Argentina’s first climate assembly in Mar del Plata empowered participants, enhanced knowledge, and fostered community-driven solutions to the climate crisis.
Problems and Purpose
Democracia en Red, in partnership with the government of the city of Mar del Plata, implemented Argentina’s first climate assembly from August 13 to 22, 2024. The participants, who were randomly selected to represent the city’s population, worked to generate recommendations on addressing climate change, identifying local challenges, and proposing potential solutions aligned with three pillars of the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). The assembly aimed to strengthen the municipal Climate Action Plan by focusing on three key areas: 1) training, awareness, and communication; 2) the management of urban solid waste, including recycling, composting, and treatment of effluents and discharges; and 3) the prevention and preparedness for emergencies linked to catastrophic climate events.
Background History and Context
The (Re)surgentes project was established as a consortium of civil society organizations from four Latin American countries to promote climate assemblies: Delibera Brasil (Brazil), IDeemos and Extituto de Política Abierta (Colombia), SUR – Instituto del Sur Urbano (Mexico), and Democracia en Red (Argentina). The consortium aimed to organize climate assemblies, each composed of 50 randomly selected participants, in four cities: Bujarú (Pará), between April and May 2024; Buenaventura (Valle del Cauca), in August 2024; Nuevo León (Monterrey), between September and November 2024; and Mar del Plata (Buenos Aires), in August 2024.
The (Re)surgentes project also included a final stage of regional dialogue, open to the general public, called the Intercity Pact. This stage aimed to discuss the guiding principles developed by each assembly with a broader audience. To facilitate participation, a digital platform was created[i], allowing interested citizens to support, comment on, or contribute to each specific principle. The participatory process of the Intercity Pact is still ongoing.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The regional project was supported by the Open Society Foundations (Curato et al., 2024). The consortium organizations also contributed their resources and formed alliances with local governments to implement the assembly in each city.
In Argentina, the Department of Modernization and Strategic Information of the Government of the City of Mar del Plata partnered with the organization Democracia en Red (DER) to implement the climate assembly[ii]. The collaboration between the city government and DER established a division of responsibilities: the former was responsible for sending invitation letters to households to select participants, providing topics, information, and some experts for the training phase, while the latter managed the assembly’s organization, deliberative methodology, and the moderation of the meetings.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
To select the 50 participants, a stratified sample of the city’s population was created using data from the latest Census and the EPH (Permanent Household Survey) along with Sortition Foundation software[iii]. A total of 3,000 invitation letters were sent to households[iv], followed by targeted advertising on social media to reach specific groups and fulfill the sample requirements. As a result, 166 people registered, of whom 55 were selected to form the assembly (including 5 alternates). The final sample was composed as follows:
Gender
Age
Employment Status
Women, younger individuals, and those with higher levels of education were overrepresented. This overrepresentation was further emphasized as the final group of assembly participants consisted of 46 people, of whom 67% were women and 46% were young people.
The participants were given a financial incentive to encourage their attendance at all the sessions.
Methods and Tools Used
The assembly consisted of a series of meetings among the participants, combining training sessions and small group discussions facilitated by a moderator. Seven meetings were organized, each lasting four hours. The first meeting served as a launch event and included an initial general training on climate change and deliberative democracy. During the first week, the next three meetings were divided into two hours of training and two hours of deliberation focused on identifying challenges within one of the key areas. The training sessions featured presentations by experts from both academic and public sectors, particularly from the National University of Mar del Plata, as well as government officials. Participants also received an informational booklet to supplement the training materials. During the second week of the assembly, three meetings were dedicated to developing solutions to the identified challenges. Participants worked in groups of 8 to 9 people, followed by a final session where results were shared. The assembly collectively defined six guiding principles for the Intercity Pact stage, 18 challenges, and 54 solutions, which will be presented to the local government for potential inclusion in the Climate Action Plan. Although the impact of the proposed solutions cannot yet be fully assessed, the deliberation process clearly had a transformative effect on the participants.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The deliberation process was constructive, with moderation playing a crucial role in supporting this dynamic. For example, while some participants in each group initially remained silent and refrained from speaking, the moderation ensured that contributions were more evenly distributed as the deliberations progressed. However, a trade-off of such central moderation is that the moderator becomes the primary recipient of the participants' contributions, rather than the group as a whole. This effect is further amplified by the need to fulfill specific tasks assigned during each meeting.
In terms of discourse, participants employed a wide range of expressions, from sharing information, ideas, and proposals to anecdotes and personal testimonies. Although participants did not possess specialized knowledge by profession, they demonstrated some awareness of climate issues, derived from applying good practices in their daily lives, such as waste separation, composting, avoiding littering in public spaces, and minimizing the use of single-use items. The overall tone of the deliberations was largely consensual. Out of 46 participants, only one disagreed with the discussions and the framing of climate change, and was the only participant who did not have a positive assessment of their experience as an assembly member.
Among the participants, a sense of belonging was fostered, which persisted even after the meetings concluded. Conversations in the WhatsApp group became a platform for the emergence of voluntary collaborative initiatives, such as beach clean-ups.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
If we look at the results from the survey conducted with participants before and after the assembly, we can see that key features of high-quality deliberative processes were present: the opportunity to change one's opinion, learning about the topics discussed, and citizen empowerment (Habermas, 1998; Cohen, 2007; Fishkin, 1997; Blondiaux, 2013; Girard and Le Goff, 2010).
One of the first aspects to highlight is the learning about the topic that was the focus of the deliberation: climate change. This type of learning in citizens’ assemblies or mini-publics can be attributed to exchanges with others, but also to the training process, which constitutes an important part of the meetings. Indeed, participants gained greater knowledge of the evidence and causes of climate change during the process, as well as a clearer understanding of the problem. When, after participating in the assembly, they were asked about their level of knowledge regarding the causes and consequences of climate change, 76% responded “some” and “quite a bit”, while no one answered “nothing” or “a lot”, revealing that the participants largely acquired new knowledge and an awareness of the complexity of the phenomenon, as well as the effort required for a thorough understanding.
The assembly also produced a clearer definition of the phenomenon of climate change and reduced the effects of misinformation among participants. While 87% already understood before the assembly that climate change “is a gradual increase in global temperature caused by human activities”, this percentage rose to 91% by the end of the deliberative process.
When examining participants’ views on the relevance of the climate crisis to their daily lives before and after the assembly meetings, it becomes clear that the training and deliberation significantly increased awareness of an issue often perceived as distant. Before the meetings, 63% of participants considered it highly or very highly relevant, a figure that rose to 89% afterward.
Similarly, there was an increase in the perception of the risks associated with climate change, both in the present and within the next ten years.
The deliberation also led participants to a greater awareness of the challenges in their territory, resulting in a stronger sense of commitment to the city’s issues. 90% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “I feel more committed to the city’s issues”.
On the other hand, participants felt recognized, which is reflected in the fact that they perceived they could make their voices heard and did not face significant barriers to participation. In fact, a clear majority responded “a lot” to the question: “To what extent would you say that by participating in the discussions you were able to express your own ideas?”
The vast majority did not encounter barriers to fully participating in the discussion.
Another notable effect on the participants was reflexivity, that is, the ability to change one’s opinion. In fact, a large majority of participants stated that the deliberation transformed their initial ideas “quite a bit” or “a lot”.
The most valued aspect of the experience was the opportunity to exchange ideas with others, even more so than the knowledge gained or the feeling of being heard.
A third effect on the participants was empowerment. For most assembly members, taking part in the assembly was their first experience engaging in discussions or plans addressing local issues, as well as their first involvement in activities related to the climate crisis. Most importantly, the participants stated that they left the assembly feeling better prepared to lead and participate in actions related to the climate crisis.
One of the most interesting outcomes of the Mar del Plata climate assembly is the participants’ perception of the role of ordinary citizens in politics after undergoing the deliberative process.
Concerning the outputs, the assembly produced 54 “solutions” or recommendations based on the identification of 18 challenges, among which the following stand out: incorporating ecological education at all educational levels; establishing collection points for plastics and other waste with economic incentives; creating municipal recycling companies to formalize the existing work of urban recyclers; developing a tax framework to reduce single-use plastics and promote biodegradable materials; reforesting urban spaces and creating green roofs, natural squares, and water features; promoting citizen participation in conservation and reforestation projects; and designing contingency plans for catastrophic events, such as fires and climate crises.
Although the impact of these recommendations on public policies is yet to be assessed, the government of the city of Mar del Plata has committed to reviewing them for incorporation into the municipal Climate Action Plan
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Among the lessons learned, it is important to note that the recruitment process was more challenging than initially anticipated, particularly due to the significant financial and time costs involved in sending letters to households. This process can take several months, so it is essential to consider the time commitment required. Based on participants’ feedback, another lesson learned is that it may be necessary to reduce the number of talks by government officials and increase those by experts, further diversifying their backgrounds. Since this was a first-time experience and given the limited resources available to a local government in Argentina, the training phase was heavily focused on government officials and experts from the National University of Mar del Plata. Finally, it is worth mentioning that increased media coverage could have amplified the effects on the public, beyond the selected participants, and would have placed additional pressure on authorities to maintain their commitment to incorporating the recommendations into the action plan.
The review of responses from participants in the Mar del Plata Climate Assembly demonstrated that deliberation matters and leaves a lasting impression on participants. The exchange of opinions and arguments had at least three positive effects: an increase in knowledge about the issue discussed, the opportunity to engage with different perspectives and change their own opinions, and empowerment to take part in actions and decisions on shared issues.
According to the OECD's deliberative processes database (OECD, 2020, 2023), climate assemblies are currently the most widespread form of deliberation, having grown so significantly in recent years that environmental topics have become dominant in the set of deliberative processes. Climate assemblies could be considered the 'crest' of the 'deliberative wave' (Smith, 2024). Citizens' assemblies appear to have a natural affinity with topics that require consideration of the future and the rights of future generations, likely because such issues are better addressed through deliberation on common problems and long-term challenges (Cohen, 2007). Moreover, they have been recognized as an excellent tool for addressing challenges that representative democracy—often focused on the short-term—has struggled to resolve (Giraudet, Apouey, Arab et al., 2022; Smith, 2024). However, the vast majority of climate assemblies have been held in the Global North (Curato, Smith, and Willis, 2024). In Latin America, Brazil has been one of the pioneering countries in implementing local climate assemblies, such as those in Francisco Morato, Salvador, and Toritama (Cervellini et al., 2024).
The implementation of the first climate assembly in Argentina is thus very promising. To the extent that deliberation in such spaces helps combat polarization and misinformation (Bächtiger & Dryzek, 2024), these initiatives should be scaled up in Argentina and receive media attention to reach a broader audience. In contexts of growing distrust toward politicians, citizens’ assemblies can be a good way to renew politics creatively: instead of relying on outsider leaders who concentrate power once again, an alternative is to create spaces where more ordinary people can influence decisions. Finally, the climate crisis requires thinking of innovative solutions that are grounded in a sense of community, and citizens’ assemblies can precisely contribute in these ways. This assembly and the (Re)surgentes projects not only set a precedent for Argentina but also serve as an inspiring model for other democratic contexts in the Global South.
See Also
References
Bächtiger, A. & Dryzek, J. (2024). Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times Confronting Populism, Extremism, Denial, and Authoritarianism, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009261845.
Blondiaux, L. (2013). El nuevo espíritu de la democracia. Actualidad de la democracia participativa, Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Cervellini, S., Adams, K., Rodrigues, M. & Sendretti, L. (2024). “Citizens’ assemblies in Brazil: an analysis of the role of mini-publics on building democratic participatory climate public policies”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2024.2369907
Cohen, J. (2007). “Deliberación y legitimidad democrática”, Cuaderno Gris, N° 9.
Curato, N., Smith, G. & Willis, R. (2024). Deliberative Democracy and Climate Change: Exploring the Potential of Climate Assemblies in the Global South. Strömsborg International IDEA. https://doi.org/10.31752/idea.2024.34
Fishkin, J. (1997). The voice of the people. Public opinion & democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven, Londres.
Girard, Charles & Le Goff, Alice (2010): La démocratie délibérative. Anthologie de extes fondamentaux, Paris: Hermann.
Giraudet, LG., Apouey, B., Arab, H. et al. (2022). “’Co-construction’ in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 207. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01212-6
Habermas, J. (1998). Facticidad y validez, Madrid: Trotta.
OECD (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
OECD (2023). OECD Deliberative Democracy Database: https://airtable.com/appP4czQlAU1My2M3/shrX048tmQLl8yzdc/tblrttW98WGpdnX3Y/viwX5ZutDDGdDMEep
Smith, G. (2024). We Need To Talk About Climate: How Citizens’ Assemblies Can Help Us Solve The Climate Crisis, University of Westminster Press.
[i] https://pacto.resurgentes.org/
[ii] They had already collaborated on the implementation of the city’s Digital Participatory Budgeting: https://participa.mardelplata.gob.ar/.
[iii] The reference population data were as follows: 1. Gender: 48% male and 52% female; 2. Employment status: 62.53% employed, 4.75% unemployed, and 32.72% inactive; 3. Educational level: 35.69% primary education, 37.31% secondary education, 26.04% higher education, and 0.96% postgraduate; 4. Age: 24% aged 18-29 years, 34% aged 30-49 years, 28% aged 50-69 years, and 14% aged 70 or older.
[iv] The invitations were sent personalized with the recipient's name and surname, delivered directly to their doorstep by a courier.
