Aarhus Convention: Public Participation in Climate Governance
This paper examines the Aarhus Convention and its significance for citizens seeking a meaningful role in climate governance. Drawing on Transparency International's recommendations, Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation, and examples of civic engagement, the paper outlines what the Convention demands of governments in terms of transparency and public access to information. It then analyzes Turkey's hostile response to those principles, focusing on the 2013 Gezi Park protests and the government's suppression of public dissent. The paper concludes with a call for greater civic engagement and an end to the suppression of peaceful protest.
- Introduction: Overview of the Aarhus Convention and paper scope
- The Aarhus Convention and Public Participation in Climate Governance: Convention goals, civic engagement, and climate policy
- Levels of Citizen Participation: Arnstein's ladder and its eight rungs explained
- Transparency International's Recommendations: Proposed reforms for open climate governance
- Turkey's Response to the Aarhus Convention: Gezi Park protests and government suppression
- Conclusion: Call for civic engagement and end to suppression
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly addresses two distinct questions in sequence, giving the paper a logical and easy-to-follow structure.
- Uses Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation as a concrete theoretical framework to contextualize different levels of public engagement.
- Grounds abstract policy discussion in real-world examples, such as the Gezi Park protests and the Texas coal plant campaign, making the argument more accessible.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of a theoretical framework (Arnstein's eight-rung ladder) to evaluate real-world political behavior. By mapping the Turkish government's response onto the lower rungs of non-participation, the author connects political theory directly to a contemporary case study, showing how frameworks can be used diagnostically rather than just descriptively.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction that sets out its two-part scope. The analysis section covers the Convention's purpose, levels of citizen participation, and Transparency International's recommendations before pivoting to the Turkish case study. A short conclusion synthesizes both threads with a normative argument for greater civic engagement. The structure is compact but well-organized for an undergraduate-level policy report.
Introduction
This paper addresses two distinct questions, both pertaining to the Aarhus Convention. The first asks what the Aarhus Convention is and why it is important to citizens. The second asks what the Turkish government's response to it has been. The Aarhus Convention is a two-pronged instrument that focuses on two critically important matters: climate change and the public's right of access to information about it. While reasonable people may disagree about the severity of climate change, the behavior of governments when it comes to disclosing relevant information — and the behavior of the voting public when it comes to holding those governments accountable — raises serious concerns that merit careful examination.
The Aarhus Convention and Public Participation in Climate Governance
As outlined in the Transparency International materials reviewed for this paper, the main desired outcome of the Aarhus Convention is to ensure that the public has a decisive voice and meaningful participation in climate governance. The rationale for this focus is two-fold. First, climate change has risen to the top of many people's lists of global challenges. While others prioritize issues such as economics or terrorism, a substantial number of policymakers and citizens consider climate change and its associated governance to be the most pressing matter requiring attention. Second, voter participation has been declining steadily, a trend described in the TED talk delivered by Alessandra Orofino (Orofino, 2016).
The outlook is not entirely bleak, however. For example, a significant coalition of ordinary workers and business people alike rallied against the construction of coal plants in Texas (YouTube, 2016). This example, alongside Orofino's observations, illustrates that there are varying levels of public participation in civic life — and that, under the right conditions, citizens can and do organize effectively around environmental concerns.
Levels of Citizen Participation
The theoretical basis for understanding these varying levels of engagement comes from the work of Sherry Arnstein, who identified eight distinct rungs on what she called the Ladder of Citizen Participation. In ascending order, those levels are: manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. The lower third of the ladder represents non-participation; the middle third represents tokenism; and the upper third represents genuine citizen power (Arnstein, 2016). This framework is central to evaluating the Aarhus Convention's ambitions, as it makes clear that simply informing the public or holding consultations does not constitute meaningful participation — real engagement requires partnership, delegation, or full citizen control.
The central concern raised by the Convention is that governments are making far-reaching decisions about climate change governance while the general population remains largely passive rather than actively involved. Even worse, members of the public who do wish to access statement transcripts, conference proceedings, or policy documents are frequently unable to do so. Even in cases where states are required to report on their activities, information reaches the public inconsistently and piecemeal rather than being openly disclosed and discussed.
Conclusion
There is considerable merit in striving to get more people involved and engaged in governance. For countries like Turkey — and others that engage in anti-speech and anti-freedom measures to suppress dissent — episodes like the Gezi Park protests can serve as a clarion call to end the suppression of peaceful protest and restore voters' right to a voice. At the same time, citizens in all countries should strive to be more engaged and active in civic life. While it is easy to become apathetic and to doubt whether one's participation makes a difference, it most certainly would matter if enough people chose to get involved. In the absence of that participation, consequential decisions are being made on citizens' behalf without their input — and that is precisely the condition that the Aarhus Convention exists to challenge and correct.
References
Arnstein, S. (2016). A ladder of citizen participation. Lithgow-schmidt.dk. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html
Gruene-Europa. (2016). Situation in Turkey — Greens/EFA motion for a resolution. Gruene-europa.de. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from
Orofino, A. (2016). It's our city. Let's fix it. Ted.com. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from https://www.ted.com/talks/alessandra_orofino_it_s_our_city_let_s_fix_it
Transparency International. (2016). TI publication — Policy position 01/2011: Guaranteeing public participation in climate governance. Transparency.org. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/policy_position_01_2011_guaranteeing_public_participation_in_climate_govern
YouTube. (2016). Fighting Goliath: Texas coal wars — Full movie. YouTube. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9DVofyDRQ
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.