Why generalising about climate assemblies and juries is not so simple

Climate assemblies and juries are a relatively recent phenomenon. As such, much of the commentary and analysis – whether theoretical or empirical – tends to be rather simplistic, too quick to generalise about what are complex processes. True, they share strong family resemblances across fundamental characteristics: e.g., remit, mode of recruitment, facilitated learning, deliberation and decision making. But to generalise from these core features is to do a disservice to the phenomenon. For example, simply considering the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate and the UK Climate Assembly which were the first two examples of national level initiatives indicates significant differences in terms of their commissioning and coupling to governing institutions, governance, the expectations placed on members in terms of policy development or appraisal, the autonomy afforded members in terms of engagement with outside interest and media, etc. More recent initiatives, for example, the German Citizens’ Assembly on Climate commissioned by civil society organisations and Finland’ Citizens’ Jury on Climate Actions that lasted only three days and assessed government policy proposals further stretch the idea that citizens’ assemblies and juries can be treated as a singular phenomenon. This paper is a first step in unpacking the phenomenon, analysing critical dimensions of climate assembly and jury practice where sensitive comparative analysis is necessary. This will encompass an analysis of both internal (e.g., approach to facilitation; the nature of member/expert interface) and external (e.g., type of linkage with public authorities) characteristics. An appreciation of the complexity of climate assembly and jury practice will make for more rigorous and meaningful social scientific analysis of these democratic innovations and a clearer understanding of the conditions under which they might contribute to democratic renewal and enhanced climate governance.