More than ‘Blah Blah Blah…’

How consultation will play its part in implementing the COP26 agreement?

Greta Thunberg has clearly found a phrase that resonates with many people.

Portraying politicians and diplomats as merely pushing paper and haggling about words on endless documents conjures up a picture that is in great contrast to the hyper-activity sought by climate activists who believe we are in a full-scale emergency. No wonder young people express their frustration.

Public consultations must appear to them to be part of this picture. Even experienced policy-makers occasionally dismiss them as sterile time-wasting, and the modern vogue for more participative methods tends to monopolise any discussion of what is becoming known as climate engagement.

Several recent reports have covered this topic and deserve serious study.

In September, Involve published Public engagement and net zero: how government should involve citizens in climate policy making. It focuses on three ‘participative’ methods (co-production, crowdsourcing and participatory budgeting) and four ‘deliberative’ methods (appreciative enquiry, citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries and community conversations.)

In October the Stockholm-based International IDEA launched its Discussion Paper 3/2021 on Democracy and the Challenge of Climate Change – a comprehensive survey of the relevant issues. Among its 20 recommendations are specific references to randomly selected citizens’ assemblies, transparency, participatory budgeting as well as consultation.

At COP26 in Glasgow, the Simon Fraser University’s Morris J West Centre for Dialogue at Vancouver promoted a new Report on the subject Can Public Participation Accelerate the Transition to Net-Zero. It is based upon interviews with leading thinkers and practitioners and introduces a categorisation of five forms of climate engagement. They are: - citizen deliberation, relationship-based engagement, place-based engagement, large-scale engagement and systems-oriented engagement.

Finally, we have also looked at a recent study by the Robert Bosch Stiftung in Germany. The title is It’s complicated: People and Their Democracy in Germany, France, Britain, Poland, and the United States. It does what it says on its cover and provides data-driven analysis based on solid research in the five countries. Its chapter on the UK contains powerful insights into patters of disillusionment and raises very interesting questions.

With possibly one exception, all these Reports and Studies promote various forms of participative machinery as being necessary to supplement the basic democratic ideal. This is because existing institutions are perceived to be struggling with the scale of the climate change challenge.

For supporters of major behaviour change in developed countries, the state of public opinion is itself a source of concern. Last week’s Sky News/YouGov poll reported that only 40% of the adult UK population support taxes being increased ‘to help pay the costs of reducing Britain’s carbon emissions.’ Beyond this, a succession of surveys has shown that whilst the public supports many of the Government’s greener policies in principle, they are far less sure they agree with actions to change how they travel, how they heat their homes or what they eat. Before politicians risk losing elections, they clearly need a significant mind-shift among much of the electorate. In short, they need to win the argument. Actually lots of arguments.

If, however, the Green lobby is to win such arguments, it has to recognise that it is a slow, intense, costly process and involves talking to people. More accurately talking with people. That is why the long list of participative techniques – including public consultations – is broadly right. And, whether Greta Thunberg likes it or not – that is Blah Blah Blah! The alternative to dialogue is to impose lifestyle changes. Just because it may have partly worked in a pandemic, in general it is a recipe for dissent and social disorder.

Dialogues differ. Deliberative methods like Citizens’ Assemblies are excellent for agenda-setting. They can also be useful for prioritisation, but are ineffective at resource allocation, unless you widen their remit to include budgets for all competing social, economic and political aspirations. Consultations, in contrast are good at gathering stakeholder perceptions and reactions to firm proposals, and placing them in front of decision-makers. They are particularly valuable when difficult choices have to be made and where there are wicked issues - with winners and losers, and where a failure to take account of the views of impacted individuals and groups offends the principles of fairness and social justice.

Add to that the salient feature of the UK model – that it is rule-based and that failure to observe the rules can lead to legal sanctions. There are no mechanisms to enforce good practice for the alternative engagement methods recommended by recent Reports. Only public consultations are legally enforceable.

In light of this, look at two (of seven) important demands made of governments by Amnesty International:

• Make sure that climate action is done in a way that does not violate anyone’s human rights, and reduces rather than increases inequality
• Make sure that everyone, in particular those affected by climate change or the transition to a fossil-free economy, is properly informed about what is happening and is able to participate in decisions about their futures.

Now consider the text agreed in Glasgow last week, and its multiple references to citizen engagement. They cover ‘indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations.’ These are well on their way to become entrenched rights, but the boundaries are unclear. Have no doubt that our courts will be very busy if communities feel that their views are being disregarded or that fair processes have not been observed before decisions that prejudice their interests are taken. Canadian and Australian Courts are already accustomed to hear claims that the extractive industries have failed to consult as required by law. In the UK, the law of consultation is also building a substantial body of jurisprudence and observance of the Aarhus Convention is developing a library of precedents through its disputes resolution process.

All these machinations will no doubt sound to many like Blah Blah Blah gone mad.

But unless we decide to impose policy and behaviour change upon people, trampling over their civil and political rights, there is no realistic alternative. The solution is to create and adhere to effective standards for all the new, popular engagement methods and to train those who will conduct public and stakeholder consultations to do so transparently and fairly.

This is a huge task, and the Consultation Institute is on the case.

TRIGGER POINTS

1. Is it time to review the range of dialogue methods that you will use for climate change and allied issues?
2. Should you consider attending or organising an in-house delivery of the Institute's brand new scenario-based training course. It is called Consultation & Engagement on the Zero-Carbon Agenda, but we suspect it will become known by our provisional in-house nickname of “Bloombridge goes Green”. Contact Michelle de Branco for details and dates.
3. The Involve paper - [Public engagement and net zero: how government should involve citizens in climate policy making](https://www.involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Public%20engagement%20and%20net%20zero_0.pdf)
4. The IDEA International paper Democracy and the Challenge of Climate Change
5. The Simon Fraser University Report Can Public Participation Accelerate the Transition to Net-Zero
6. The Robert Bosch Stiftung paper It’s complicated: People and Their Democracy in Germany, France, Britain, Poland, and the United States
7. Headlined data of the Sky News/Yougov November 9-11 poll.Full data tables from The Sky News/Yougov November 9-11 Poll
8. The Amnesty International set of demands are at the foot of the web page

This is the 373rd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement