Three climate citizens’ assemblies, three different ways of implementing them. The experiences of South Tyrol, Austria, and Trento were compared during a roundtable discussion. Federica Cittadino, a legal scholar specializing in environmental law, moderated the discussion and shares what emerged. 

Credit: Eurac Research | Annelie Bortolotti

From a legal perspective, why are climate assemblies important? 

Citizens’ assemblies are an important tool of participatory democracy. They were created to overcome the limitations of representative democracy and to address declining levels of trust in democratic institutions and governments. These assemblies do not replace representative democracy but complement it, giving a voice to people who are typically excluded from decision-making processes. In the context of climate change, it is especially evident that the ecological transition cannot happen without public support. 

Often, citizens set more ambitious goals than policymakers. Was this the case in the three experiences you analyzed?

In Bolzano, the Citizens’ Climate Council proposed some new and more ambitious measures than those included in the Climate Plan, such as slightly higher targets in certain sectors or new indicators, like measuring the use of private cars by tourists. 

In Trento, the citizens’ assembly was conceived as a simulation. Its purpose was not so much to contribute to decision-making but to test the concept of a citizens’ assembly itself. 

In Austria, the assembly was given a broader mandate, without a specific document to discuss. This makes it difficult to determine whether the recommendations were more or less ambitious. 

Beyond these three specific cases, this is indeed an important point. Studies suggest that citizens are less influenced by the pressures politicians face and can therefore make bolder decisions. Extinction Rebellion, a movement whose protests inspired the Trento simulation, also supports this idea. For instance, in Austria, the names of the members of the Klimarat (Climate Council) were not publicly disclosed to avoid external influences. 

In Bolzano, the assembly was tasked with analyzing a pre-prepared document. How did this differ from the other two cases? 

Although it can be challenging for non-experts to assess technical documents, one of the assembly’s goals was to inform the public and involve them in decision-making. These processes include a training phase, which prepares participants for deliberation. In Trento, for instance, out of three days of assembly, two were dedicated to discussions with experts and municipal officers. This interaction was highlighted as an added value, as participants realized that officers do not operate in isolation and initiated a dialogue with them. 

 
Do the decisions made by citizens have any binding effect on political actors? 

This type of initiative is never binding. By definition, it is a democratic experimentation that complements representative democracy. Decision-making bodies are not obligated to adopt the recommendations. For example, in South Tyrol, while the provincial government is not lawfully obligated to respond to the report produced by the Citizens’ Climate Council, the government decided to carry out a response phase, where it will evaluate the Council’s proposal. In general, feedback is considered crucial to these deliberative processes and should be agreed upon with the relevant authorities before the participatory process begins. This point was discussed during the roundtable meeting regarding the Austrian case. There, despite the initiative being promoted from the top, it lacked political support from the outset. The Klimarat produced a lengthy report, and the competent ministry provided feedback, but there was no parliamentary session where the recommendations were presented. 

If the recommendations are not binding, how can the effectiveness of citizens’ assemblies be evaluated?

It’s important to note that citizens’ assemblies in the field of climate are a very recent phenomenon. The first climate citizens’ assemblies in Europe date back to 2019. A network of experts exist – Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies , better known as KNOCA – which specifically evaluates such experiences, and in its 2024 report it states that assessing their effectiveness is not straightforward. In some cases, there has been a legislative impact, such as in the French National Assembly or the Irish Assembly, but this is not the only factor to consider. The commitment and enthusiasm of participants are also key.

Moreover, these assemblies raise awareness, increase media attention, and foster public debate, reducing polarization. The report suggests greater institutionalization: assemblies convened ad hoc to address specific topics should be transformed into permanent bodies that meet annually and update their recommendations based on ongoing developments. This has been done in Milan, while the South Tyrol Provincial Council is considering a similar approach. 

What other topics could citizens’ assemblies address or what other forms of citizens’ participation are there? 

Citizens’ assemblies can certainly be extended to other areas, as they were originally designed for other purposes. Another well-known example of citizens’ participation in public decision-making, although of a different nature, is the participatory budgeting process in Porto Alegre, Brazil, which began in the late 1980s and continued for several years. In France, public debates on major infrastructure projects are deeply embedded in the system, and a similar approach has recently been introduced in Italy. Beyond specific topics and legal framing, the goal of these initiatives is to strengthen democracy.

What lessons have the three analyzed experiences taught us? What worked well, and what could be improved? 

Timelines should be extended, though this must account for participants’ availability and the level of commitment required. In general, participants appreciated the learning process and the strengthened collaboration with officials. Another positive aspect is the reinforcement of democracy and the increased engagement of citizens. 

In a climate of widespread mistrust toward democracy, this is a significant achievement. As highlighted during the roundtable discussion, we should focus less on the effectiveness of proposed measures and more on the effectiveness of the process itself. This process should be seen as a continuous cycle of learning and deliberation. Louisa Parks from the University of Trento pointed out during the roundtable that, just as the climate crisis is not a finite event that can be resolved with one-time measures, decision-making processes are ongoing cycles. These participatory experiences are part of this cycle, continually renewing themselves. 

1/6

2/6

3/6

4/6

5/6

6/6

The Citizens' Climate Council of South Tyrol was the first citizens' council at the provincial level. Between January and June 2024, a random sample of 56 citizens spent six days working on proposals for the Provincial Government’s South Tyrol Climate Plan 2040. The final report was presented to the Provincial Council in December. The Citizens' Climate Council was supported by an advisory committee of experts, led by Climate Scientist Marc Zebisch. 

Credit: Eurac Research | Tiberio Sorvillo

Marc Zebisch, from the perspective of a climate scientist, why are citizens’ climate councils important?  

First and foremost, it’s about incorporating people’s real-life experiences and understanding them: are the proposed measures practical? Would they work better in another way? But there’s also another very important aspect. When it comes to climate neutrality, the question always arises: how far do we dare to go? The Province of Bolzano has proposed a Climate Plan that leaves room for more ambitious measures, likely out of concern of overburdening the population. Interestingly, the public showed more courage and developed proposals that go beyond those measures outlined in the Climate Plan. This sends a very important signal to policymakers: you can trust the people, even if they are asking for excessive action to protect the climate. 

For example?

Let’s take agriculture, for instance. The Climate Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this sector by 10% by 2030, but the Citizens' Council called for a 20% reduction. By 2040, the Climate Plan sets a 40% reduction target, but the citizens proposed a 50% reduction. However, achieving this goal is only possible if the number of dairy cattle is reduced. The Citizens' Council introduced a new goal: reducing livestock. This was not included in the original plan. 

Were you surprised by the extent of these demands?  

In this case, I was indeed surprised. Overall, I was particularly impressed by the quality of the group's work. The Climate Council met five times, including two full weekends, and the groups analyzed issues point by point under the guidance of moderators, gaining knowledge, forming opinions, and voting. 

This is what makes this process so unique: it’s not just about choosing between alternatives; participants genuinely develop new proposals. It’s also impressive that the vast majority of measures were developed by consensus, demonstrating that this is a working process, not just a forum where everyone voices their opinion. 

Did the public ever find the Climate Plan’s measures too strict?  

No. It’s important to understand that the Climate Plan distinguishes between goals and measures, and it’s quite evident in almost all sectors that the measures are not fully sufficient to meet the goals. Naturally, the citizens realized this during the process—we experts cannot lie about it. 

What exactly was the role of the advisory committee? 

We stayed on the second floor. For each thematic block, such as agriculture, mobility, or energy, we gave a short presentation providing input: what the Climate Plan includes, what else could be done, and what’s happening in neighboring regions and countries. We also explained basic interconnections, such as in agriculture: why cows produce methane and what effect methane has on the climate. 

Everything else happened through a Q&A process, primarily via email. In other words, the working groups sent questions to the respective experts, and the experts responded. This way, the citizens could obtain all the information they needed, but we didn’t participate in the discussions. 

Was it challenging to convey technical knowledge to non-experts who usually deal with other matters?  

As soon as you delve into measures, the discussion quickly becomes very practical; after all, it all happens in people’s daily lives: heating, mobility, consumption. To judge what solutions are possible and what goals can be achieved, you don’t need the latest scientific findings, but rather a deep familiarity with South Tyrolean realities in the respective sector. For this reason, the advisory committee also included experts from the administration. Their input was very valuable, as was the involvement of representatives from associations or the private sector. 

Did dialogue with the public enrich you as a scientist? 

Definitely. When it comes to implementing ideas, we scientists sometimes have gaps, but when you exchange ideas, you find solutions together. Above all, in a process like this, there are always crucial evaluations to be made, and it’s good that the public conducts these evaluations—it’s not a matter of science. Let’s stick with agriculture as an example. Here, for instance, we might take a position: we don’t want to overturn the livestock and dairy production system but aim to reduce its emissions, for example, through biogas plants. The other extreme would be to completely abandon livestock farming because it’s unsustainable. Scientists can only calculate the respective emission scenarios but deciding what to impose on the land and those who work it is not a scientific matter—it’s up to the people. 

What are the priorities of South Tyrolean citizens for climate protection? 

The picture aligns with survey results: key topics include mobility, healthy and regional food, unspoiled nature and landscapes, and sustainable tourism. Climate neutrality probably wouldn’t top the list; for people, the priorities are reducing tourism and improving local public transport. However, by acting in these areas, you ultimately achieve effects on climate neutrality. Housing is a bit more complicated: people want affordable homes, and low-emission housing is not a priority. 

Is there a risk that the numerous proposals from the Climate Council will have limited impact? 

The fact that the document was presented to the Provincial Council and not delivered silently is a positive step, and politicians have promised to genuinely address all these measures and proposed responses point by point. Of course, it may happen that the province quickly concludes that some points are not realistically feasible in the short term. But the proposals must be addressed, and I hope some measures will be reviewed again and that politicians will take the results of the Climate Council as an incentive, concluding that the measures outlined so far are insufficient to meet the established goals. 

What do you think of this experience?  

To be honest, I was a bit skeptical at first, but now I must say it was impressive to see the results that the public can produce when they are really engaged. It was an exciting process and undoubtedly very valuable, though also time and resource intensive. I also believe it needs to be this complex to work. Therefore, it’s necessary to evaluate which topics warrant using such a tool, as it won’t be possible to implement it for everything.