As climate concerns rise, it’s vital for authorities to meaningfully incorporate public input into environmental decisions. But doing so requires more than just good will. In this article, the EEB introduces guidelines to help authorities avoid “citizenwashing” and create truly democratic policies that genuinely reflect the voices of the public they serve.
It has been two years since the EEB published its inaugural article on citizenwashing. In that time, the term has gained traction, with both the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the European Ombudsman committing to tackling it, and others still using the term to call out poorly executed participatory processes.
Do’s and don’ts of public participation
Civil society, the public and (the vast majority of) policymakers agree: Citizenwashing is bad. But is it always so easy to avoid? When opportunities for public participation in decision-making increase, so does the risk of citizenwashing. It is for this reason that the EEB has published a ‘Do’s and Don’ts of Public Participation’ for public officials responsible for public participation. Available online and in print, this list aims to help those designing or carrying out participation processes avoid citizenwashing and genuinely involve people in policy design.
What is citizenwashing? (again)
The EEB set out to define the term in our article on citizenwashing. Since then, we have produced a set of case studies, exploring different public participation processes that have been labelled or might be perceived as citizenwashing, to help illustrate the problem. In this article, we touch upon some of the case studies pairing them with relevant recommendations from our Do’s and Don’ts list.
Citizens’ Convention on Climate in France
In response to the Yellow Vests movement, the French government launched the Citizens’ Convention for Climate, a deliberative citizens’ assembly of 150 randomly selected individuals, to address public demands for greater participation and ecological action. From October 2019 to June 2020, the assembly developed 149 proposals aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. Despite initial promises by President Emmanuel Macron to consider these proposals without alteration, only a small fraction were fully implemented, leading to widespread criticism. The process, while praised for its organisation, is largely seen as a failure due to the government’s partial implementation and the influence of industry lobbying, which undermined the assembly’s legitimacy.
DO: Follow up. Let the outcomes be reflected in actual political decisions. You asked – now you need to implement the answers.
DON’T: Fudge the input. Don’t cherry pick, misrepresent, or dismiss results all together.
Covas do Barroso Mining project EIA
In March and April 2023, the Portuguese Environmental Agency (APA) held a brief online public consultation on a controversial open-pit lithium mining project in Covas do Barroso, Portugal. The consultation period, initially set at just 10 days, was extended to 24 working days after legal challenges. Despite overwhelming opposition from the public—909 out of 912 responses—the APA issued a conditional Favourable Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in May 2023. Critics argue the short timeframe and dismissal of public feedback suggest the decision was predetermined, with the consultation conducted mainly to meet legal requirements rather than genuinely consider public input.
DO: Acknowledge the benefits of public participation. Prioritise public input in decision-making, ensuring it has real impact, even if it challenges vested interests or political goals.
DON’T: Fake it. By holding a participatory process after the decision-making is already in a final or advanced stage.
Public consultation on nuclear extension in Belgium
In April 2022, the Belgian federal government held a transboundary public consultation on extending the operation of two nuclear reactors, Doel 4 and Tihange 3, until 2037, despite a 2003 law mandating a nuclear exit by 2025. The consultation, which lasted two months, involved residents within 1000 km of the sites, offering an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a non-technical summary. However, environmental groups have criticised the process for being misleading. At the time of consultation, the government and the operator, Engie, had not established the feasibility of the project and key questions about safety and long-term management were missing from the consultation. Likewise, the documentation provided during the consultation has been criticised as biased – using the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a justification for the extension, but omitting the fact the reactors would only be operational years later.
DO: Be informative. Ensure information is unbiased, available and accessible. Adapt formats of information to people’s needs. Invest in capacity-building initiatives that empower citizens to better understand the issues at hand.
DON’T: Make it an uphill battle. By holding out on any relevant information, providing documents full of industry jargon, presenting biased information, not providing translations into relevant languages.
Onwards and upwards
Tackling the climate crisis is urgent, and excluding people from decisions about the environment will only hinder progress. Public participation needs to be genuine and without compromise.
To counteract citizenwashing, public authorities must prioritise authentic engagement, ensuring that public participation is not just a formality but a meaningful component of the decision-making process. The EEB’s ‘Do’s and Don’ts of Public Participation’ serves as a crucial guide for public authorities, helping to foster a culture of trust and accountability.
By adhering to these guidelines, authorities can avoid the pitfalls of citizenwashing and work towards truly democratic and inclusive policy-making that respects and reflects the voices of the people they serve.
