive of IM I and GA I where two slots of time had already been spent to achieve the same goal. Some Chairs also pointed out that a lot of time in IM II was wasted on having to explain and discuss why certain amendments failed to pass in GA I and thus were not integrated in the resolution. Especially if a delegate who proposed an amendment that failed was in the Focus Group the discussion tended to get stuck on those topics even though they should have been settled and be now “off the table” after a rejection in GA I.

Even though IM II was a chance to explain changes made to the resolution after GA I there were two complications with this. Firstly in some resolutions nothing major had changed therefore there was not much explanation needed. Secondly in those committees where changes had been made, especially if an amendment had been modified slightly upon integration, not having a printed version of the most recent product was problematic and made it hard for the Focus Group to grasp the changes made. This meant contributions on specific aspects were hard to gather, and more general input would not be appropriate as its implementation would not be feasible anymore.

Challenges of leaving a home committee member behind were that sometimes they were not able to keep the Focus Group on track. They would collect all input from the Focus Group not being able to distinguish what was relevant and what was not, or correct the Focus Group on input that had already been discussed and rejected. The home committee member was also sometimes unable to defend content that was in the resolution, such as an amendment voted for in GA I. Some Chairs expressed a wish for the delegate who stayed in the committee to take a more active part in summarising the Focus Group discussion for the home committee on their return. Using two different delegates with the two Focus Groups also meant some of the discussions were repeated and the Chair had to intervene more, which shifted the focus away from the delegates and their discussion onto the Chair.

A final improvement for the module would also be the general mindset with which both Chairs and delegates approached the module. There needs to be a clearer distinction between the purpose and idea of the two different modules so this is understood by all those involved.

Amsterdam2015.eu30

MEDIA TEAM CONTRIBUTIONS

Even though the Media team was not at the core of the academic concept tried out in Amsterdam, it can have a significant auxiliary role in facilitating peer input from the delegates, which is a key element of the concept. This role can be divided into three areas: engaging the delegates with their own as well as their Focus Group topics, helping them understand the rationales behind other committees’ resolutions and being available for the Chairs team to ensure genuinely relevant output.

Below is a brief summary of how Tandem, the Media team of Amsterdam2015, covered these areas. This is to give a general idea of how a Media team might contribute to the Amsterdam concept in future sessions.

What went well

Pre-session - Providing an online forum for Focus Group and topic preparation. - Topics were made approachable through motion infographics. - Individual Media team members’ contribution to their committees’ preparation according to their Chairs’ wishes to ensure relevant . content. - Thorough planning to ensure Media team members’ (MTMs’) . maximum availability during the session.

During the session - Cooperation with the Chairs team by being available to fulfill requests like infographics and fact sheets that were needed during Committee Work and Interactive Modules. - Explaining the academic concept in videos. - During lobby night: Being in charge of the visibility of the process to everyone involved, and being present, focused and flexible to sort out unexpected situations in cooperation with the Chairs team.

Amsterdam2015.eu 31

Post-session - Compiling a documentary about the session and the academic concept to help participants to reflect the experience. - Bringing out how the participants experienced the forum and its new academic concept on social media.

What could be improved

Pre-session - More involvement in the Chairs team’s preparation in order to ensure the Media team offers the best support possible in the planning of the forum. Although Tandem took a rather facilitative approach in their work, more collaboration would have led to the team being even more useful to the aims of the forum. - The Media team could start working with the Chairs team from the start of the overview process. This way both teams’ products can be streamlined to best serve the delegates’ understanding and peer input. - Graphics demonstrating how different topics overlap. Tandem did these during the session, but they might serve even better during preparation.

During the session - Better help delegates understand other committees’ line of thought. Tandem intended to produce flowcharts summarising all committees’ discussions. However the plan could not be properly carried out due to constraints on time and communication with the Chairs. In future such products should be planned out carefully and well beforehand. - During lobby night: The Media team could take on a bigger role in making other committees’ resolutions available as soon as possible. Maybe it could even take on the main ideas of the resolution from the end of Committee Work and work on means of presenting the ideas in an easily understandable way while the chairs are typing the resolutions.

Amsterdam2015.eu32

Ideas for future implementation

During the lobby night Tandem experimented with several things the success of which very much depended on the facilities and premises, e.g. availability of projectors. - Hosting the event: a speaker discussing the overall situation with amendments. The mic could also be given to anyone wishing to speak in favour of their amendment. - Projecting a live feed on a wall to keep participants updated on the intense lobbying going on. This ideally requires internet connection for everyone while the minimum requirement is internet for two computers: one projecting the feed and one sending the feed to the computer projecting the feed.This way the feed is visible at all times. - Updating new amendments and their signatures on flipcharts.

During lobby night the availability of resolutions is crucial, the media team should assist by for example: - Uploading the resolution booklet online as soon as it is available. Providing laptops with the booklet open for the delegates. - Infographics/motion infographics on committee topics, coordinated alongside the topic overview for maximum relevance. - Pre-session products explaining the academic concept and its rationale. - Topic overlap graphics during preparation. - Flowcharts to let delegates know how other committees came to their final resolution. These could be useful for example before both GA’s as well as during revision day.

“Receiving the memory issue by the media team with data about the session, articles and the photo from Rijks Museum was the moment when I realized how well everything is or-

ganized.” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu 33

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMSTERDAM CONCEPT

This section collects ideas for future implementation for each programme element. This entails clear improvements that should be accounted for next time as well as ideas for implementing the session elements at a shorter event.

1. Interactive Module I

A meeting between the Focus Group and home committee would have been beneficial, so as to lead to a more active exchange between all delegates. Beyond, the Interactive Module could have been followed by updates between committees on a more regular basis generating much more interest. There is much potential to get creative with cooperative formats in the future.

An Interactive Module could work in the setting of a shorter session at the end of a Committee Work day. It would however take about two hours in total. This would require about 1:15 hours for the Interactive Module itself. Debriefing and discussing how it went in the home committee was also shown to be beneficial. This should take another 30 minutes.

Another proposal for integrating some of the benefits of the first Interactive Module would be combining it with the Lobby Night. For example, there could be mini presentations of about one minute per committee before Lobby Night begins to quickly present the topic and main aims of the committee.

Finally, both Interactive Modules could be combined by allowing delegates to simply give input on the general direction of the committee sometime in the middle of Committee Work. Generally, it seemed the more concrete the questions the committee asked its Focus Group, the better quality the output.

Amsterdam2015.eu34

2. Lobby Night

In order to increase the amount and quality of amendments delegates need to receive the resolutions in time; increasing the total length of the event. Four hours would be ideal. To serve the same purpose, as well as to ensure that each resolution gets the attention it deserves, it would be good to structure the event and to use the Focus Groups. To structure the event the time interval of the event could be divided in rounds. During the first round, lasting at least one hour, delegates should get the chance to just read over the resolutions. In a second round the floor is opened, but delegates can only submit amendments for the committees in their Focus Group. During the last round delegates can submit amendments for all resolutions. This is just an example of what could be done; the key points are that delegates should get sufficient reading time and that delegates should be allocated to focus on specific resolutions at first. In order to increase the quality of the amendments further, Chairs should really take the time to ensure amendments are well written (it was not always clear what exactly was meant by a certain amendment) and to ask questions to the proposing delegate so as to take their thinking further and purify the idea behind the amendment. Furthermore, an effort should be made to really explain to delegates what makes a good amendment, possibly by giving examples. In order to reduce the workload of Chairs and ensure quicker response questions from delegates, committees could organise themselves so that at all times some delegates of the committee are present at their committee table. This will also ensure that it is delegates explaining the reasoning behind their resolution to other delegates. As said, the threshold definitely contributed to the fun factor and encouraged dialogue about amendments amongst delegates. It also allowed delegates to experience the process of seeking support for their idea. The threshold also is an extra check for the quality of the amendment. Given the time we had in Amsterdam after all delegates received the resolution booklet, however, the threshold should be lowered.

Amsterdam2015.eu 35

In order to organise a Lobby Night, one needs to be able to get the resolutions to the delegates in time. In Amsterdam we were able to finish resolution typing really quickly because we ended Committee Work early enough and it was only a preliminary typing. After all, we did not aim for final resolutions for GA I. At shorter sessions a possibility could be to end committee work a bit earlier and have a similar event before resolution typing with draft resolutions that were checked during the day by the Chair of the committee and a Board member. Besides, the event makes most sense when allowing for amendments during GA. At sessions with only one GA, it could be perfectly possible to have one amendment per debate and still have enough time for the regular debate. One could also consider organising a similar event without amendments just to allow delegates to familiarise themselves with the different resolutions in a more dynamic environment based on face-to-face discussions. The challenge then will be to incentivise delegates to be really active in seeking dialogue.

3. General Assembly I Overall, the concept and implementation of General Assembly I in Amsterdam can be considered a success. As a completely new programme element, as many others in this report, there is no standard to compare with to get an indication of level of achievement. With that said, rather than looking to alter or modify a concept which has only had one trial run, it may be more important for upcoming implementations to stabilise and ground the essentials, so to gain a better feel for the incremental changes possible, and even desired.

Whilst it should be heavily stressed that many of the flaws of General Assembly I are rooted in the Lobby Night, and as such, if improvements made to Lobby Night will directly improve General Assembly I, there are a few basic and foundational clarifications or alterations that could easily be made to improve the flow and understanding of the debate. These can be divided into purpose and logistical notes.

Amsterdam2015.eu36

a. PurposeThe 5 minutes allocated for Open Debate should be discussed for future uses of this concept. The feelings and feedbacks in Amsterdam varied somewhat on this point, some unhappy with its rapidity and others content with its conciseness. At the end of the day, the decision should be made in conjunction with what the purpose of the Open Debate should be: either an actual debate, with comments back and forth, in which case the time may want to be extended; or if this section is meant purely for input on other points to the home committee.

Additionally, a discussion needs to be had concerning the Introduction Speeches held at the start of each debate, which were mostly just like condensed Defence Speeches. From the evaluations of Amsterdam, it was highlighted that this element needs to be further clarified. Here the question of what Introduction Speeches are meant to pertain arises: should they be topic or resolution focused? It may be beneficial for delegates to get an overview of the topic rather than the resolution in GA I, as the resolution is subject to change. A suggestion was made to change the name from Introduction Speeches to Topic Presentations, which would alter the focus.

b. LogisticalAs the General Assembly procedure was dynamic and new to everyone in the room, the powerpoint presentation should be followed through especially well to give additional guidance to the delegates. A method for displaying points that had been made or pointing to the point the debate is currently at would serve well here.

c. Ideas for a short GA IImplementing a whole General Assembly at a shorter session will be difficult to manage. A solution could be to have simultaneous Mini-GAs within Focus Groups. This would require that delegates are not allocated to Focus Groups randomly, but that several topics are clustered together. Another idea would be to separate the discussion of amendments and the collection of additional ideas. For example, a quick debate and voting on amendments could be combined with Lobby Night, whereas input on ideas could be limited to more intense Focus Group meetings.

Amsterdam2015.eu 37

4. Revision Day and Interactive Module II

With the current structure of the IM the recommendations are that Chairs push for all GA I input implementations to be made prior to the start of IM II. It may also be more beneficial if two members of the home committee stay behind to give a more representative presentation to the Focus Group, and to cut out any possible repetition. This also means the rest of the home committee upon their return gets a fuller picture of the Focus Group contributions.

Overall from a lot of the comments there seems to be a consensus that the aims, timing and structure of IM II need to be re-evaluated. Some Chairs felt there was not much added value of IM II at all and that the discussion centred around delegates who were bitter their amendments had not passed in GA I. Others said the value of IM II was limited to polishing final aspects of the resolution and doing a Devil’s Advocate type exercise with the Focus Group. However many felt this was not necessarily worth the break in flow of the committee’s own process. In the future the focus of IM II should be more clearly communicated as either gathering extra input, in which case its timing may need to be adjusted, or as an exercise for the committee to ask some final questions on solutions or ideas they are unsure or undecided on from the Focus Group. For the latter it would perhaps be helpful to submit questions to the Focus Group somehow the night before so they can get together and work out a concrete proposal or think of answers to questions the home committee has so the time of the module itself can be used most effectively.

Another way to make sure the Focus Group could give more concrete input would perhaps be to offer the Focus Group delegates a chance to give suggestions at the end of the first day of Committee Work or at the end of GA I (maybe digitally.) This would allow IM II to start straight with discussion instead of spending time gathering ideas. However it is important to note that in this session format we also had the Lobby Night, the aim of which was to offer delegates a chance to give input that would be discussed in a structured way (GA I) and implemented (as the vote in GA I was binding). Therefore if you were to combine having a Lobby Night with allowing for more concrete input from the Focus Group in some structured manner you

Amsterdam2015.eu38

may again end up with an issue of repetition. The risk that delegates are too saturated with opportunities to give input exists, which in turn could lead to lower quality. Therefore the question remains open as to when IM II would be most useful and what purpose it should serve. I think in this format to be able to get the most out of the module, the Chair would need to pay very close attention to the debate on their resolution in GA I and based on this decide which structure for the IM made most sense.

When initially planning scenarios of the session with fewer days, one thought was to put General Assembly I and the revision phase into the same day. This would mean cutting the length of GA slightly, and then committees could still sit together afterwards to make last polishes. This would require relatively advanced resolution drafts for GA I.

“It felt so natural and fitting to the session, to the concept of EYP and to the idea of actually simulating the European Par-liament that I absolutely want to see it become a standard part of every International Forum and Session to come, just

like all the other improvements you made.” (Delegate)

Amsterdam2015.eu 39

METHOD COLLECTION

Method: What were they thinking?Used to achieve: Acceptance of input from IM I, GA I and IM IIChair: Beth ThayneInstructions: For 5 minutes, let your delegates talk about how stupid the suggestions and ideas of the Focus Groups were. Then split them into groups and give them each a few suggestions from the Focus Groups. They then have to argue just as passionately about why the suggestions they have are invaluable to their resolution. The structure you can give them for discussion in groups is: 1) What is this about? 2) Why did they say this? 3) What did we say about this? 4) Why is this a good suggestion? 5) How can we include this suggestion?Time: max. 1 hour after IM1. On revision day this idea basically structured the entire first part of the day and then after IM2.

Method: Visual knowledge sharingUsed to achieve: A quick overview of the topic for IM IChair: Dorothea WeberInstructions: I prepared 6 flipcharts (each one for a category) for my delegates, then had them rotate in groups of two while they were taking notes about the category on the flipchart. The last group to arrive at a flipchart had to combine the notes and visualise them on the flipchart. This served for knowledge sharing within my committee as well as for the Focus Groups.Time: about 1 hour (10 minutes per topic)Comments: I had the feeling that because of the visual representation in the end a lot of detailed information got lost. This is something I would try to avoid in the future.

Amsterdam2015.eu40

Method: Categorise your topicUsed to achieve: 1) give a structure (of what the home committee will address) for the Focus Groups 2) set clear boundaries to your topicChair: Louis WoutersInstructions: After the explanation of the topic, I split the delegates in two groups and gave each group a flipchart to make a tag cloud. I told them they needed to come up with all the questions we need to address so that at the end, after discussing all these questions, we will have discussed all aspects of our topic. After a while, I let them categorise their questions and let them come up with overarching questions (such as: what are the tools; who will be in charge, how,..). Afterwards, I let them present their questions to each other and decide upon a fixed amount of questions. I got 6 questions and presented them on separate flipcharts. During CW, we discussed flipchart by flipchart and in this way, the overarching questions became the red wire, the common thread through my CW. Time: 40 min.Comments: In my opinion useful for very broad topics.

Method: Rephrasing of question and phrasing of goalUsed to achieve: communication of direction to the Focus GroupsChair: Rebecca SmithInstructions: I asked the delegates to rephrase the topic in their own words, in the form of a problem that they want to solve. To do that, I asked them all to write their problem on a piece of paper, put it on the floor in the middle of the circle, then read other people’s problems, and underline the parts they agreed with. From these papers, and those with the most text underlined, they came up with their phrasing of the problem. One of the delegates volunteered to write it on the board so they were quite autonomous in this process.After that, I asked them to phrase a general aim, what is it they want to achieve with their resolution. These two (the problem and the aim) were very useful for the IM I, where I asked the Focus Group what they thought of the problem (is it clear? does it cover everything?) and the solution, to see if they agreed with the general direction of the committee.Time: about 30-45 min. (before IM I)Comments:

Amsterdam2015.eu 41

Method: Categories and presentationsUsed to achieve: Knowledge sharingChair: Isabel CantalapiedraInstructions: As part of our pre-session preparation, I divided the delegates into groups of 2-3 and gave them a topic (e.g.: energy efficiency, energy security), which I thought were quite independent from each other and could be the sub-topics they would have to tackle. I asked them to do more research on that topic and prepare a presentation to deliver during the session. This helped a lot later on to structure their brainstorming and their CW overall, as they agreed that dividing the topic in these categories would be the most efficient structure.Time: I told them to prepare a presentation for 5 minutes, and had 6 presentations. They took extra time to ask questions, and some of them got carried away so one presentation lasted almost 15 minutes. Comments: - A problem with the time is that some delegates want to show off with their research and so prepare a presentation well over the time limit, or start talking about useless information that just confuses the rest. It is best to be strict about this from the beginning. - As always, some delegates start introducing discussions here already, so it’s important to stress that this is only knowledge sharing, so only facts. - I gave them flipcharts to visualise their presentations towards the IM I, but it ended up being super schematic and not detailed enough for the Focus Group to understand. Also, since their methods of presenting their topic differed (some just did a lecture-like presentation, others used PowerPoint and others even accessed internet to show some figures), we couldn’t merge them all together. - I think it is a good idea to start structuring the discussion of the topic from before the session, especially when the topic is broad, strategic and has very clear sub-topics.

Amsterdam2015.eu42

Method: ProjectionUsed to achieve: Vision of the committee, overall perspectiveChair: Isabel CantalapiedraInstructions: I realised we had short-term solutions that contributed to the long-term goals, and that these were not clear enough in the resolution due to the phrasing. For revision day, I prepared one post-it per solution in the resolution, and a big flipchart with an arrow that represented the time. Then delegates went on to read the solutions and position the post-it inside the arrow, which gave the whole committee a very clear picture of how everything added up in the end. After this, they filled in the “gaps”.Time: 30 minutes

Method: Issue treeUsed to achieve: Being able to structure all the input in an organised way and visual wayChair: Juan Estheiman AmayaInstructions: For the pre-session preparation I had asked delegates to create an issue tree for the topic, so that they would begin to be acquainted with the concept. In Committee Work I created two big categories for the issues that we had to balance out (human rights protection on one side and meeting the EU’s interests through trade relations on the other). They then did an extensive brainstorming on what the problems were and came up with main sections within the two main categories. By the time the Focus Group came in, they were able to see first hand what the committee had identified as key problems.Time: 2 hoursComments: While it is a process for delegates to carry out by themselves, the chairperson should pay close attention to how they structure their ideas in the issue tree. In my case they got “lost” within their structure twice, and it was necessary to re-build the issue tree.

Amsterdam2015.eu 43