Website. https://sites.utu.fi/kansalaisraati/
Purpose. To gather the informed views of citizens on the fairness and impact of potential, controversial measures to be included in the new medium-term Climate Change Policy Plan that are perceived to be particularly relevant to citizens (e.g. emission reduction measures concerning housing, mobility and food).
Commissioning. Ministry of the Environment and the Climate Policy Round Table.
Task. Assess the fairness and impact of 14 potential measures to be included in the medium-term Climate Change Policy Plan.
Commitment to respond. The Jury’s statement was presented to the Climate Policy Round Table in May. Otherwise, no official response, but expectation that Jury considerations will be included in climate plan.
Governance. Academics from the University of Turku associated with PALO (Participation in Long-Term Decision Making) and FACTOR (Facing Systemic Change Together) research projects.
Delivery bodies. As above.
Participant recruitment. Members recruited through two-stage civic lottery. First, 8,000 invitations were sent to randomly selected Finnish citizens (N.B. delays due to problems with postal services). From a pool of 174 volunteers, 50 Jury members were selected randomly using following criteria: age, gender, place of residence and level of education. Of those selected, 37 citizens confirmed participation, and 33 took part from the beginning to the end. Paid honorarium of €150.
Duration. The jury met 3 times on 22, 24 and 25 April 2021.
Structure. Consultations and surveys commissioned by Ministry isolated the most controversial climate policy issues that directly affect consumers. Jury asked to consider 14 related policy proposals and produce a statement commenting on each action. The jurors were introduced to the each topic and formulated questions for the experts. The jurors then deliberated in 5 small groups, engaging in an iterative process of drafting text for a declaration on the fairness and impact of each climate action, which was then passed on to next group to review and redraft. Experts commented on draft statements as part of review process. The whole Jury discussed and voted on controversial parts of the statement where consensus was not achieved. Finally, the jury voted to adopt the statement. Structure of the Jury influenced by the Citizens’ Initiative Review format.
Facilitation. Small groups facilitated by two moderators to ensure fairness in participation, completion of tasks and to take notes of discussion. Joint sessions with the whole Jury were guided and recorded by three moderators.
Technology. Zoom, Googledocs.
Evidence base. Evidence provided by representatives of the Ministry of Environment and researchers from universities and research institutes.
Developing recommendations. Jurors drafted recommendations in small groups with active support from note-takers. Recommendations were reviewed, discussed, and redrafted by other groups. Feedback was provided by experts. The statement was agreed in plenary and adopted by majority vote.
Decision-making. Where unanimity was not achieved for particular recommendations, votes were held with simple majority voting. A vote was held on the final full statement – 30 voted for the statement, two cast a blank vote and one was absent. Individual members had the opportunity to express their dissenting opinion on the statement which are available on the project website and published in Annex 1 of the final report.
Final report. A statement authored by the Jury members was published on 25 April. The statement presents the Jury’s assessment of impact and fairness of the proposed measures and proposals for new and supplementary measures. A final report, written by researchers leading the project, was published in August 2021.
Communication. Background material provided to the Jury is available on the website. Recordings of the presentations by experts were available on the website for two weeks. Some media interest, especially from motoring organisations, but not as much as expected as the news cycle was dominated by a government crisis.
Official response. In December 2021, following the publication of the first draft of the Medium-Term Climate Change Policy Plan, the Ministry of Environment gave a brief response to the Jury members in the form of a short video, making reference to parts of the Plan where the Jury’s work was considered. The response was not public, but sent to Jury members only.
Oversight of official response. Members have no role in oversight.
Impact. The Medium-Term Climate Change Policy Plan makes several references to the Jury’s work and quotes the Jury’s statement. For example, in deciding not to increase the tax on fossil fuel the Plan quotes the Jury’s reasoning: “Increasing the taxation of fuels is fair only when the prices and supply of used electric cars are on the same level with vehicles powered by fossil fuels”.
Evaluation. University researchers conducted a survey of participants at the end of the Jury; the results were published in the final report.
Budget. €20K from Ministry of the Environment. Subsidised by PALO and FACTOR research projects.
Further resources. Video of KNOCA’s learning call on Finland’s Citizens’ Jury on Climate Actions
