@ BMK / Karo Pernegger (The Austrian Citizens’ Climate Assembly)
Organisers of climate assemblies face the challenge of balancing the different agendas within society so that the process is seen as legitimate. This means arranging the governance of the assembly in ways that ensure that different interests recognise the integrity of the process.
Listen to this article
Why is this an issue?
Commissioners and organisers of climate assemblies face the challenge of balancing the different agendas within society so that the process is seen as legitimate. This means arranging the governance of the assembly in ways that ensure that different interests recognise the integrity of the process. How to build transparent governance arrangements that viewed as legitimate by different social interests? How to ensure that the assembly receives a diversity of evidence that captures the range of possible approaches? How to ensure a smooth process? Involving key stakeholders and technical and process experts in the governance bodies of an assembly can generate support for the process (or at least reduce scepticism and hostility), ensure relevant evidence is presented to the assembly and help facilitate the adoption of recommendations.
What have we learned from previous assemblies?
The OECD advises that to ensure integrity, the process should be run by an arm’s length co-ordinating team different from the commissioning public authority. The final call regarding process decisions should be with the arm’s length co-ordinators rather than the commissioning authorities. Depending on the context, there should be oversight by an advisory or monitoring board with representatives of different viewpoints.
While the OECD’s recommendation seems simple, in practice the governance of assemblies has been organised in different ways. Typically, it has involved some combination of the following:
An independent delivery organisation with expertise in deliberative processes
Civil servants from the commissioning authority (or where a non-governmental organiser, employees from that organisation)
Representatives of different social interests with a stake in the issue
Technical experts in climate science and policy
Experts in deliberative processes
Assembly members
Two bodies are usually created:
Stakeholder advisory group made up of representatives of different social interests and advocates (e.g., political parties, major economic and environmental organisations), experts in deliberative processes and often selected assembly members. It provides input on the overall design of the assembly and its impact.
Knowledge committee made up of technical experts from universities and (sometimes) civil society organisations. It provides advice on the curation of knowledge in the assembly: on the selection of evidence and presenters.
How these different actors and bodies are combined within the governance arrangements differs and may be adapted due to circumstances. KNOCA has identified three broad approaches to governance. One where the independent delivery organisation takes the lead. One where seconded civil servants take the lead. And one where a multi-stakeholder governance committee takes the lead.
Governance led by independent delivery organisation. The independent delivery organisation is given responsibility to
design and implement the assembly, often working closely with representatives from the commissioning authority. The
delivery organisation is supported by a stakeholder advisory body and a knowledge committee.
This is the most common approach and reflects the OECD’s guidance. Examples include the national assemblies in the UK
and Austria. At the local level, often only one advisory body is created that mixes both stakeholders and technical experts.
Governance led by seconded civil servants. A secretariat of seconded public officials coordinates the work of the
delivery organisation, stakeholder body and knowledge committee.
This is the approach taken at the national level in Ireland and Scotland where they also involve a public figure to act
as the chair of the assembly.
The central role of public officials can lead to questions about the integrity of the process. But this close involvement of public officials in the organisation of the process can be extremely helpful in translating the recommendations in the follow-up process to the assembly. They know how the public authority works and who to contact.
Governance committee. A single governance committee is created to design and deliver the assembly made up of
representatives of social and political interests, technical experts and selected assembly members. The governance
committee directs the work of the delivery organisation. It is less common than the other two approaches.
This is the structure adopted for the French Citizens’ Convention for the Climate where the Governance Committee had 17
appointments plus 2 assembly members. At times it was difficult to achieve agreement because of differences in opinion
within the committee – many lacked experience and knowledge of deliberative processes and were unsure what citizens
could be asked to do.
Innovations in the governance of climate assemblies
Involving assembly members. Many advisory bodies now include a small number of assembly members once the assembly has started its work. These members are either selected randomly or elected and sometimes are rotated. Assemblies that include members with their governance find that it helps in designing a process that is more responsive to their needs and interests. On a number of occasions, citizens can also break deadlocks between other members of the advisory body, particularly when they disagree about what citizens are capable of doing!
Chair. At national level in both Ireland and Scotland, an independent chair of the assembly has been appointed. This is usually a distinguished individual with a high profile. They are involved in the design and delivery of the assembly (in Ireland they lead the assembly sessions) and act as a public face for the assembly. The roles and responsibilities of the chair and delivery body need to be clearly demarcated.
Guarantors. In France, independent individuals are appointed who provide oversight to guarantee the integrity of the process. Like chairs, they can raise the profile of the assembly, but are not directly involved in design and delivery decisions.
Codifying powers and responsibilities. Most assemblies rely on goodwill to overcome differences of opinion within or between the different governance bodies and actors. The German Citizens’ Assembly on Climate was one of the first to provide clear written guidance to participants in the different governance bodies.
Arbitration. A number of assemblies in Poland have appointed arbitrators (usually academics) arbitrators (often academics) to adjudicate when insurmountable differences appear within and between governance bodies and/or with organisers. Such arbitration has not been used to date, but it is a way of managing the risk of conflict that might otherwise undermine an assembly process.
Recommendations
Map the stakeholders who may be affected by the recommendations from the assembly. Consider which are valuable to bring into the governance bodies because they will increase the legitimacy of the process, bring in valuable knowledge and/or support the delivery of recommendations.
Consider governance arrangements carefully. While most assemblies choose to appoint an independent design and delivery organisation to lead the process, involving civil servants can help bring in intelligence about how to influence the commission authority. A secretariat of seconded public officials that has final decision-making power in design and implementation questions can lead to questions about the integrity of the process. But this close involvement of public officials in the organisation of the process can be extremely helpful in translating the recommendations in the follow-up process to the assembly (see our guidance on follow-up here).
Establish governance bodies early so that they can provide advice on early design decisions and consider keeping them in place after the assembly has finished its work to help promote the recommendations and monitor the response of the commission authority and other stakeholders (see our guidance on follow-up here).
Establish clear terms of reference for governance bodies. Typically, the stakeholder and knowledge committees are advisory, with decision making power resting with the delivery organisation or a core management group that involves the delivery organisation and representatives from the commissioning authority.
Do not pack the governance bodies with friends of the commissioning authority. This will be seen as biasing the assembly from the start. Work hard to include stakeholders and experts with different positions and worldviews (see our briefing on knowledge curation here). This may include stakeholders who are sceptical about action on climate (although there are good reasons to not include those who believe climate change is not happening).
Consider employing arbitrators (often academics) to adjudicate when insurmountable differences appear within and between governance bodies and/or with organisers. It is unlikely this will be necessary, but best to be prepared.
Involve a selected group (either randomly selected or elected) of assembly members in the advisory committee. They can communicate ideas and concerns from the assembly and also break deadlocks between members of the governance bodies.
