The participants: distribution

The diversity of the participants' geographic origins, socio-professional backgrounds, age and sex played a key role in the thinking behind this meeting, and to a great extent guaranteed its credibility.

The objective set
The aim was to gather citizens from the European continent, the Maghreb region of North Africa, and the Middle East, who had been identified by the coordinators. The latter each worked in their own countries and made their choices according to diversity of age, sex and socio-professional background. The meeting was not intended to be an internal Alliance meeting. 

What was achieved
•	Number of participants 

Participants (including 13 from the Maghreb and the Middle East)	105	
Journalist (from the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto)	1	
Continental messengers (Quebec for the Americas and Burundi for Africa) also participated in all the works of the topic chosen by them.	2	
Subtotal	108	
Topical coordinators	8	
Communication team	2	
Organisation team (Franco-Romanian)	12	
TOTAL	130	

The aim of gathering 200 people from all over Europe and the Mediterranean basin was ambitious and we were aware of this from the beginning of the project. We fell rather short of the 200 people planned for initially. This number was the optimum insofar as it corresponded to the calculation of 4 participants from 50 countries (one person per topic debated, i.e. 4 per country), without counting the organisation teams in the wide meaning of the term. 
Quite quickly, we estimated that 39 countries would at least be represented, i.e. the fifty original countries less Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldavia, Slovakia, and Slovenia; given their size or the fact that they belong to a sub-region already represented. 

The participants at Peles came from 40 countries, though not every country was represented by four of its nationals. 
Although we were unable to get one person to participate per topic and by country (though this was not the aim for the countries of the Mediterranean basin, due to the pertinence of the topics according to interest) the result was relatively satisfactory given that there were 108 participants from so many countries.

•	Diversity according to age
Distribution by absolute value of the participants as a function of gender and age

	18-35 years	35-50 years	50 years +	Total	
Men	22	25	15	62	
Women	22	15	9	46	
Total	44	40	24	108	

Distribution by percentage of participants as a function of gender and age 

	18-35 years	35-50 years	50 years+	Total	
Men	35	40	24	100	
Women	48	33	20	100	
Total	41	37	22	100	
The share of "young" people is predominant (we often tried to privilege this group when given the choice) though it is very close to the "average" age group. The 50+ age group is less well represented, though far from absent.
Thus, overall, diversity regarding age was good. 

•	The balance between men/women.

	In absolute value	In percentage	
Men	62	57	
Women	46	43	
Total	108	100	

Perfect parity was not achieved but the balance was satisfactory.

•	Geocultural diversity

Distribution by absolute value of the participants by sub-region as a function of gender.		

	Men	Women	Total	
Southern Europe	10	8	18	
Northern Europe	15	6	21	
Central and Eastern Europe	14	16	30	
Newly Independent States	13	11	24	
Sub-total	52	41	93	
Maghreb region	5	1	6	
Middle East	3	4	7	
Africa	1		1	
The Americas	1		1	
Total	62	46	108	

Distribution in percentage of participants by sub-region (of the total number of participants)

	Men	Women	Total	
Southern Europe	11	9	19	
Northern Europe	16	6	23	
Central and Eastern Europe	15	17	32	
Newly Independent States	14	12	26	
Total	56	44	100	

Excluding the Central and Eastern European Countries, which contributed the largest share of participants, the share of the four sub-regions was quite well-balanced.
The number of countries grouped in these sub-regions varies, which explains why the Central and Eastern Europe group was proportionally larger, since it groups the most countries. 
It should be recalled that the participants came from 40 countries. However, among the countries we dearly wanted to see represented, Finland and Sweden were missing, while only one person from the United Kingdom participated (the co-ordinator of the Rural World work group, two others having cancelled a few days before the assembly) and Russia (only one participant, two others having cancelled very late).
Thus the objective of geocultural diversity was achieved.

Distribution in absolute value of participants by geocultural entity as a function of gender.

	Men	Women	Total	
European Union (EU)	22	14	36	
Candidate countries for accession to the EU	14	13	27	
Non-EU candidate countries 	16	14	30	
Total	52	41	93	

Distribution in percentage of participants by geopolitical entity (out of the total number of participants)

	Men	Women	Total		
European Union (EU)	42%	34%	39%		
Candidate countries for accession to the EU	27%	32%	29%		
Non-EU candidate countries 	31%	34%	32%		
Total	100%	100%	100%		

Even though the criterion of belonging to one of these geopolitical sub-groups was not decisive for identifying the participants, it was interesting to analyse this distribution in the light of the Assembly's medium and long term objectives (the "What Europe do we want" campaign carried out with the European parliamentary elections of 2004 in mind).
This distribution was also important for choosing a working methodology and preparing the material for discussion.

•	Socio-professional diversity

	In absolute value	By percentage	
Students	10	9	
Academics / teachers / researchers	32	30	
Journalists	3	3	
Associations/NGOs	40	37	
Social workers	6	6	
Farmers	4	4	
Others (including 1 company boss and 1 artist)	13	12	
TOTAL	108	100	

This distribution into different socio-professional categories was difficult since, understandably, the participants had several professional profiles.
The largest share (67%) was made up of academics and representatives of associations.
Thus the aim for socio-professional mix was not achieved.

•	Diversity between "allies/non-allies".

Out of 108 participants, 22 more or less knew the Alliance and/or the FPH, i.e. 20%.
Thus the aim of an assembly open to non-allies was fully attained.