Problems and Purpose

Camden Council’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change was established in response to calls for greater action on climate change and to the council's need to renew its 10-year sustainability plan.[1] The Citizens’ Assembly (CA) sought to ensure a diversity of public voices were heard on the topic. It aimed to address the following question:

“We are now facing a climate and ecological crisis. How can the council and the people of Camden help limit the impact of climate change while protecting and enhancing our natural environment? – What do we need to do in our homes, neighborhoods, council and country?”[2]

Background History and Context

Camden Council has a strong culture of resident engagement and a history of using deliberative democracy. The decision to hold the climate assembly came from Leader of the Council, Cllr Georgia Gould (a long-time advocate of CAs) and Cllr Adam Harrison, Cabinet Member for Sustainability. Harrison began the process of declaring a climate emergency and instigating the assembly and forming the core project team. 

The assembly itself was only part of the overall process, which included wider engagement with the public together with a translation and feedback stage. Commencing in July 2019, it was the first such Climate Assembly to take place. Involve were commissioned to advise in designing and delivering the CA.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The process was commissioned by Camden Council, who were also responsible for recruitment (Camden Council's Community Researchers) and some of the facilitation of the assembly (Camden Council Staff). Public participation specialists involve and The Democratic Society were partner organizations responsible for design and delivery of the assembly.

In addition, the process was supported by an Independent Advisory Board that oversaw content and delivery. Members of the board were Richard Jackson (University of Central London), Dr Joanna MacRae (Climate Emergency Camden), and Duncan Price (BuroHappold). Assembly speakers and external facilitators from The Democratic Society also played key roles.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The participants were recruited by the Council’s Camden Community Researchers through door-to-door and on-street recruitment. 157 residents were initially recruited, with 55 selected through a process of random stratified sampling to be representative of Camden’s demographic profile. 55 members attended the first meeting, with 49 attending all three meetings. Assembly members were given £150 voucher as an incentive and in appreciation of their involvement. An onsite crèche was provided for assembly members with children, and translators were provided for participants not fluent in English.

Methods and Tools Used

The assembly took part over three sessions and relied primarily on the following tools and techniques: icebreakers, expert speaker panels, facilitated table discussions, and a Q and A session. Expert speakers rotated tables, speaking with assembly members and answering questions. Participants also noted questions on postcards. [1]

The final session focused on assembly members developing, prioritizing, and agreeing on actions to be taken in the home neighborhood and council. This was followed by three rounds of voting that produced 17 recommendations (from over 200 initial ideas). 

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The assembly consisted of two three-hour evening sessions and a six-hour day of discussion and voting focused on producing recommendations. The sessions are outlined below. 

Session 1: Climate Change and Camden: Members were provided with key background information on climate science, the current situation in Camden, and future possible scenarios. 

Session 2: Pathways to the Future: The second session focused on actions that could be taken in the home, neighborhood and council. This categorization of actions would become the structure of the CAs recommendations. 

Session 3: Action Planning: The final session included a process of filtering and decision-making in which 200 ideas were filtered to the strongest 18. This was achieved by splitting the assembly into nine tables and engaging in three rounds of filtering. In the first round, members were divided into nine tables, each assigned one of the three levels. Ideas were sorted into: 

• Green: a great idea to be progressed
• Amber: an interesting idea that needs development
• Red: an idea not worth pursuing

The second and third rounds involved filtering the strongest ideas, with groups alternating tables to examine and determine whether they agreed with the assessments of the other groups. Once the best 12 to 15 ideas for each level had been identified, each participant was given three sticky dots to cast their vote for the best. The six that received the most votes for each level would proceed to the next stage to be worked up in more detail.

The 17 actions received a clear majority of support, with none receiving less than 75% agreement and the majority receiving more than 90%. The recommendations are presented below.

Home

• Encouraging low-carbon dietary choices
• Making all new homes “zero carbon”
• Creating more green space on residential streets
• Fitting solar panels on as many homes as possible
•  Campaigning to make CO2 reduction fun

Neighbourhood

• Planting more trees and creating more allotments
• Piloting a community energy heating scheme
• Installing more “segregated” cycle lanes
• Promoting and trialing car free zones and days
• Enabling electric transport with infrastructure and incentives
• Developers to fund energy efficiency retrofits of old buildings

Council

• Climate Emergency scrutiny panel
• All council properties to be fossil-fuel free
• Planting trees and retaining public spaces
• Council communications on the climate crisis
• Mobilizing existing community groups
• Greening the Council’s operations

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Impact on Policy 

All recommendations were endorsed and accepted in full by the Council. The Council set up a “Pop Up Think and Do” space for climate and eco-action, described as a direct response of the Citizens’ Assembly on the Climate Crisis. This space aims to give citizens the chance to take part in, run, and develop activities related to the climate crisis. The recommendations have also fed into Camden’s Climate Action Plan 2020-2025 (available here). The Action Plan includes a dedicated section on the assembly, and refers to it heavily throughout (a total of 29 times). It has also been featured heavily in subsequent communications. One person involved in the process described the event as giving the council a focus and felt that it had a significant impact on the decisions being made.

Although these are positive signs, there are difficulties in establishing the impact of the assembly on policy. One person involved described how it is always difficult to tell its impact, and they didn’t know the extent to which the proposals were or were not things that were being considered in some shape or form at the time. Another participant described how the 17 proposals were slotted into the work stream of the council, which made it more difficult to see what had been included and what had taken out (i.e recommendations relating to the home, the neighborhood and the council, were translated into commitments relating to people, places, buildings, and organizations). They highlighted the fact that the assembly had recommended a panel of citizens and experts to scrutinize the work of the council, but felt this had been watered down in a response that described citizens getting together on their own, without the direct accountability or relationship with the council. This concern was highlighted with the council and acknowledged, and the participant commented that they were happy to discover that the action plan included details of all recommendations, as they were concerned the council might remove recommendations they found challenging. 

Impact on Council

The council was described as already heavily engaged and interested in both participatory engagement and addressing climate change. Those involved in the process described how it generated a huge amount of energy and interest in the council, with the outcomes such as the Think and Do pop up being viewed very positively by those at the council. From the council’s literature and conversations with people involved in the process, the assembly was something that they are very proud of, and has been valuable in their view in legitimizing their work and providing a mandate for action. One interviewee pointed out how the council would regularly appeal to the results of the assembly when discussing decisions (giving the example of decisions over bike lanes), indicating the value placed on the event.

The council are already engaged in other deliberative engagement processes on Health and Social Care, and those involved in the process described the council’s interest in going beyond climate assemblies, doing further engagement work and experimenting with a variety of models. It was felt to be most useful for addressing topics that involved trade-offs and balancing different values. The one qualification that was raised in relation to this was the issue of cost, particularly in light of Covid-19, and the need to ensure spending was well targeted. 

Impact on Participants

It should be noted that there was concern, due to the recruitment process, that the participants would be more likely to be interested in the issue of climate change than the average citizen. There is anecdotal evidence that the assembly had an impact on participants; one interviewee described two participants who started engaging more broadly in political activity, attending council meetings and other events. Another interviewee described their experience as a participant, describing how they felt incredibly positive after the experience, uplifted that the council were engaged in this issue, and it mobilized them to engage in more climate activism—specifically, they felt it encouraged them to see the opportunities for activism at a local level (rather than national) and the event allowed them to enter a network of activist groups aimed at addressing climate change. As this person became more involved, they described how they became more aware of the limits of the process and began to feel more frustrated, given the energy and knowledge in Camden, that too much was being left to the work of volunteers and Camden Council wasn't making the issue as much of a priority as they should. They noted that this was not their impression at all coming out of the process. 

One interview observed that participants seemed generally happy, although there were concerns on the issue of time. This is something they described as consistent with many other citizen assembly processes, that they never feel long enough, yet given the particular time constraints of this process, this was particularly marked. They found that generally people come out of these processes very engaged and feel like they were a great idea. They noted that a few members who presented recommendations to the council had since become more heavily engaged. 

Impact on Wider Area

Media Coverage

Camden’s Climate Assembly was referenced in 10 articles for the media, including three articles in the national paper, The Guardian, and four articles in Hampstead and Highgate Express. These articles included interviews with participants and reflections on the wider implications of the work for rejuvenating democratic engagement and addressing climate change. 

There was a general consensus among those interviewed that Camden Council were effective in getting good media coverage; one observed that people still refer to it although qualified this by observing the limited reach of such media coverage. They suggest this was attributable in part to the efforts of the council, the location of the council (journalists based in London might be less willing to travel to other areas), and the attendance of the local MP, Keir Starmer. 

Citizens

The climate assembly formed part of a wider process of citizen engagement, crowdsourcing ideas that fed into the process itself. In spite of the noted success in generating media coverage and efforts of the council and local MPs, those involved in the event were not necessarily sure that the event had cut through into wider public consciousness. Experience from other assemblies and deliberative engagement methods would suggest that this is a particularly challenging issue without a clear solution. The pop-up workshop was seen as a particularly positive step in the direction of wider engagement in this case. 

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Although the process was described as the first CA on climate change to be run by a local authority in the UK, due to the lack of time devoted to the process (12 hours in total), under the standards evolving for Citizens Assemblies[3], this would now not likely be considered a CA. Additionally, there were concerns around the impartiality and independence of the CA given the involvement of Camden staff at various stages of the planning and delivery of the project. For example, these concerns were raised publicly by Extinction Rebellion.

An evaluation of the CA was conducted by the University of Central London. They gathered information through interviews, surveys, document review, and observation. [2] The key findings of the evaluation are reproduced below:

Planning and Implementation

What worked well

• Strong leadership and advocacy for CA from senior stakeholders to instigate the project
• Cross departmental working within Camden enabled a range of staff to “buy-in” to the project
•  Involvement of Camden Staff in the process (as facilitators) built capacity and had a positive impact on their motivation
• Responding to and maintaining an open dialogue with criticism and negative feedback built constructive relationships and changed attitudes to the assembly

What didn’t work well

• Involvement of Camden staff raised concerns about impartiality and independence
• The advisory group was rather small and limited in its engagement.

Recommendations for future 

• Be open and transparent about the role of the council within any participatory process, including how and why the format, purpose, and rule of engagement have been determined.

Content

What worked well?

• The content mapped onto the three clear steps of a citizens’ assembly: learning, deliberation, and decision-making. 
• Assembly members left inspired and informed.

 What didn’t work so well? 

• The technical complexity and sheer breadth of information encompassed by the ‘climate crisis’ created barriers for some participants’ engagement. 
• Lack of contextual or supporting information made it difficult for assembly members and facilitators to assess ideas accurately. 
• Lack of guidance on how participants should prioritize ideas (e.g. cost effectiveness, feasibility, etc.) led to a tendency to favor the least technical or more clearly articulated ideas. 
• Lack of information provided on Camden’s existing policies and practices, in relation to the climate crisis and the solutions discussed, led to a number of ‘new’ ideas which are already part of Camden’s work. 
• The categorization and grouping of ideas (i.e. home, neighborhood and council) led to ideas being repeated, exposed gaps (i.e. businesses), and did not map onto Camden’s work streams. 

Recommendations for the future 

• Provide enough information for effective participation, recognizing that participants will come from a range of starting points. 
• Provide background information on the council’s existing activity, resources, and scope. 
• Provide guidance to support participant contributions, e.g. a shared language and format to propose ideas. 
• Establish shared principles to inform decision-making, perhaps via a value-setting activity.

Structure and Timing 

 What worked well? 

• Limited drop out from participants over the three sessions
• Creation of a positive atmosphere within the sessions, particularly as the assembly drew to a close
• From the participants’ perspective, the facilitation of the assembly process was very positive. 

What didn’t work so well? 

• Limited amount of time for the whole citizens’ assembly was generally a barrier in the delivery of the planned activities and for properly engaging with such a complex topic. 
• Within the final session, there was a constant sense of time pressure (combined with the lack of context and guidance provided for the prioritization activities, as discussed earlier), which compromised the effectiveness and potentially the outcomes of the assembly as a result.

Recommendations for the future 

• A longer period of planning and implementation would allow for a more considered process and sophisticated session design. 
• Clearer guidance for facilitators, including time to talk through technical information and possible discussions. 

Managing Expectations

 What worked well? 

• Camden Council now have a clearer understanding of the areas of climate policy which residents feel strongly about.
• The council acted on feedback about the first session feeling passive and introduced the ‘Green Space’ for ideas in the second session. 

What didn’t work so well? 

• The deliberative purpose of a citizens’ assembly was not fully explained to participants. 
• The disjointed nature between idea generation and prioritization, contributed to confusion around assembly members’ role as distinct from those who had been part of the wider engagement. 
• Clarity on the overall aims of the citizens’ assembly. 

Recommendations for the Future


• Do not start planning engagement exercises by deciding on the method, but by clarifying intentions and rationale for engagement, then selecting an appropriate approach. 
• Clearly explain the purposes and scope of engagement i.e. developing ideas, or deliberation and decision making, to all those involved. 

Participation and agency

 What worked well? 

• Supporting access to the assembly through transport assistance, crèche, interpreters for those who needed them, and reimbursement via vouchers. 
• The diversity of assembly members compared to previous similar exercises 
• The role played by community researchers in recruitment and continued participant support throughout the assembly process
• The strong positive engagement of participants, especially during the final session

 What didn’t work so well? 

• Not enough attention given to the imbalance of knowledge, confidence and therefore power in the room
• The lack of diversity in the speakers chosen to present
• Limited engagement of Camden residents who were not part of the assembly
• Holding the assembly during the summer holidays negatively affected recruitment. 

 Suggestions for future participation and engagement activities 

• Where possible, consider timing in relation to how it will enable participation, rather than council timelines. 
• Consider how speakers are selected and prepared. 
• Provide resources and ensure sufficient time is built in to supporting assembly participants to contribute on a more equal footing. 
• Extend the wider consultation activities to reach more residents.

Engagement to action

What worked well? 

• Camden’s commitment to keep participants involved and be open about what happens next, to continue a sense of ownership and connection
• Camden’s acknowledgement of the importance of communication and engagement around the climate and their activity, and responding to this with creation of new posts with responsibility for community engagement and involvement

What didn’t work so well? 

• Transparency around the translation of ideas into work-streams
• Attendance at the follow-up session was low.
• Ideas from the assembly needed to be reformulated due to participants’ lack of awareness of Camden’s existing activities, and the lack of time to consider issues around feasibility and impact. 

 Recommendations for the future

• Decide on next steps and how participants’ involvement will be maintained before the assembly actually takes place, and communicate this clearly. 
• Develop shared principles or criteria to guide how the council take ideas and recommendations forward. 

See Also

Camden Council

Camden Health and Care Citizens' Assembly

References

[1] “Camden Citizens’ Assembly On The Climate Crisis: Recommendations for tackling the climate crisis in Camden”, Involve, September 2019. https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/0/Camden+Citizens...

[2] Cain, L and Moore, G (2019) “Evaluation of Camden Council’s Citizens’ Assembly on the Climate Crisis”, UCL, December 2019. https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/0/FINAL+UCL+Evaluation...

[3] Hughes, T. (2019). When is a Citizens' Assembly not a Citizens' Assembly? - Towards Some Standards. Retrieved from https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/blog/news/when-citizens-assembly-not-citizens-assembly-towards-some-standards

External Links

Pop Up Think and Do

Notes