Keywords

7.1 From the Yellow Vests to a Broad Public Consultation

In 2018, the French government decided to introduce a carbon tax, which was followed by a sharp spike in diesel prices.Footnote 1 We saw in Chap. 1 how this helped spark the protests by les gilets jaunes, the yellow vest movement. One of the grievances was that the French government had not considered the effects of the carbon tax on French citizens who lived outside the city and drove diesel vehicles to get to work. It was not just the rising prices themselves that were contested. Many also felt a great sense of injustice, because sweeping decisions had been taken on how to respond to the climate crisis without considering their views. The people who actually had to pay the additional tax had not been consulted first.

President Emmanuel Macron decided to organise a major national debate in response to the protests: the Grand Débat National. From January 2019, thousands of meetings were organised throughout the country, both physically and online, where citizens could have their say on the energy tax and broader issues such as climate change and purchasing power.Footnote 2 Macron himself attended a number of these meetings. Cahiers were opened in 16,000 French municipalities where people could submit complaints and suggest solutions, and 10,000 municipal debates were organised. Forty-one thematic conferences were also organised with numerous interest groups, such as businesses, trades unions and associations.Footnote 3

The yellow vest protests in France also led to the creation of the Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat in 2019. This convention consisted of 150 randomly selected citizens who came together to consider how France could meet the 40% emissions reduction target by 2030 without losing sight of social justice. The composition of the members was meant to reflect the diversity of the French population. The French government thus tried to include the various interests in the country in its climate policymaking processes, with the aim of developing a fairer climate policy. Macron said in 2020 that he would adopt almost all of the 149 proposals that emerged from the Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat. Incidentally, the carbon tax that caused the yellow vests to take to the streets was not part of these proposals. It was agreed beforehand that Macron could block a maximum of three proposals, which he subsequently did.Footnote 4 Another 23 proposals were voted down by the French parliament, who also watered down 78 of the plans. The rest have been or are going to be implemented.Footnote 5

The example of the yellow vests in France shows that a just climate policy is about more than the fair distribution of costs and benefits. The way policies are made is also a matter of justice. In this chapter, we examine the theme of procedural justice, and in particular the justice of the policymaking process. We pay special attention to how citizens are involved. Is a major national consultation always the best way, as in France? Or are there other ways?

7.2 What Is Procedural Justice and Why Is it Important?

7.2.1 What Is Procedural Justice?

Procedural justice in distributive issues concerns whether the process of distribution has been conducted in a fair manner. It is not the outcome of the distribution that is key, as in distributive justice, but rather how it was arrived at. This involves questions such as:

  • Were all relevant stakeholders, such as citizens and businesses, involved in the process?

  • Were their interests fairly weighed?

  • Were all sides given the opportunity to make their case?

  • Did all stakeholders have access to the same information?

  • Was an impartial decision reached?Footnote 6

In this chapter, we focus specifically on generic decision-making in distributive issues to do with climate policy. This involves procedures for agenda-setting and decision-making based on generic rules: In what situations should we invoke the Disasters (Compensation) Act? Should we impose a general tax on diesel? Should we subsidise solar panels and electric vehicles?

Of course, procedural justice is also very important for the implementation of policies, when administrative bodies need to make concrete decisions about individual cases based on the established rules: Should we pay compensation for damage to a house due to extreme rainfall? Should we subsidise an individual citizen for installing solar panels on their roof? In individual cases, procedural justice is primarily a matter of good governance. Did the administrative body, or the judge, give sufficient reasons for their decision? Was the decision reasonable and proportionate?Footnote 7 Were all sides given the opportunity to make their case?

However, this book is primarily about distributive justice in relation to generic climate policy. In this phase, procedural justice is mostly a matter of participation and representation. This also applies to generic decisions taken by provinces, water boards and municipalities. Have the interests and views of all stakeholders been adequately addressed? Have relevant citizens and stakeholders been given a place at the table? Is there a level playing field? Several studies show that when citizens are involved in a policy process, and also feel they can influence it, they consider the process more just.Footnote 8

7.2.2 Why Is Procedural Justice Important?

There are at least two reasons why procedural justice is important for distributive issues in climate policy. The first is for intrinsic reasons. Procedural justice is an important value in itself and a pillar of the democratic rule of law. This is why criminal and administrative law both pay extensive attention to how the government treats its citizens, which has culminated in a balanced system of legal protection in criminal procedure and a system of principles of good governance and standards of conduct in administrative law. The parliamentary system is also a form of procedural justice. The constitution and regulations of the Senate and House of Representatives set out parliamentary procedures and describe how minority rights are guaranteed in political decision-making.

But there is a second reason that has specifically to do with climate policy, but also other distributive issues. As we have seen in the previous chapters, in many cases there is no objective or generally accepted measure of what constitutes a just distribution. Various outcomes are defensible on the basis of various principles.Footnote 9 So, just distributions within climate policy are open to debate. As we saw in the case studies in the previous chapters, different outcomes are possible depending on which distributive principle is implicitly ‘built into’ a policy instrument.

In such situations, procedural justice is even more important for the perceived fairness of the distribution.Footnote 10 Van den Bos argues that in these situations, the fairness of the procedure is what ultimately determines how people judge the fairness of the outcomes.Footnote 11 He calls this the ‘fair process effect’. If the decision-making process has been fair and careful—that is, if everyone’s interests have been taken into account and all information has been fairly and carefully considered—then people will be more likely to conclude that the outcome must therefore be fair.Footnote 12 The fairness of the procedure is then an indicator of the fairness of the outcome.

So, you could defend the thesis that, in situations where there are no unambiguous and universally accepted standards of distribution, procedural justice is actually a prerequisite for just distribution. Indeed, both Walker and Schlosberg argue that a system of procedural justice that recognises the diversity of interests will by definition lead to a just distribution.Footnote 13 Procedural justice can then be seen as a means of achieving distributive justice. After all, if all relevant facts, views and opinions have been carefully and properly considered in a proceeding, then we can trust that all relevant intuitions and principles concerning the fairness of the distribution have also been included. The result is an ‘all things considered’ judgment that best expresses how all these things should be balanced and considered. So, the fairer the procedure, the fairer the outcome.

7.3 Public Participation in Distributive Issues

Involving citizens in the decision-making process is an important element of procedural justice in climate policy. After all, citizens are the main stakeholders in this policy. The French example shows that this is also an important condition for gaining public support. In this chapter, we discuss three different ways the government can involve citizens in establishing just climate policy: through public consultations, public deliberations and participation councils (Fig. 7.1). They differ in how and to what extent citizens are involved in the policymaking process. In each situation, the most appropriate way will depend on the purpose of involving citizens in the process (see also Box 7.1).

Fig. 7.1
A person doing a checklist is titled consultation. A person meeting a group is labeled deliberation. A group of people are seated in a session and a few raising hands is titled consideration.

Three ways to organise public participation

Full size image

Box 7.1: Public Participation in the Literature

There is an extensive body of literature on public participation in policymaking. Many studies have demonstrated the benefits of public participation, both theoretically and empirically.Footnote 14 Examples of such benefits include access to local knowledge, enriching democracy and strengthening communities.Footnote 15 The literature also discusses in which situations public participation has been successful (or not), and in what form it can best be carried out (for example through a public consultation or deliberation, or a participation council).Footnote 16 The degree of direct influence citizens have on the policy process depends on the form chosen.Footnote 17

Which form of public participation best suits the issue, and how much direct influence citizens should have, depends on the purpose of involving them in the process.Footnote 18 This purpose can be roughly divided into three categories: enabling citizens to participate in democracy, legitimising decisions, and developing knowledge about complex problems.Footnote 19 Bryson et al. provide an overview, based on academic literature, of various goals of public participation and which form best suits which goal.Footnote 20

It is important to choose the right form for public participation to be effective, but other conditions must also be met. It is difficult to establish fixed criteria for successful participation in any context. Key themes that always play a role areFootnote 21:

  • inclusiveness and representativeness

  • equal access to information and resources

  • consultation over time

  • clear delineation and political embedding of outcomes

7.3.1 Public Consultations

Of the three forms of public participation we distinguish here, public consultations are the ‘light version’. Central to this form is that policymakers can obtain information from citizens. Unlike public deliberations and participation councils, no direct conversation takes place between policymakers and citizens, or between citizens among themselves: the flow of information is bottom-up. Techniques that can be used to ensure that various perspectives are aired include citizen panels, opinion polls, internet consultations and surveys. An example where this has been done in relation to Dutch climate policy is the Participatory Value Evaluation (Box 7.2).

An advantage of public consultations over public deliberations and participation councils is that they are scalable and so many stakeholders can be involved. They are also relatively easy and cheap to organise. Moreover, research in the field of political science has revealed that citizens are not always keen to actively participate. It costs time and energy to attend participation meetings in community centres or council chambers. Many people feel uncomfortable or intimidated when discussing politics.Footnote 22 People need to feel comfortable enough to show their (political) colours and speak up to explain their position. Some citizens do think it important that their views and interests are taken into account in policymaking, but do not necessarily feel the need to participate in the debate themselves. A public consultation is a way for all these people to bring their perspective to the policy process. The risk of this form of public participation is that ultimately little or nothing is done with the information that is collected from the citizens.

Box 7.2: Participatory Value Evaluation

A good example of a public consultation is the climate consultation that Mouter et al. organised to involve citizens in climate policy.Footnote 23 The result of their Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) was that Dutch citizens were able to advise the government about a variety of climate issues.

More than 10,000 citizens completed the evaluation form, in which a range of policy issues were presented and the respondents were asked to make choices and assess various options. Citizens were given information about the pros and cons of the various policy issues and the constraints involved, such as a limited budget. They were also informed about the consequences of each choice (for example, that closing large polluting factories reduces a lot of carbon but also involves job losses). The aim of such PVEs is to make citizens more aware of the dilemmas facing the government. Respondents make their own choices based on this information and also give their reasons in writing. Based on the responses, Mouter et al. drew up a number of conditions that climate policies must meet if they are to gain public support.

This form of consultation goes further than an opinion poll or referendum, where citizens are often asked to consider isolated issues and can often only respond with a ‘yes or no’. A PVE does not focus on an individual issue, but rather tries to enable citizens to make well-considered choices by presenting policy issues in their context. There is, however, no direct interaction between the public and the policymakers. The outcomes of the PVE serve as a guide for policymakers, because they reveal how the public perceives the situation. So, this is primarily a form of public consultation that allows the policymaker to collect information from the public.

7.3.2 Public Deliberations

Deliberations in public participation do involve a conversation between citizens and policymakers, and also between citizens among themselves. In public deliberations, the stakeholders in a decision have the opportunity to have their say.Footnote 24 The perspective of a particular interest group is represented by a member of that group, and not by an external representative. This means there is more interaction between people with differing interests than in a public consultation. The aim is to seek consensus in a conversation in which the involved parties exchange arguments and reflect on their own position. The decision is ultimately made by the relevant public administration, but with more direct citizen involvement than in more traditional forms of representation.

An important aspect of a deliberative policy process is that it provides an opportunity for stakeholders to speak freely, and there is room to change opinions.Footnote 25 In his research, Niemeyer argues that deliberative policymaking processes are ideally suited to climate issues.Footnote 26 Because of the often complex issues at stake in climate policy, it is important that citizens have some understanding of the issue so they can come to an informed opinion. His research shows that citizens develop a better understanding of a given climate issue if they are deliberatively involved. One reason is that the deliberative process is a ‘learning process’: stakeholders are informed about an issue and form opinions through interaction with other stakeholders and administrators.Footnote 27 Deliberative forms of public participation are usually at a smaller scale, such as community meetings or workshops. For example, many Dutch municipalities organise community meetings to discuss the transition to gas-free neighbourhoods and which heating alternatives best suit the homes and people in the neighbourhood.

One problem with this form of public participation is its scalability. Interaction normally takes place between citizens and administrators at a local or regional scale, and is more difficult to organise at the national scale. However, this can be done by separating the policy process into smaller units so that smaller groups of people can consider sub-topics of it.Footnote 28

Besides scalability, the issue of inclusivity also plays a role. Research into interactive policymaking reveals that it is mainly the people who are already politically engaged that are likely to participate.Footnote 29 In his research, Hooghe calls this the ‘cultural hegemony’ of deliberative policy processes, where people with educational and cultural privileges are more likely to be heard than others.Footnote 30 The perspectives of these others subsequently take a back seat. Interactive policymaking thus leads to more political inequality, known in academia as the ‘participation paradox’.Footnote 31 One very important group that cannot be directly represented in deliberative processes are future generations. This is particularly a problem in the case of climate change, because the consequences will fall mainly on these generations. Initiatives are therefore being taken to include the ‘voice’—or at least the interests—of future generations (see Box 7.3).

Box 7.3: Public Deliberation Involving Future Generations

Climate justice is also an intergenerational issue. There is a generation gap between those who are causing climate change and those who will be most affected by it. Greenhouse gases emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for many decades to come, and this could have dire implications for future generations. However, those future generations do not have a say in how we deal with this today. So, how can the interests of future generations be represented in the current debate? One way is to safeguard the interests of future generations in institutions or in certain policymaking processes. Below we give two examples, from Wales and Japan.

In Wales, the interests of future generations have been secured since 2016 in the form of a ‘Commissioner for Future Generations’. The commissioner advises on sustainability and protects the interests and welfare of future generations. Public institutions are required to follow the commissioner’s advice, provided it is reasonable. The position of commissioner was established following the enactment of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act.

Japanese researchers have developed the ‘Future Design Method’,Footnote 32 which involves splitting a diverse group of citizens in two, asking one group to imagine themselves as the future generation and the other as the current generation. The WRR organised a pilot to examine to what extent this method could also work in the Netherlands. This pilot is discussed in an essay, published in 2021, on a fairer approach to dealing with the interests of future generations.Footnote 33

7.3.3 Participation Councils

One way to overcome the participation paradox is to randomly select participants to a participation council. This ensures the participation of people who were not already engaged beforehand. In addition, public participation processes based on the selection of a random sample are easier to scale up to the national level, because the participants selected are representative of society. We see this reflected, for example, in Fishkin’s ideas on ‘deliberative polls’, where the aim is to ensure deliberation and political equality simultaneously by actively selecting participants.Footnote 34

Deliberative polls are carefully designed. Participants are asked to complete a survey on the relevant topic during a short interview and then invited to participate in a deliberative policy process. Between the interview and the deliberative process, participants receive information on the topic from both scientific and policy perspectives. For example, they are asked to consider various policy proposals, after which they discuss these under the supervision of trained moderators. The purpose of deliberative polling is to ensure that participants adopt informed, deliberate and reasoned positions.Footnote 35 Citizens are given more say and are more directly involved in the policy process in this form of public participation than in public consultations and deliberations.

In participation councils, the participating citizens are asked to discuss specific issues and formulate concrete policy proposals.Footnote 36 The Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat and the Grand Débat National are examples of participation councils. We discuss a Dutch example of such a council in Box 7.4.Footnote 37

The ‘Advisory Committee on Public Participation in Climate Policy’ published a report which examines the extent to which participation councils could ensure more involvement of Dutch citizens in climate policy.Footnote 38 Based on their research into instruments to increase public participation, they conclude that a citizen forum (a form of participation council) would be suitable for this purpose. This would not only involve citizens more in climate policy, but it could also reduce polarisation in society around this issue, as people with different opinions engage with each other. However, the committee warns, such a forum must meet five conditions:

  1. 1.

    The question must be clearly formulated.

  2. 2.

    The group of participants must be representative.

  3. 3.

    The political foundation must be clear before the process starts.

  4. 4.

    Adequate support must be provided throughout the process.

  5. 5.

    It must be clear what will be done with the proposals the process produces.

These preconditions are also reflected in a collection of essays on national citizens’ forums which describe the potential of these forums as a democratic instrument in the Netherlands.Footnote 39 The authors argue that a citizen forum is not a ‘democratic panacea’, but that with the right design it could complement representative democracy.Footnote 40 A carefully planned participation council can help foster greater support for difficult decisions or settle drawn-out discussions. According to a recent SCP study on public support for citizen forums, the Dutch think that climate change comes second only to housing policy as a suitable topic for a citizen forum.Footnote 41 In June 2023 it was announced that a citizen forum on climate and energy policy will be established.Footnote 42

Finally, it is important to communicate clearly about such forms of public participation, including informing those people who will be represented, though not directly involved. This can help to reassure people that their voices are actually being heard, even if they themselves are not at the table. The Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat and the Grand Débat National in France have special websites for this purpose which provide information about the participants, the process and the topics discussed.

Box 7.4: Amsterdam’s Participation Council

In September 2021, the City of Amsterdam announced its intention to work with its residents to reduce the city’s carbon emissions and meet its climate targets. One hundred Amsterdammers were chosen from a draw to participate in a participation council. Led by former National Ombudsman Alex Brenninkmeijer, the council met five times. The participants were split into different groups and provided with information on the theme.

The aim of the participation council was to come up with concrete proposals on how the municipality could reduce its emissions. A consulting firm was on hand to calculate the impact of the suggested measures on carbon reduction. Twenty-six proposals emerged from the council meetings, including the creation of a new 1000-hectare forest and optionally connecting homes to geothermal energy.Footnote 43

Besides the concrete proposals, the participation council was also able to state their expectations of how the city council would implement them. The city council has indicated it is willing to adopt the proposals provided they are in line with prior agreements.

7.4 In Conclusion: Procedural Justice Is Important

In the previous chapters, we saw various distributive principles at work in the case studies. There is no single right answer to the question of what is the most just distribution in climate policy. It is ultimately up to the political arena to make a choice. This is no easy choice, as no objective or generally accepted criteria exist for determining which principle is preferable in which situation. This is why procedural justice must also be taken into account to ensure that climate policies are developed in the fairest possible way. As research has revealed, if the process is fair, people will be more likely to consider the outcome fair, and so be more likely to support it.

In this chapter, we discussed the premise that the existence of procedural justice is indicative of distributive justice. If all relevant facts, views and opinions have been carefully and properly considered in a proceeding, then we can trust that all relevant intuitions and principles concerning the fairness of the distribution have also been included. So, the fairer the procedure, the more likely the outcome of the distribution will also be fair.

An important part of procedural justice is the inclusion of the public’s perspective. After all, any climate measures may have far-reaching consequences for citizens and businesses. Policymakers behind their desks do not always have an overview of all possible consequences and interests. The introduction of the carbon tax in France is a good example. The policy officials and politicians in Paris were insufficiently aware of the major impact an increase in diesel prices could have on blue-collar workers in rural areas. They only found this out—much to their own detriment and embarrassment—when people took to the streets en masse. The public was finally involved in climate policy through the Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat, but it caused major delays in the implementation of the climate measures. Ensuring public participation at an early stage can lead to broader and more balanced consideration of all relevant interests.

A subsequent important question is how to further institutionalise the public’s perspective in generic climate policy. Is a major national debate always the best way, as in France? Or are there other ways? Research in the field of political science has revealed that large parts of society are actually not all that keen on being asked to participate all the time. It is more important for them to feel that their views and interests are being taken into account. In this chapter, we have shown that there are also ‘light versions’ of procedural justice that can help to understand the views and interests of broad groups of citizens, such as through public consultations. In the next chapter, we set out to demonstrate how this could work by asking the public what they themselves think are just distributions in climate policy.