Why the Aarhus Convention Matters

Aarhus Convention The author of this report has been asked to answer two distinct questions. Both of the questions pertain to the Aarhus Convention. The first asks the author of this response to answer to what precisely the Aarhus Convention and why it is important to citizens. The second asks the author to answer to what the Turkish Government's response is to the same.

The Aarhus Convention is actually a two-pronged item that focuses on two very important things, those being climate change and the public's access to information about the same. While reasonable people can disagree about climate change and how important it is, the government's behavior when it comes to revealing information about the subject and the behavior of the voting public in general when it comes to holding the governments of our world accountable is rather stirring and disturbing.

Analysis As stated on the Transparency International handout that the author of this response became privy to, the main desired outcome of the Aarhus Convention is to ensure that the public has a deciding voice and a palpable amount of participation when it comes to climate governance. The ostensible reason for a focus on this matter is two-fold. First, the subject of climate change has been at the top of many people's proverbial lists when it comes to global challenges.

While others focus on things like economics or terrorism, there are others that think that climate change and the associated governance are the main issue to be dealt with. The second aspect that is focused on by many is the fact that voter participation is edging lower and lower, as described in the TED video conducted by Alessandra Orofino (Orofino, 2016). The outlook is not entirely bleak.

For example, there was a strong contingent of people, both regular workers and businesspeople alike, that rallied against the construction of coal plants in Texas (YouTube, 2016). Indeed, those two examples as well as the work of Arnstein prove that there are varying levels of participation when it comes to the citizenry. Arnstein asserted that there were eight levels. In order, those levels are manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control.

The lower third of the ladder is non-participation, the middle third is tokenism and the upper third is when citizens wield and use their power (Arnstein, 2016). The big concern is that governments are making decisions about climate change governance and that the populace is just along for the ride instead of being an active participant in what happens, what does not happen and why.

Even worse, the public that does want access to statement transcripts, events at government conferences and so forth are not able to do so even if they wanted to. Even when states are required to report what they are doing, this information being fed to the public only occurs as a hodgepodge a lot of the time rather than being something that is openly revealed and discussed with everyone. Transparency International sees this as an affront to the will and the rights of the people.

They offer a number of suggestions including defining transparency and what is required to meet the standards thereof, the providing of clear and accessible information when it comes to climate policy, the elaboration of international standards, the inclusion of details of national communications and the conducting of active outreach when it comes to the affected communities.

It is asserted that the United Nations should upload all draft resolutions for public viewing, should develop more accessible online resources, should formalize the good practice established at prior events and continue to liaise with civil society.

As for civil society, it is asserted that there should be advocacy for provisions that formally provide for effective representation of stakeholders, continuing to advocate for a meaningful role in civil society, advocacy at an international level for changes to current working methods or finance bodies, the tracking of lobbying activities of vested interests to prevent undue influence and the sharing of best practices when it comes to climate and/or environmental policy and beyond (Transparency International, 2016).

As for the Turkish reaction to the Aarhus Convention, the reaction has been rather hostile. There have been some rather major protests including one in 2013 that occurred in Gezi Park. Rather than encourage a dialog or a discussion, the Turkish government has reacted by trying to suppress the voice of the people. Indeed, the Gezi Park protest mostly centered on plans to cut down some trees for a new construction project. Rather than allow free expression of the people, police actively combatted and confronted the protestors.

There were a number of people wounded and a lot more that were arrested. Turkish officials took things further and issued a number of degrees including restrictions on sales of alcohol, banning of demonstrations in Taksim Square, educational reforms and the changing of a name of a bridge over the Bosphorus. It is noted that Commissioner Fule was quick to respond whereas the European Union External Action Service (EEAS) did not give a timely response (Gruene-Europa, 2016).

Conclusion The author of this report does see a lot of merit in getting people more involved and more engaged. For countries like Turkey and others that would engage in anti-speech and anti-freedom actions.