Open Government for the Green Transition

4. Participation beyond consultation can ensure active citizen engagement in the green agenda

Abstract

This chapter explores innovative mechanisms of citizen participation that governments are gradually adopting and implementing to strengthen citizen engagement in the design and implementation of climate and environmental public policies – moving towards co-creation of the green agenda. It focuses in particular on green participatory budgeting and deliberative processes that have emerged around climate and environmental issues, offering new opportunities for public ownership and engagement. Finally, it opens the discussion on the new frontiers of citizen participation through international pilot initiatives and the mobilisation of the concept of "commons" for co-management at the micro-local level.

Beyond consultation processes, public authorities are increasingly going further by expanding and improving opportunities for citizens to participate in public decision-making between elections (OECD, 2022[1]). A range of innovative and diverse formats are emerging, encouraging co-creation of public policies and services and fostering active citizen participation in shaping and implementing the green agenda throughout the policy cycle.

Various types of democratic innovations enable citizens to become active agents in the green transition, for example through co-decision mechanisms (such as determining how resources are allocated via green participatory budgeting) or even through co-management of spaces or resources. These approaches also allow citizens to build their knowledge on climate issues – whether through theoretical engagement in deliberative assemblies or through practical experience managing a common good – thus reinforcing their sense of legitimacy to contribute to policy development, assess government action, and demand accountability. They form a third pillar of climate governance, going beyond mere information provision or consultation. However, the development and testing of these more engaging mechanisms should not come at the expense of other forms of participation. On the contrary, it is through a holistic and integrated approach that robust climate governance can be reimagined – one that is grounded in a strengthened and trust-based dialogue between citizens and governments.

4.1. Green participatory budgeting: A bridge between participation and climate action

Among the mechanisms that go beyond simple consultation of citizens and stakeholders, participatory budgeting – first introduced in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1989 – has gradually spread across the globe (CitizenLab, 2020[2]; OECD, 2022[3]). This process enables citizens to directly participate in decisions on the allocation of part of their local government's budget. They can prioritise certain projects or public policies, exercise partial control over public spending, and in some cases even propose concrete initiatives (such as the development of green spaces or waste-sorting awareness campaigns). While participatory budgeting is most commonly implemented at the local level, it is also found at regional and even national scales (OECD, 2022[3]). Now considered a mainstream tool, participatory budgets offer an effective bridge between citizen participation and climate action, raising awareness of environmental issues, promoting local initiatives, and fostering public ownership of climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

This section focuses on decisive participatory budgets (rather than consultative ones), meaning those in which governments commit to implementing the outcomes of citizen votes.

4.1.1. The development of green participatory budgets

In recent years, an increasing number of governments have introduced green participatory budgets, which focus on projects aimed at combating climate change and/or adapting territories to its effects. One such example is the first district of Yaoundé, Cameroon, which implemented a climate-focused participatory budget. This led to the allocation of funds for adaptation and mitigation projects, the creation of green urban corridors and community gardens, composting facilities near community gardens, the greening of urban areas, and increased environmental awareness campaigns – particularly targeting young people (OIDP, 2021[4]; Cabannes, 2021[5]). These green participatory budgets are implemented at various scales. While the municipal level remains the most common, regional examples also exist – such as the Ecological and Solidarity Participatory Budget of the Île-de-France region (France). This regional approach allows for the green transition to be considered at a broader scale than the municipality and fosters synergies among local stakeholders (see Box ‎4.1).

Box ‎4.1. At the regional level: The ecological and solidarity-based participatory budget of the Île-de-France region (France)

In 2020, the Île-de-France region launched its first ecological participatory budget. All legal entities in the region (associations, local authorities, housing co-operatives, citizens, etc.) – excluding businesses – are eligible to submit a project under one of the following themes:

• Green spaces and biodiversity;

• Cycling and clean everyday mobility;

• Food;

• Cleanliness, waste prevention and management, and the circular economy;

• Renewable energy and energy efficiency;

• Environmental health.

Project submissions are made via a digital platform, and voting – open to all residents of Île-de-France – takes place online or by SMS.

Projects receiving the highest number of votes are submitted to the Regional Council for funding, ranging from €1,000 to €10,000. Projects that target municipalities with fewer than 500 inhabitants are also eligible for funding once they reach a threshold of 50 votes. Winning projects must begin implementation within one year.

With a total budget of €500 million over five years, this initiative has led to nearly 4,000 projects being submitted for public vote. The 2023–2024 edition recorded over 120,000 votes from 55,258 participants – representing a nearly 40% increase in votes and a doubling of the number of voters compared to the previous year.

Source: (Île-de-France Region, 2024[6]).

Some participatory budgets have also become green as a result of citizen initiatives – for example, in Metz (France), where in 2019 the participatory budget was redirected, at the request of residents, to focus exclusively on environmental and climate-related projects (OIDP, 2019[7]).

Beyond identifying priority areas for mitigation and adaptation, these participatory budgets help foster dialogue between citizens, local elected officials, and the administration around green policies. They also provide insights into public needs and enable the implementation and valorisation of citizen-led ideas for combating climate change (CitizenLab, 2020[2]). They enhance public understanding and awareness of the green transition and encourage local initiatives to scale up climate action (Participatory Budgeting Scotland, 2022[8]). In addition, these budgets can reduce the vulnerability of certain territories and populations, helping them become better prepared for the impacts of climate change (e.g. floods, heatwaves) (Cabannes, 2021[5]). In Yaoundé, Cameroon, for example, selected projects focused on water access in a region affected by severe droughts – such as public drinking water fountains and measures to ration water and avoid waste.

4.1.2. From participation to action: Citizen involvement in green participatory budgeting

Citizen involvement in green participatory budgets varies according to a range of factors. The more they are engaged in the different stages, the more likely they are to take ownership of climate issues and green policies, and to become active participants in the green transition. When citizens feel involved in shaping the green agenda, they are often more committed to ensuring its successful implementation (Participatory Budgeting Scotland, 2022[8]).

In the municipal examples discussed here, it is the citizens – either individually or collectively through associations – who initiate the projects put to the vote, rather than the organising authority. Governments thus place trust in residents' experience and collaboration to propose local initiatives aimed at mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. As a result, projects selected and implemented through citizen votes are likely to enjoy greater public acceptance.

Citizen and civil society involvement can go even further when governments are not the lead implementers of the selected projects. Instead, it is the project initiators themselves who are responsible for carrying out the proposed actions (e.g. creating a community garden or launching a waste-sorting awareness campaign), with the support of the public authority (in the form of grants, technical assistance, etc.). Citizens are thus involved at every stage of the policy cycle: they propose ideas, vote on priorities, and then implement them.

In some cases, governments have even entrusted citizens with defining the governance rules and procedures for green participatory budgets, without elected officials intervening. This was the case in Metz (France) with its “eco-citizen” budget. In Molina de Segura (Spain), the local federation of associations defined the rules for the “youth climate budget,” incorporating feedback from the wider population through a consultation process (see Box ‎4.4).

4.1.3. Making green participatory budgets more inclusive

Green participatory budgets can be powerful tools for supporting a "just" ecological transition by transferring some decision-making power and resources to civil society and citizens (People Powered, n.d.[9]). However, ensuring the participation of all groups – including marginalised or vulnerable communities – requires additional efforts.

Beyond setting up transparent, clear, and inclusive communication campaigns – ideally both digital and on-the-ground – to publicise the initiative and encourage project submissions and voting, collaboration with intermediary bodies is crucial to reaching groups typically excluded from political decision-making. Other measures can also enhance the inclusiveness of green participatory budgets (CitizenLab, 2020[2]).

Organisers can, for instance, build partnerships with community leaders and organisations to engage with hard-to-reach groups; train facilitators to recognise and address power imbalances and biases in discussions; use simple, jargon-free language to explain the process; and provide background information so that all participants feel informed and prepared.

To improve understanding of the submitted projects and foster dialogue among residents, some local authorities organise both online and in-person exchanges with project initiators or among citizens, allowing for discussion and comparison of proposals and viewpoints. This is the case, for example, with Lisbon’s green participatory budget (Portugal) (see Box ‎4.2).

Box ‎4.2. Libson’s Green participatory budget

In 2020, the city of Lisbon restructured its participatory budget to focus exclusively on proposals aimed at creating a more sustainable, resilient, and environmentally friendly city.

A hybrid model was introduced, combining in-person participation during the discussion and debate phase with digital platforms for project submission and voting.

In-person meetings for citizens (such as workshops and participatory assemblies) were organised to make the process more inclusive, with a particular focus on engaging young people, older adults, and migrants. The participatory assemblies were specifically designed to allow for the discussion of proposals and a preliminary vote on eligible projects, prior to their technical assessment by municipal services.

To ensure inclusion of those without internet access, physical voting stations were set up alongside an awareness campaign and SMS voting system.

This green participatory budget followed a pilot project launched in 2018 – the Green Participatory Budget for Schools – which included the following phases:

• A school-based awareness campaign on climate and environmental issues was conducted by teachers, with an emphasis on the intergenerational nature of the challenge;

• Pupils were then invited to vote on 12 pre-selected eligible projects.

Source: (Centre for Public Impact, 2021[10])

Moreover, participation in a participatory budget provides a learning opportunity for citizens, as it puts them in direct contact with budgetary constraints and the realities of how public administrations function. To fully harness this opportunity for civic learning and engagement, several initiatives have been launched to train and raise awareness among citizens in advance regarding public finance management. This was the case, for example, in the city of Osasco, Brazil, where workshops were organised bringing together civil servants and citizens. Participants received an introduction to the legal and regulatory frameworks governing budget processes and then took part in a simulated budget prioritisation exercise (Tannus, 2023[11]).

Support from public authorities for project initiators is also essential to ensure that those with fewer resources can develop strong proposals and promote them effectively. Poorer communities are often excluded from the proposal phase due to the high costs – in terms of time and resources – associated with participation at this stage (Grillos, 2017[12]). Proactive outreach is therefore necessary to encourage their involvement, along with the provision of resources and tailored support. In Bordeaux (France), for example, the city established drop-in sessions to support those submitting projects for the participatory budget focused on climate challenges (see Box ‎4.3).

Box ‎4.3. Support sessions for project initiators in Bordeaux’s participatory budget on climate challenges (2024)

Any group of individuals or community actors involved in Bordeaux’s civic life (working, living, or studying in the city) can submit a project. Throughout the process, project initiators are encouraged to meet and explore the possibility of merging identical or location-specific proposals.

Project initiators receive support from city services to help structure and submit their proposals, as well as to promote them during the voting phase. Support sessions are held both online and in person in neighbourhoods across the city.

While project initiators cannot be the main contractors responsible for implementation, they may be involved in selecting the service providers and, if they wish, in the delivery of the project. Voting can take place either electronically or by paper ballot. The winning projects will be those that receive the most votes, within the limit of the €2 million funding envelope.

Source: (City of Bordeaux, 2024[13]).

These examples highlight that the success of a participatory budget largely depends on the internal mobilisation of sufficient human resources at every stage – this includes supporting project initiators, assessing the feasibility of submissions, organising in-person events, and maintaining an active presence on the ground to promote the initiative.

Some local authorities, such as Molina de Segura (Spain), have chosen to create participatory budgets specifically for young people, with the aim of raising awareness about climate issues and involving a group typically underrepresented in decision-making spaces (see Box ‎4.4). This type of initiative could be replicated with other marginalised or vulnerable groups to prioritise their proposals.

Box ‎4.4. The Youth Climate Participatory Budget in Molina de Segura, Spain (2020)

The aim of this initiative is to raise awareness among students about the fight against climate change and to involve them in shaping proposals and implementing environmental projects. The rules and structure of the process were defined by the local federation of associations, which also leads the initiative, although its technical implementation is carried out by municipal staff. Citizens are also consulted to ensure the process aligns with their expectations and to facilitate their engagement.

The first phase of the process involved holding information sessions in schools to educate students about the local and global impacts of climate change, followed by support for young people in developing their project proposals.

Source: (UCLG, 2022[14]).

4.2. Deliberative processes to help governments respond to climate challenges in a sustainable and collective manner

Representative deliberative processes (assemblies, conventions, juries, or panels) allow for even greater inclusion of citizens in climate-related decision-making. The OECD defines them as processes in which a broadly representative group of people from a given population (city, region, or country) reviews evidence, deliberates to find common ground, and develops collective, well-informed recommendations on public policy issues for decision-makers (OECD, 2020[15]). Deliberative processes are particularly well suited to addressing generational issues that cannot be resolved solely within the timeframe of traditional legislative cycles – such as climate and environmental challenges (OECD, 2022[1]).

According to the OECD database on deliberative processes, of the 733 such processes organised worldwide between 1980 and 2023, 125 focused on environmental issues – accounting for 17% (OECD, n.d.[16]). By comparison, only 2.4% addressed technology-related issues, and 8% focused on health. The first environmental deliberative process took place in 1996 in Denmark and focused on the future of the fishing industry. In recent years, there has been a marked increase: 86.4% of environmental deliberative processes (108 in total) took place after 2010, and 59.2% after 2020. Participants also appear more enthusiastic about this topic than others: the average positive response rate to invitations to join deliberative processes stands at 7.8% across all subjects, but rises to 11.93% for environment-related initiatives (OECD, n.d.[16]).

Of these environmental deliberative processes, 56.8% were organised at the municipal level (e.g. the Climate Assembly of Salvador in Brazil), 20.8% at the national level (e.g. the Finnish Climate Assembly), and 4.8% at the transnational level (e.g. the European Citizens’ Panel on food waste). Geographically, the majority of these processes have taken place in EU countries (55.2%) and the United Kingdom (21.6%). While citizen assemblies often adopt a broad approach to climate, their work may be broken down into thematic groups – for instance, decarbonising transport or shaping energy policies (OECD, n.d.[16]).

Other processes, particularly at local or regional levels, have addressed more specific topics such as drinking water or waste management – for example, the 2022 citizens' assembly in Toritama (Brazil) focused on air pollution, and the 2024 assembly in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania) addressed sustainable mobility.

4.2.1. The benefits of civic lotteries and deliberation for addressing climate challenges

Deliberative assemblies are composed of randomly selected and demographically stratified citizens, creating a microcosm of society that is as representative as possible of the population it seeks to reflect (OECD, 2020[15]). Civic lotteries help address the problem of over-representation of certain groups who typically participate in traditional participatory processes. In citizens’ assemblies, participants are often compensated or supported financially, making participation more inclusive. Of the 125 environmental deliberative processes listed in the OECD database, 54.4% included financial support – either direct compensation, travel reimbursement, or onsite expenses (OECD, n.d.[16]). Remunerating citizens is therefore a key mechanism for enabling participation, particularly among those from marginalised groups or those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

When composing the panel, organisers may also choose to over-represent certain groups, such as migrants or Indigenous peoples, who tend to be disproportionately affected by climate disasters. The National Citizens’ Panel on Sustainable Consumption in Finland, for instance, deliberately over-represented people aged 18 to 24, considering that younger generations will live longer with the consequences of decisions on sustainable consumption (Bürgerrat, 2024[17]).

Deliberation aims to generate informed recommendations and decisions. The learning phase that precedes deliberation and decision-making encourages dialogue with experts and exposure to a wide range of perspectives. This cognitive diversity – bringing together a broad range of viewpoints – enables participants to move from opinion to informed judgement. In a context of widespread misinformation and climate scepticism, deliberative processes foster critical engagement with diverse sources of evidence and promote consensus on complex, technical issues.

Finally, deliberation seeks to overcome short-term thinking and promote decisions that consider the interests of future generations, ensuring better alignment between public policies and the scale of environmental challenges. Unlike political decisions often shaped by electoral cycles or short-term interests, deliberative formats allow time to weigh the long-term implications of decisions. This makes them particularly well-suited to climate issues, which inherently demand long-term vision and action.

4.2.2. Demonstrated effectiveness in building citizen capacity and engagement

One of the key benefits of climate-focused deliberation is the increase in participants’ knowledge and confidence, as shown in several follow-up studies of climate assemblies. In the UK Climate Assembly, for example, the proportion of participants reporting that they "knew a lot about climate change" rose from 6% at the start to 14% by the end. Meanwhile, those saying they knew "very little" fell from 48.4% to 12% (Elstub, Carrick and Allan, 2023[18]).

This development of expertise is made possible by access to reliable, diverse, and well-curated information, typically presented by researchers, public officials, and civil society organisations. They can provide scientific expertise (such as data on greenhouse gas impacts on ecosystems or reports and projections from the IPCC and other organisations), economic data (related to the costs of climate change such as crop losses, natural disasters), or policy briefings, including national or international climate strategies (see Box ‎4.5). Testimonies from people directly affected by climate impacts are also critical, as they help ground expert knowledge in lived experience and make the issues more tangible for participants.

Box ‎4.5. The learning phase: multiple formats to raise awareness of climate issues

Briefing documents and written reports

In the Citizens’ Assembly on Climate in Catalonia (Spain) (2024), participants received briefing documents at the start of the sessions. These materials provided accessible, evidence-based information on topics such as the regional energy transition, climate change, and the agri-food sector (Gencat, 2024[19]).

Expert conferences and roundtables

Expert presentations and roundtable discussions are typically organised during the learning phase of climate-focused citizens’ assemblies or juries. For example, the Citizens’ Assembly for a Green City in Tallinn, Estonia (2023), hosted a full day of expert presentations covering topics such as the need for climate adaptation, the role of nature in urban spaces, and the impacts of climate change on health and wellbeing. A separate day was dedicated to stakeholder groups, such as architects and neighbourhood associations. Each presentation was followed by a Q&A session with members of the assembly.

Community testimonies

During Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change (2017), testimonies were heard from farmers, coastal communities, and individuals affected by climate-related disasters. These testimonies highlighted the heightened vulnerability of certain geographic areas to climate change and extreme weather events.

Information portal

The Citizens’ Assembly on Climate in Bologna (Italy) established an online information portal outlining each of the topics under discussion and centralising minutes from coordination committee meetings held before, during, and after the assembly.

Source: (Gencat, 2024[19]); https://onlineexpo.com/en/rahvakogu/materials/; https://www.comune.bologna.it/partecipa/percorsi/assemblea-cittadina-per-il-clima?sect=documenti-utili-assemblea-per-il-clima.

Another notable effect concerns participants’ attitudes and lifestyles, which can be significantly and lastingly influenced by their involvement in a deliberative assembly (Smith, 2024[20]). Among respondents to a survey sent to members of the UK Climate Assembly (CAUK), between 78% and 89% reported that participating in the citizens' assembly had changed their views on climate issues – either slightly or substantially (Elstub, Carrick and Allan, 2023[18]). In total, 91% also reported one or more behavioural changes as a result of their participation.

Participation in deliberative processes can also foster a culture of direct action and sustained civic engagement well beyond the scope of the process itself. In France, for instance, participants in the Citizens’ Convention on Climate – who were selected by lot, as is standard in deliberative processes – chose to form an association, Les 150, to monitor the implementation of their recommendations and to continue sharing their proposals and experiences (Les 150, 2020[21]). Similarly, the first group of participants to complete their term in Milan’s Permanent Climate Assembly (Italy) decided to establish an association to follow up on the implementation of their proposals. Deliberation thus contributes to the emergence of so-called expert citizens – individuals who, through the learning phase and the rich exchanges within deliberative processes, develop both knowledge and long-term engagement on specific issues.

4.2.3. Key challenges call for improvements to strengthen the impact and relevance of deliberative processes

After several years of experimentation, a number of challenges specific to deliberative democracy have emerged. These include a lack of connection between deliberative processes and the wider public, high associated costs, and difficulties in measuring real impact due to limited integration into formal decision-making frameworks. Nevertheless, avenues for improvement do exist.

Mobilising public communication and digital tools to better connect deliberative processes with the wider public

While it has been observed that deliberative environments contribute significantly to increasing the knowledge and capacity of participant groups, experience shows that both participants and the outcomes of deliberation can sometimes remain disconnected from the broader public. Citizens’ assemblies may benefit from media coverage that spreads awareness and generates interest in climate issues beyond the usual circles. However, the default separation between the "mini-public" (a term often used to describe assembly participants) and the general public can reduce the overall impact of deliberation and may undermine the legitimacy of recommendations due to insufficient public support for their implementation. This is especially problematic considering that recommendations produced through green deliberative processes are often significantly more ambitious than existing policies (e.g. restricting air travel, banning advertising of high-carbon products, etc.) (Smith, 2024[20]). As a result, there can be a notable gap between the ambition of an informed mini-public on climate change and the broader, less-engaged public.

To bridge this gap, some organisers of deliberative processes have launched targeted public communication campaigns. Delibera Brasil, a founding member of the (Re)surgentes network, designed a communications strategy to ensure visibility and transparency around their assemblies. In Salvador and Toritama, for instance, short four-minute testimonial videos were shared on YouTube, featuring citizen participants speaking about their experience in the assemblies. The Climate Assembly of Los Lagos Region in Chile was recorded and edited into a 12-minute documentary also available on YouTube. In Poznań, Poland, organisers deliberately treated communication as a core component of the assembly process (Nowak, 2021[22]). The municipality created a dedicated space for the assembly on its official website, giving it institutional recognition and visibility early in the process – before invitations were even sent out. According to the organising team, this online presence contributed to achieving a national record in citizen assembly sign-ups. The campaign included various formats such as articles, educational animations, expert presentations, and short videos explaining the process – all shared via the assembly’s YouTube and Facebook pages to reach the widest possible audience.

New technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), can also enhance accessibility New digital tools, including AI, offer further opportunities to broaden access to citizen assemblies – by recording and summarising discussions, translating content into plain language, and, more recently, offering conversational AI tools. For example, in Austria, Polis – an opinion-mapping technology – was used during the National Citizens' Climate Convention (2022) to gather public feedback on early drafts of recommendations (see Box ‎4.6). In France, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) used PanoramicAI, a tool developed by civic tech firm Make.org, to make the entire content of the Citizens’ Convention on End-of-Life Issues accessible via a conversational interface. This tool answers in natural language and cites its sources (e.g. referencing a specific paragraph of the final report or the timestamp of an expert's video intervention) (CESE, 2024[23]).

Box ‎4.6. Using opinion mapping technology to connect Austria’s Citizens’ Climate Assembly with the wider public

During its fourth working session, Austria’s Citizens’ Climate Assembly (KLIMARAT) (2022) invited public contributions through an initiative titled “The Climate Council asks for your advice.” Citizens were encouraged to use the Pol.is platform to express their views on draft recommendations, either by voting on a curated set of proposals selected by assembly members or by submitting their own ideas.

The results of this input enabled the mapping of public opinion across five key thematic areas: energy; production and consumption; housing; mobility; and food and land use. On the topic of housing, for instance, among 1,504 respondents, two main opinion groups emerged. One group voted largely in favour (64%) of making it mandatory to replace old heating systems with renewable energy-based alternatives in homes and flats, while the other group opposed the idea (72%). Integrating these contributions into the assembly’s deliberations helped to broaden public ownership of the final outcomes, with an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 people taking part in the process.

Source: (Paice and Rausch, 2022[24]).

Beyond communication, expanded participation can also be designed to involve a wider range of citizens in the deliberative process. The OECD database on deliberative processes notes that in 55% of recorded cases, a digital tool was developed to broaden participation (OECD, n.d.[16]). One such example is the (Re)surgentes network, which created a digital space open to all contributors wishing to help shape an inter-municipal climate pact involving four Latin American cities. The final goal is to develop a united strategic vision to address climate change (see Box ‎4.7).

Box ‎4.7. El Pacto Inter-ciudad by (Re)surgentes: A pact between four Latin American cities to tackle climate change

The municipalities of Buenaventura (Colombia), Bujaru (Brazil), Mar del Plata (Argentina), and Monterrey (Mexico) have joined forces around an ambitious goal: to use deliberation and online participation to design a collective strategy to tackle climate change. This shared strategy, presented as an inter-city pact, aims to become a political advocacy tool for climate action targeted at governments, regulators, major corporations, and economically powerful countries.

Supported by the (Re)surgentes expert network, these four cities have each organised a Citizens’ Climate Assembly – in Brazil (April–May 2024), in Colombia and Argentina (August 2024), and in Mexico (September 2024). Each assembly is tasked with developing four guiding principles for the final Pact. A digital platform was also launched to collect three types of input from the general public:

• General comments on the Pact;

• More targeted feedback on each individual proposal;

• Responses to a questionnaire on the local impacts of climate change in each region.

Source: ((re)surgentes, n.d.[25]).

Promoting the adaptable and scalable nature of deliberation in response to climate challenges

Deliberative processes are sometimes perceived as standardised and costly models, often associated with high-profile national initiatives such as the Citizens’ Climate Conventions in the United Kingdom or France. This perception is partly due to expenses such as participant and expert remuneration, as well as logistical costs related to random selection (e.g. mailings, involvement of a bailiff, etc.). According to the OECD database on deliberative processes, the average budget for 26 environmental or climate-related deliberative processes with publicly available cost data is €61,345 for local processes, €132,767 for regional ones, and €1,545,063 for national-level processes (OECD, n.d.[16]). However, it is important to emphasise that deliberative processes can be tailored to available resources – not only financial, but also in terms of staff or facilitators. The size and scope of the subject matter can be adjusted to match capacity constraints.

Deliberation can take several forms, including citizens’ juries, citizens’ assemblies, deliberative polling, and planning cells (OECD, 2020[15]). Each format has its own characteristics and advantages, allowing climate issues to be addressed from various angles and in line with available resources. Citizens’ juries, for example, are often convened to address highly specific questions, such as the siting of renewable energy infrastructure in a particular region or water management in a specific municipality (e.g. the 2022 citizens’ council on waste management in Fortaleza, Brazil). This format enables a small group of citizens to explore a focused or technical issue in depth, combining expert input with local residents’ lived experience.

By contrast, citizens’ assemblies tend to adopt a more holistic approach, tackling systemic challenges. These assemblies are well-suited to producing recommendations that span multiple sectors – such as food, transport, and energy – providing comprehensive responses to climate challenges and aligning with the environmental dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals (see Table ‎4.1). In theory, there are as many variations as there are methods for tailoring deliberation to the specific needs of different territories, communities, and climate challenges.

Table ‎4.1. Examples of deliberative processes on specific sustainable development goals related to the environment

Sustainable development goal	Examples
#6: Clean Water and Sanitation	Public debate on drinking water in Île-de-France (2023, France) Rethinking citizens’ juries for water (2021–2025, United Kingdom)
#7: Affordable and Clean Energy	European Citizens’ Panel on Energy Efficiency (2024) itizens’ deliberation meeting on energy saving in Utsunomiya (2012, Japan) Citizens’ jury on nuclear power construction (2017, South Korea) Deliberative poll on energy and environmental policy options (2012, Japan) New South Wales Citizens’ Jury on energy production (2012, Australia)
#11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	Citizens’ jury on the SDGs and sustainable development in Rudersdal Municipality (2021, Denmark) Danish Citizens’ Assembly on Sustainable Consumption (2023) German Citizens’ Assembly on Sustainable Nutrition (2023)
#13: Climate Action	All examples available in the OECD deliberative processes database
#14: Life Below Water	Global Citizens’ Assembly on Marine Conservation (2024–2025) Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss (Ireland, 2022–2023)
#15: Life on Land	Citizens’ jury on land use planning and the natural environment (United Kingdom, 2019)

Source: OECD (n.d.[16]), OECD Deliberative Democracy Data Base.

Variants of deliberative processes also come with differing cost levels. Citizens’ juries, for instance, are generally less costly due to their shorter duration, smaller number of participants, and narrower scope (OECD, 2022[3]). Citizens’ assemblies, which are typically broader in scope and more expensive, should therefore be deployed and funded with a clear understanding of the conditions under which they are most effective.

Deliberation also offers the flexibility to address the varying timescales of climate issues – from medium- and long-term goals (such as 2050 targets) to shorter-term or more specific challenges, such as developing regional waste management plans. Given that the effects of climate change unfold over decades, addressing them requires durable, long-term strategies.

In addition, deliberative processes can be initiated by a variety of actors, not just governments. While they are most commonly organised by local or national authorities, a number of assemblies outside Europe have been initiated by civil society actors. For example, the Citizens’ Climate Assembly of Addu in the Maldives was launched in 2023 by the non-profit organisation EcoCare (EcoCare, 2023[26]). It focused primarily on environmental law, environmental protection, and climate change. Over three days, 37 citizens produced 53 recommendations. Another example is the Sapporo Citizens’ Assembly on Decarbonisation in Japan, organised by Hokkaido and Osaka Universities (citizensassembly.jp, 2020[27]). In India, the Auroville Citizens’ Assembly was convened by the Sri Aurobindo Society for Educational Research (Suryamayi et al., 2021[28]). The 41 participants deliberated on a shared vision for water management in Auroville and developed recommendations for its concrete implementation. These civil society-led initiatives demonstrate that deliberation can be a powerful tool to structure and amplify community voices. Outside formal state institutions, civil society organisations, associations, and grassroots movements can organise deliberative processes to mobilise communities and generate tangible proposals on matters of shared concern.

Better connecting deliberation to public decision-making

Another frequently observed challenge lies in the weak connection between deliberative processes and formal public decision-making. As a result, it is often difficult to assess the actual impact of deliberative processes and citizens’ recommendations on policy decisions. This is also due to the fact that outcomes may be influenced by various factors – such as budgetary priorities, political dynamics, and public expectations – making it difficult to establish a direct correlation between citizens’ recommendations and the concrete decisions that follow.

Integrating deliberation into public decision-making partly requires better linking deliberative processes with formal mechanisms of representation and other participatory methods. This approach aims to promote coherence across citizen engagement methods for climate action, and to foster a culture in which individuals' voices are actively considered throughout the decision-making process – ultimately contributing to more robust and sustainable solutions to the climate emergency. Several deliberative processes around the world have sought to establish continuity between representative, deliberative, and participatory democratic practices. In Ireland, for example, the recommendations from the Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change held between 2016 and 2018 were reviewed by an ad hoc joint parliamentary committee on climate action composed of members from both houses of Parliament. It was subsequently decided to make this committee permanent, thereby strengthening the legislature’s capacity to scrutinise climate policy (Curato, Smith and Willis, 2024[29]).

In some cases, integrating deliberative processes into public decision-making has also led to the creation of permanent climate governance bodies. This helps ensure their continuity beyond electoral cycles and expands opportunities for citizens to participate in such processes. Some countries are even considering establishing institutions dedicated to making decisions on behalf of future generations, particularly in relation to the green agenda (OECD, 2020[15]). Although such examples remain limited, certain cities – such as Milan (Italy) and Brussels (Belgium) – have already taken steps in this direction by establishing permanent citizens’ assemblies on climate. The itinerant citizens’ assembly of Bogotá, Colombia, is also closely linked to formal decision-making bodies (see Box ‎4.8).

Box ‎4.8. Bogotá’s itinerant citizens’ assembly (Colombia): A deliberative body closely connected to formal decision-making structures

Launched in 2020, Bogotá’s itinerant citizens’ assembly has since taken place across several neighbourhoods in the Colombian capital. The Bogotá City Council not only initiated the process but also remained actively involved throughout the deliberations. Key Council members, including the outgoing and incoming presidents, took part in the opening and closing sessions.

The itinerant structure of the assembly enables continuity in discussions, the establishment of permanent commissions, and the ongoing refinement of proposals. Each session builds on the outcomes of the previous ones, ensuring coherence in the decision-making process and enabling the gradual integration of citizen recommendations into formal urban governance and climate planning frameworks.

Source: (iDeemos, 2020[30]).

4.3. From the micro-local to global climate governance: exploring new frontiers of citizen engagement in the green transition

Climate change is a complex and urgent issue that requires responses across different levels and scales of government. Adaptation and resource management initiatives, for example, can benefit from a micro-local approach, as the impacts of climate change and the required adaptations are often highly localised. It is also at this level that citizens are best placed to understand their roles and the impact of their actions on their immediate environment, thereby becoming active, everyday contributors to the green transition. At the same time, the climate crisis is a global challenge that affects all populations – and those communities most severely impacted by its consequences are often not the ones whose lifestyles contribute most significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

Thus, beyond the many efforts to involve citizens at national and local levels – giving them a voice in the design, implementation, and monitoring of policies – both micro-local and international levels are especially relevant in climate governance. These two scales are increasingly recognised as key entry points for deepening citizen and stakeholder participation in the green transition as a whole.

4.3.1. Collaborative governance and commons-based practices as drivers of action at the micro-local level

As noted at the beginning of this section, citizen participation at the micro-local level is particularly relevant when addressing the climate and environmental emergency. In this regard, new frontiers of citizen engagement and active citizenship can be explored through the lens of the commons. The concept was defined by political scientist and economist Elinor Ostrom, who popularised it through her book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, as a sustainable and effective system of resource management based on self-governance, in which users themselves manage the resource (Ostrom, 1990[31]). Inspired by her work, collaborative governance practices have emerged, based on mature, trust-based collaboration between various actors (citizens, civil society, institutions, etc.). These go beyond co-creating green policies and instead promote long-term co-management tools.

According to author David Bollier, commons are shared resources that are co-managed by a user community, under rules and norms defined by that community. The commons are not the resource itself, nor the community alone, nor the management protocols, but the dynamic interaction between all these elements (P2P Foundation, 2017[32]; Bollier, 2014[33]). For example, the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon (United States) represents a commons: the resource (the forest), the community (loggers, scientists, rangers, etc.), and a set of rules enshrined in a charter for sustainable co-management. Elinor Ostrom demonstrated that communities can successfully manage resources sustainably and autonomously, without the need for state intervention or privatisation. The commons therefore represent an alternative model for organising our societies – one that transforms economic production and social governance towards more equitable and sustainable systems.

Some cities are increasingly adopting participatory, commons-oriented public policies with a strong focus on social and environmental sustainability. These approaches are grounded in the recognition that environmental problems disproportionately affect the poorest and that addressing them can create new economic and social opportunities (P2P Foundation, Bauwens and Niaros, 2018[34]).

Several local governments have supported this shift towards more collaborative governance, accepting the co-management of certain resources and infrastructure (P2P Foundation, Bauwens and Niaros, 2018[34]). The city of Bologna (Italy), for example, has introduced new institutional processes to establish public-commons partnerships for the co-management of urban spaces (public spaces, green areas, abandoned buildings, etc.) (see Box ‎4.9). Other cities – such as Ghent (Belgium), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Madrid (Spain), and Bristol (United Kingdom) – have created spaces that citizens can directly manage (La 27ème région, n.d.[35]).

Box ‎4.9. Urban commons in the city of Bologna (Italy)

Article 118, paragraph 4 of the Italian Constitution calls on the State, regions, metropolitan cities, provinces, and municipalities to support citizens’ autonomous initiatives aimed at pursuing activities of general interest, based on the principle of subsidiarity. Drawing on this constitutional provision, the city of Bologna introduced in 2014 a new regulatory framework – the Bologna Regulation on Civic Collaboration for the Urban Commons – allowing citizens to request joint “public–commons” management of certain spaces.

The central tool of this initiative is the collaboration pact, which enables the city to enter into agreements with residents and other stakeholders who take responsibility for the management and regeneration of public spaces, with technical and financial support from the municipality.

In Bologna, dozens of such projects have been carried out, and over 140 other Italian cities have followed suit. This regulation is considered radical in that it grants citizens the direct power to propose public policy and to transform the city and its infrastructure: citizens initiate and propose, while the city enables and supports.

Source: (P2P Foundation, 2017[32]); (Republic of Italy, 2023[36]) (City of Bologna, 2014[37]).

Beyond the co-management of places and spaces, some cities have drawn inspiration from the commons model to manage essential resources. In Naples (Italy), for instance, the city decided to remunicipalise water management, ensuring a high level of citizen participation through a mixed governance board and the establishment of a water parliament composed of user representatives, workers, and environmental activists (La 27ème région, 2019[38]). In Lille (France), the Assembly of the Commons aims to bring together and foster connections between the many commons-inspired initiatives emerging across the city. It also seeks to establish stronger ties with local government in order to explore potential avenues for collaboration (see Box ‎4.10).

Box ‎4.10. The Assembly of the Commons in Lille (France)

In 2013, Michel Bauwens proposed the creation of Assemblies of the Commons – local or affinity-based associations bringing together those who contribute to and preserve commons (Bauwens, 2013[39]). Since 2015, the city of Lille has been experimenting with this concept through its own Assembly of the Commons, which meets monthly. It gathers individuals involved in commons-oriented local initiatives who come together to share ideas and skills through self-managed workshops, and who have co-drafted their own Charter of Practices.

In short, the primary aim of the Lille Assembly is to build connections between local initiatives and promote a culture of the commons. Today, Lille is home to many commons-oriented projects, which the Assembly is working to map through an online platform. The Assembly also seeks to cultivate awareness of the commons – currently lacking in many projects, which tend to focus only on their individual missions. In addition, the Assembly is exploring ways to collaborate with local government.

Source: (City of Lille, n.d.[40]).

Commons-inspired initiatives are also developing in sub-Saharan African cities. These cities are undergoing rapid growth and urbanisation, often without the necessary infrastructure investment to keep pace – resulting in spatial, social, economic, and political fragmentation (Leyronas, Coriat and Nubukpo, 2023[41]). The rise of commons in these urban contexts reflects a desire to strengthen social ties, often materialising in urban spaces managed by diverse groups (locals, residents, users, professionals, etc.) with multiple functions: service-oriented activities such as food production in shared gardens, educational activities, or initiatives focused on sustainable cities and resilience (e.g. waste-to-energy, renewable energy projects). In Dakar (Senegal), for instance, the commons-based approach led to the transformation of a former public garden – turned illegal dump – into a community-managed space known as Villa Kër Thiossane. It now hosts a range of activities including workshops, public events, exhibitions, and permaculture training (Leyronas, Coriat and Nubukpo, 2023[41]).

Outside of urban areas, commons-based approaches can also be observed in the management of certain rural spaces and natural resources. In sub-Saharan Africa, some communities have adapted traditional collective management practices to modern conditions (Leyronas, Coriat and Nubukpo, 2023[41]). In these regions, communities have responded to the extreme variability in natural resource availability over time and space by developing local, adaptive rules to allow for rapid adjustment to changing circumstances. In the Sahel, for example, farming, pastoralism, and fishing practices are highly interconnected. In areas where agricultural use takes priority, pastoralism may still take place – provided that herders take the necessary steps to protect the primary users’ access to the resource (e.g. by limiting damage from livestock in cultivated areas), and vice versa (Leyronas, Coriat and Nubukpo, 2023[41]).

The commons approach to managing land and natural resources has enabled the emergence of local delegation and self-governance initiatives. This represents a new frontier in active citizen participation in environmental governance, positioning local communities as key actors in managing and preserving their immediate environment. One such example is a nationwide initiative in Nepal that began in 1993 and led to a doubling of the country’s forest cover (see Box ‎4.11).

Box ‎4.11. Community forest management to combat deforestation (Nepal)

Following severe deforestation in the 1970s and 1980s, Nepal adopted a Forest Act in 1993 (amended in 1999), which enabled the delegation of forest management to local communities through the creation of community forests.

Under this law, Nepal launched a programme that handed over management responsibilities to Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) at the village level. These groups are formally constituted and operate according to locally developed operational plans. They define rules for forest access and usage, manage surveillance, and plan both reforestation and harvesting activities. Rights to use and sell timber and other forest products generate revenues, which are either reinvested into forest management or allocated to community projects and public infrastructure at the village level (Libois et al., 2022[42]).

Today, nearly one-third of Nepal’s forest area is managed by 22,000 CFUGs (representing around 3 million households). The programme’s most notable achievement has been the doubling of Nepal’s forest cover since its launch in 1993. It has also prompted changes in behaviour and consumption practices at the household level, such as a reduction in firewood collection within forests and across participating communities. This successful initiative highlights the value of entrusting citizens with direct responsibility for managing land and natural resources as part of the green transition and broader environmental conservation efforts.

Source: (Libois et al., 2022[42]); (Bourboulon, 2024[43]).

4.3.2. Involving citizens in global climate governance

The participation of civil society organisations and citizens at the supranational level is attracting increasing interest from governments, while much of the academic literature to date has focused primarily on citizen engagement at the local and national levels.

In the face of global challenges such as the climate crisis – which can only be addressed through international cooperation – meaningful engagement of citizens and stakeholders at the international level can lead to more effective policy decisions, greater ownership of global decision-making processes, and ultimately, more legitimate outcomes (Bozzini and Pascual Dapena, 2025[44]). Participation at the supranational level can also help to build public trust and foster a sense of ownership over international processes among both citizens and civil society.

Climate action is a particularly relevant issue in this regard, due to its inherently global and complex nature, which affects all countries and populations. The concept of global climate governance was formally recognised in 1992 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), four years after the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and over a decade after the first scientific warnings about the human-induced impacts of global warming (IISD, 2020[45]). Today, global climate governance is embodied in the Conferences of the Parties (COPs), which have brought together all UNFCCC member states annually since 1995 to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and monitor the implementation of climate commitments.

Furthermore, as discussed earlier, international forums and treaties have played – and continue to play – a key role in guiding and shaping legal and policy frameworks for the green transition and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Aarhus Convention (1998), the Paris Agreement (2015), and the Escazú Regional Agreement (2018) are among the most prominent examples. These agreements emphasise the importance of access to information, public participation, and environmental justice in the fight against climate change.

Non-governmental organisations, especially civil society organisations, have long been involved in key moments of global climate governance, with varying degrees of impact (Global Focus, 2023[46]). While civil society can serve as an important channel for citizens on the international stage, there is growing attention to the need for more direct citizen involvement through various supranational mechanisms.

Citizen participation in global climate governance is crucial for several reasons, and offers multiple benefits:

• It enables citizens to better understand and take ownership of international negotiations, which may otherwise seem remote – even though they have a direct impact on people’s daily lives. Citizen engagement can also help to popularise and publicise these negotiations, narrowing the perceived or actual gap between global decision-making and ordinary people. This can improve public acceptance, support, and ownership of the decisions taken.

• Many international agreements contain ambitious provisions that can empower civil society and citizens to hold their governments accountable for implementing the climate commitments made. These instruments serve as additional levers of public accountability, making citizen involvement both relevant and necessary.

• Citizen participation at the international level can help address the legitimacy deficit often associated with global governance frameworks in the eyes of the public.

As at national and local levels, citizen participation at the supranational level can take many forms – from information-sharing and consultation to more active forms of engagement.

Access to information is the first step in keeping citizens informed about developments and ongoing processes at the international level, and in enabling them to identify opportunities for action. Information on global climate decision-making is vital both for citizens to understand the implications of decisions at national and local levels, and as a tool for advocacy – enabling individuals and organisations to demand accountability and push for implementation of international commitments.

For example, under the Escazú Agreement, a Regional Public Mechanism was established to inform and meaningfully involve citizens in the work and progress of the COP (Conference of the Parties) through a dedicated platform and the election of public representatives (see Box ‎4.12).

Box ‎4.12. The Regional Public Mechanism for sustained public involvement under the Escazú Agreement

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties to the Escazú Agreement, the Secretariat has established a Regional Public Mechanism through which interested individuals can register by completing a short form available on the Secretariat’s website. The main objectives of this mechanism are to keep interested parties informed about the Escazú Agreement, to facilitate their engagement, to coordinate public participation in international meetings, and to contribute to transparency. Anyone may register online via a simple form to receive updates related to the Regional Public Mechanism, which operates through an online platform.

In parallel, seven public representatives are elected for four-year terms via the Regional Public Mechanism. Their role is to promote and facilitate public participation and channel contributions from the public, including by submitting proposals on its behalf. The elected representatives conduct consultations with the broader public via the mechanism. Their names and contact details are publicly available online. These representatives hold a seat on the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties, where they may speak but do not have voting rights. They also hold two seats on the Committee to Support Implementation and Compliance.

Source: https://www.cepal.org/en/escazuagreement/regional-public-mechanism; https://publicoescazu.cepal.org/en/.

Beyond the information phase, further efforts are being made to deepen citizen involvement in international processes related to climate or related issues.

For example, in an effort to evolve its governance system, the European Union has also addressed the question of citizen participation in shaping public policy at the European level – including on climate and environmental matters. In 2021, it launched the Conference on the Future of Europe, a transnational and multilingual initiative designed to enable citizens to contribute to shaping the future of the EU. This initiative took various forms, including the creation of four European Citizens’ Panels, one of which focused specifically on the theme of “climate change, environment, and health” (see Box ‎4.13). The innovation of this ambitious participatory process lay, on the one hand, in its transnational scale and the large number of participants involved. On the other hand, special emphasis was placed on multilingualism, which enabled citizens to participate in their own language and helped address the language barrier that can hinder dialogue between people from different contexts – often discouraging participation from those who are not proficient in the "common" languages typically used in international processes, such as English.

Box ‎4.13. Multichannel and multilingual citizen participation mechanism at the European Union level to involve citizens in shaping the future of Europe

In 2021, the European Union launched the Conference on the Future of Europe. Its stated aim was to enable all Europeans, through a bottom-up citizen engagement process, to have their say on what they expect from the EU and to play a more active role in shaping its future.

To support this objective, several citizen participation mechanisms were implemented throughout 2021, to feed in the discussions of the Conference:

• Firstly, the multilingual digital platform Make.org allowed all citizens to share ideas, submit proposals, comment on others’ suggestions, and organise events. Contributions were collected, analysed, monitored, and published throughout the conference.

• Four European Citizens’ Panels were held, bringing together 800 randomly selected participants (200 per panel), representative of the EU’s sociological diversity (one-third of each panel was aged between 16 and 25). These panel members took into account the input gathered from the digital platform and national panels, and presented their recommendations to the plenary assembly of the conference. The assembly included representatives from the EU’s three main institutions, national parliaments, the European citizens’ panels, national events and panels, and other stakeholders.

• In parallel, several Member States organised their own national panels, and events specifically targeting young people were also held.

In total, nearly 50,000 citizens took part in this exercise and made proposals for the future of Europe. The Council of the European Union’s services carried out a technical assessment to provide detailed feedback on the 326 measures included in the conference’s final report. The implementation of these measures was assessed and published in June 2022, November 2022, and December 2023. In addition, a citizen event was held on 2 December 2022, during which the three EU institutions met with citizens at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Source: (Council of the European Union: General Secretariat of the Council, 2022[47]).

Finally, an interesting pilot initiative – the Global Citizens' Assembly on Climate – was also carried out in 2020–2021, driven by a group of researchers, foundation members, and participatory democracy experts, and officially supported by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, and the UK President of COP26 (see Box Box ‎4.14).

Box ‎4.14. The Global Citizens’ Assembly on Climate

Launched in October 2021, the Global Citizens’ Assembly on Climate was tasked with addressing the question: “How can humanity address the climate and ecological crisis in a fair and effective way?”

The Assembly brought together 100 people from around the world, 70% of whom earned less than 10 dollars per day. The selection process took place in two stages: an algorithm first identified 100 locations across the globe, after which local organisations selected potential participants based on various criteria, followed by a second lottery.

Participants received online training before engaging in deliberations focused on three key themes: fossil fuel extraction and subsidies for coal, oil and gas; carbon neutrality and carbon capture and storage; and social justice and the right to a healthy environment. The aim was not to produce detailed policy proposals, but rather to define principles of equity and effectiveness for climate action at the global level. Participants were also invited to attend COP26 as observers. In its final report, published in 2022 during COP27, the Assembly notably called for the recognition of ecocide in both international and national legislation.

Alongside the main Assembly, community assemblies were held around the world to broaden participation and include more citizens beyond those selected. The outcomes of these local deliberations were incorporated into the Assembly’s final report.

This initiative was carried out on a budget of $975,000.¹

Notes: 1. By way of comparison, the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate was supported by a budget of over €6 million.

Source: https://globalassembly.org/.

This initiative is particularly noteworthy in that it was launched by civil society organisations. Most deliberative processes (see previous section on deliberative processes) are initiated by national or local authorities with a defined mandate. This first pilot project demonstrated that a global deliberative assembly is feasible, and could therefore contribute to evolving global climate governance frameworks. The initiative succeeded in gaining the support of several key stakeholders – an important first step toward establishing itself as a legitimate actor in global climate governance.

Moreover, the intrinsic benefits of this process are broadly similar to those identified in other deliberative processes at national or local level – particularly regarding the positive impact on participants themselves. Participants reported a strengthened understanding of climate and environmental issues, increased awareness, behavioural changes, and a desire to act as ambassadors within their communities (Curato et al., 2023[48]).

However, several limitations of this initial process have been identified, pointing to key areas for improvement in future initiatives. First, the diversity of participants – and the effort made to ensure the inclusion of vulnerable or marginalised populations – raised significant challenges in terms of disparities in digital access and use, language skills, and availability of time to engage in such a process. While measures such as interpreters were put in place to address these issues, the outcomes were mixed and sometimes unequal, highlighting the need for stronger efforts to guarantee equal-quality participation for all.

In addition, the main question concerns the actual impact of the Assembly on climate negotiations at COP26 and beyond. Although the final report highlights the process and outcomes, its real influence on global climate governance decisions was limited.

This limited impact has been attributed, in part, to the Assembly’s insufficient integration into the official COP26 negotiation cycle. While recognised by the UN Secretary-General, the Assembly was not formally embedded within negotiation or decision-making structures. The complexity of international climate negotiation frameworks makes it difficult to identify and secure entry points for citizens to voice their views and recommendations. Although the non-state origins of this initiative made it stand out among deliberative processes, it also exacerbated the challenge of weak linkage with formal decision-making. Furthermore, the Assembly received limited media attention, which prevented it from becoming an effective tool for public awareness, discourse, and advocacy. Finally, its broad and open mandate – to deliberate on a wide and complex question – resulted in general and non-specific recommendations, which also constrained its potential for tangible and concrete influence on negotiations (Curato et al., 2023[48]).

While this first experience demonstrated the relevance and feasibility of a global climate assembly, the current challenge lies in institutionalising the mechanism so it can become a genuine actor within climate governance and be formally integrated into existing negotiation and decision-making spaces. Beyond direct influence on decision-making, other levers such as advocacy and public engagement – through enhanced communication and educational efforts around global citizens' assemblies for climate – could also be explored. Such an initiative would benefit from adopting a multi-level influence strategy (Curato et al., 2023[48]):

• Mapping the various levers and governance mechanisms within the COP framework to identify those that are more open and receptive to engagement from non-state actors;

• Engaging with other global governance platforms whose mandates extend beyond climate but where key decisions are made, such as the G7 summits or the 2024 Summit of the Future;

• (Re)thinking relationships with organised civil society already embedded in climate governance, which could act as a support structure and a conduit for conveying key citizen-led recommendations, thus ensuring the mechanism’s sustainability;

• Strengthening communication efforts aimed at the wider public and within participant communities, in order to foster broader ownership and encourage greater engagement with the Global Citizens’ Assembly on Climate.

While still in the pilot phase, these various experiments show that it is indeed possible to mobilise and reinvent participatory mechanisms to involve citizens in key international issues.

References

[25] (re)surgentes (n.d.), Pacto Inter-Ciudad, https://pacto.resurgentes.org/ (accessed on 22 September 2024).

[39] Bauwens, M. (2013), Proposed Next Steps for the emerging P2P and Commons networks, https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/proposed-next-steps-for-the-emerging-p2p-and-commons-networks/2013/04/02 (accessed on 2 October 2024).

[33] Bollier, D. (2014), Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons, New Society Publishers, https://www.thinklikeacommoner.com/.

[43] Bourboulon, I. (2024), “Au Népal, le succès d’un programme de gestion communautaire des forêts”, basta!, https://basta.media/au-nepal-le-succes-d-un-programme-de-gestion-communautaire-des-forets.

[44] Bozzini, A. and M. Pascual Dapena (2025), “Towards meaningful civil society participation at the international level: Success factors, opportunities and challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 81, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8ed04dc2-en.

[17] Bürgerrat (2024), Via SMS to a citizens’ assembly, https://www.buergerrat.de/en/news/via-sms-to-a-citizens-assembly/.

[5] Cabannes, Y. (2021), “Contributions of participatory budgeting to climate change adaptation and mitigation: current local practices across the world and lessons from the field”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 33/2, pp. 356-375, https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478211021710.

[10] Centre for Public Impact (2021), Green Participatory Budgeting: Lisbon, Portugal, https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/green-participatory-budgeting-lisbon-portugal (accessed on 14 May 2024).

[23] CESE (2024), Demander, Comprendre la Convention Citoyenne sur la Fin de Vie.

[2] CitizenLab (2020), Introduction aux budgets participatifs : Un guide pour les villes et municipalités qui souhaitent impliquer les citoyens dans les décisions budgétaires, https://i-cpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Le-guide-du-budget-participatif-_-CitizenLab-2020.pdf.

[27] citizensassembly.jp (2020), Climate Assembly Sapporo 2020: Japan’s first citizens’ assembly on climate change, https://citizensassembly.jp/project/ca_kaken/en#:~:text=Climate%20Assembly%20Sapporo%202020%3A%20Japan%27s%20first%20citizens%27%20assembly%20on%20climate%20change,-%E3%83%97%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88%E3%81%AETOP&text=Citizens%27%20asse (accessed on 19 August 2024).

[37] City of Bologna (2014), Regulation on collaboration between citizens and the city for the care and regeneration of urban commons, http://www.comune.bologna.it/media/files/bolognaregulation.pdf.

[13] City of Bordeaux (2024), Budget participatif, édition 2024 “Tous acteurs pour le climat”, https://www.bordeaux.fr/p156520/budget-participatif-edition-2024-tous-acteurs-pour-le-climat-#:~:text=Ce%20budget%20participatif%20est%20dot%C3%A9,actrices%20de%20la%20vie%20bordelaise. (accessed on 17 July 2024).

[40] City of Lille (n.d.), L’Assemblée des communs de Lille, https://lille.encommuns.org/ (accessed on 1 October 2024).

[47] Council of the European Union: General Secretariat of the Council (2022), Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the final outcome – May 2022, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2860/25889.

[48] Curato, N. et al. (2023), Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis Evaluation Report, https://researchsystem.canberra.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/82182314/Global_Assembly_Evaluation_Report.pdf.

[29] Curato, N., G. Smith and R. Willis (2024), Deliberative democracy and climate change: Exploring the potential of climate assemblies in the global south, Agence Française de Développement (AFD) et International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/deliberative-democracy-and-climate-change-exploring-potential-climate?lang=en.

[26] EcoCare (2023), Climate Assembly - Southern Maldives, https://www.climateassembly.mv/projects/southern-maldives (accessed on 3 September 2024).

[18] Elstub, S., J. Carrick and S. Allan (2023), After Climate Assembly UK: did the views and behaviours of assembly members change?, https://www.involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/docuemnt/CAUK%20Eval%20AM%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.

[19] Gencat (2024), Citizens’ Assembly for Climate fo Catalonia, https://participa.gencat.cat/processes/assembleaclima?locale=en.

[46] Global Focus (2023), Ensuring Civil Society’s Vital Role in Global Climate Policy, https://globaltfokus.dk/images/Klima/Ensuring%20Civil%20societys%20Vital%20role%20in%20global%20climate%20policy.pdf.

[12] Grillos, T. (2017), “Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia”, World Development, Vol. 96, pp. 343-358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.019.

[30] iDeemos (2020), Asamblea Ciudadana Itinerante del Concejo de Bogotá, https://ideemos.org/asamblea-ciudadana-itinerante-del-concejo-de-bogota/ (accessed on 19 septembre 2024).

[45] IISD (2020), Global Climate Change Governance: The search of effectiveness and universality, https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/global-climate-change-governance-search-effectiveness-and-universality (accessed on 14 September 2024).

[6] Île-de-France Region (2024), Budget participatif écologique, https://www.iledefrance.fr/participer-la-vie-citoyenne/je-participe-la-vie-de-la-region/budget-participatif-ecologique (accessed on 27 September 2024).

[38] La 27ème région (2019), Les postures de l’acteur public face aux communs, https://enactingthecommons.la27eregion.fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/12/postures-acteur-public-communs-WEB1.pdf.

[35] La 27ème région (n.d.), Enacting the Commons, https://enactingthecommons.la27eregion.fr/ (accessed on 2 October 2024).

[21] Les 150 (2020), Les 150 : L’association des citoyens de la convention climat, https://les150ccc.fr/ (accessed on 12 September 2024).

[41] Leyronas, S., B. Coriat and K. Nubukpo (2023), The Commons: Drivers of Change and Opportunities for Africa, Co-edition of the Agence française de développement (AFD) and the World Bank, https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/commons.

[42] Libois, F. et al. (2022), Community Forest Management: The story behind a success story in Nepal, https://pjse.hal.science/hal-03597659/.

[22] Nowak, Z. (2021), “Communicating about Citizens’ Assemblies: Lessons from the Citizens’ Assembly in Poznan, Poland”, Participo, https://medium.com/participo/communicating-about-citizens-assemblies-2ad0195541d9.

[3] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[1] OECD (2022), “Upgrading participation, representation and openness in public life”, in Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy: Preparing the Ground for Government Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee358d3-en.

[15] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.

[16] OECD (n.d.), OECD Deliberative Democracy Database, https://airtable.com/appP4czQlAU1My2M3/shrX048tmQLl8yzdc/tblrttW98WGpdnX3Y/viwX5ZutDDGdDMEep (accessed on 14 September 2024).

[4] OIDP (2021), Contribution des budgets participatifs à l’adaptation au changement climatique et à l’atténuation de ses effets, https://www.oidp.net/docs/repo/doc959.pdf.

[7] OIDP (2019), Metz has established the first participatory budget eco-citizen of France for 2019, https://oidp.net/en/content.php?id=1545 (accessed on 14 June 2024).

[31] Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press; First Edition (November 1990).

[32] P2P Foundation (2017), Commons Transition and P2P: A Primer, https://www.tni.org/en/publication/commons-transition-and-p2p.

[34] P2P Foundation, M. Bauwens and V. Niaros (2018), Changing Societies through Urban Commons Transitions, https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/changing_societies_through_urban_commons_transitions.pdf.

[24] Paice, A. and M. Rausch (2022), Creating an online conversation between a nation and a mini-public: a case study on Polis and the Austrian Citizens’ Climate Council, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60ac18ed5d96c829aad68946/t/6396585aa815e4335650c5ba/1670797419147/Case+Study+KLIMARAT+%26+POLIS+-+Finalv2-1.pdf.

[8] Participatory Budgeting Scotland (2022), What is Green Participatory Budgeting?, https://pbscotland.scot/green-pb-content/what-is-green-participatory-budgeting#:~:text=Green%20PB%20is%20a%20way,that%20make%20a%20climate%20impact.

[9] People Powered (n.d.), How Cities Can Use Participatory Budgeting to Address Climate Change, https://www.peoplepowered.org/training-content/pb-climate-change (accessed on 14 June 2024).

[36] Republic of Italy (2023), Costituzione italiana, https://www.senato.it/sites/default/files/media-documents/Costituzione_ITALIANO.pdf.

[20] Smith, G. (2024), Climate Assemblies: Emerging Trends, Challenges and Opportunities, https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/65b77644e6021e9021de8916/667bcc149faa82bfd560de48_KNOCA_Current_Trends_Report_v5.pdf.

[28] Suryamayi et al. (2021), Auroville Citizens’ Assembly Pilot: Exploring the potential of randomly selected community members in collective decision-making, https://caexplorationauroville.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ca_av_pilot_2020_water-vision_full-report.pdf.

[11] Tannus, F. (2023), Knowledge is Power: innovating how citizens learn and shape public budgeting in Brazil, https://medium.com/participo/knowledge-is-power-innovating-how-citizens-learn-and-shape-public-budgeting-in-brazil-30cd52aa8708 (accessed on 25 November 2024).

[14] UCLG (2022), Cas d’étude : À Molina de Segura, un budget participatif climat-jeunes pour l’action climatique, https://www.climate-chance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/bt2022_cas-detude_espagne_molina-de-segura_fr.pdf.