Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Filling the gap? An analysis of non-governmental organizations responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The involvement of civil society actors such as NGOs is often presented as one possible remedy to shortcomings in the democratic legitimacy and accountability of institutions of earth system governance. This article uses the case of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to show how its constituency of environmental and development NGOs has responded to perceived representation and participation deficits in global climate policy-making. It discusses three types of NGO responses, which could potentially help to bring the voices of affected but marginalized communities to the relevant levels of climate policy-making: firstly, NGO proposals designed to remedy representation inequities among governments; secondly, NGO demands for strengthening opportunities for participation by societal stakeholders at all levels of climate policy-making; and finally, representative practices (based on authorization and accountability) reflected in the NGOs’ own decision-making processes and governance structures. With regard to the first two types of responses, the article finds that the NGOs tend to support broadly similar standards of participation and representation in the climate convention. The analysis of the decision-making processes and governance structure of the Climate Action Network, the constituency focal point for the environment and development NGOs in the climate convention, highlights a number of ways through which the network can legitimately claim to represent a wider constituency. At the same time, however, it is important for NGOs not to underestimate the potential costs of high standards of inclusiveness and representativeness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This problem is taken up by MacDonald (2008). Her goal is to construct theoretically rigorous benchmarks to determine at what point ‘affectedness’ translates into the democratic entitlement to participate in the relevant decision-making process. So far, however, civil society practitioners do not appear to have addressed this problem in practice.

  2. By ‘external’ I mean NGO demands directed at other actors and designed to bring about changes in the structure and processes of these target institutions. ‘Internal’ refers to the governance and decision-making processes within the NGOs themselves.

  3. David Suzuki Foundation, Germanwatch e.V., Greenpeace International, IndyACT, NECU and Worldwide Fund for Nature International (2009).

  4. Ibid.

  5. Ibid.

  6. Worldwide Fund for Nature (2008).

  7. CAN (2009a, b), ECO newsletter 2007.

  8. ECO newsletter 2007.

  9. CAN (2009a).

  10. Christian Aid on behalf of APRODEV (2009).

  11. ECO newsletter (2009).

  12. CAN (2009a).

  13. The Global Fund’s guidelines for its country coordinating mechanisms can be found on the Fund’s website and share many features with the NGO proposals in the context of the UNFCCC: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/ccm/guidelines/?lang=en.

  14. CAN (2009) Submission to UNFCCC AWG-LCA Regarding An Adaptation Action Framework, 24. April 2009; CAN (2009) Submission to UNFCCC AWG-LCA Regarding Technology Cooperation and Sharing, 24. April 2009. Both last retrieved 10 February 2010 from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  15. Christian Aid on behalf of APRODEV (2009).

  16. ICLEI (2009).

  17. ECO newsletter (2009).

  18. ECO newsletter (2008).

  19. For example: David Suzuki Foundation, Germanwatch e.V., Greenpeace International, IndyACT, NECU and Worldwide Fund for Nature International (2009). ‘A Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Version 1.0. A Proposal for a Copenhagen Agreement by Members of the NGO Community’ (06 June 2009); Global Witness on behalf of the Ecosystem Climate Alliance (2009); Submission by the Forest Peoples Programme (16 February 2009). All retrieved from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  20. David Suzuki Foundation, Germanwatch e.V., Greenpeace International, IndyACT, NECU and Worldwide Fund for Nature International (2009). ‘A Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Version 1.0. A Proposal for a Copenhagen Agreement by Members of the NGO Community’ (06 June 2009), 24–25.

  21. Submission by the Forest Peoples Programme (16 February 2009). Last retrieved 10 October 2009 from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  22. Global Witness on behalf of the Ecosystem Climate Alliance (2009).

  23. Submission by Climate Law and Policy Project (16 February 2009). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  24. Submission by the Forest Peoples Programme (16 February 2009). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  25. Submission by Friends of the Earth International (16 February 2009). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  26. Submission by the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (20 February 2009). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  27. Website of the Climate Action Network www.climatenetwork.org. Last accessed 15 February 2010.

  28. The other official constituencies under the climate convention include Business and Industry Organizations, Local Government and Municipal Authorities, Indigenous Peoples Organizations, Research and Independent Non-governmental Organizations, and the Trade Union Non-governmental Organizations.

  29. Website of the Climate Action Network http://www.climatenetwork.org/about-can Last accessed on 15 February 2010.

  30. Climate Action Network (2002).

  31. Ibid.

  32. Ibid.

  33. Interview with regional CAN Board member.

  34. Website of Friends of the Earth International www.foei.org; last accessed on 15 February 2010.

  35. Interviews with several NGO representatives.

  36. Desai (2010), Harvey (2010).

Abbreviations

CAN:

Climate action network

CDM:

Clean development mechanism

NGO:

Non-governmental organization

REDD:

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

UN:

United Nations

References

  • Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs: Case studies on the climate and biodiversity conventions. Utrecht: International Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsill, M. M. (2008). Environmental NGOs and the Kyoto protocol negotiations: 1995–1997. In M. M. Betsill & E. Corell (Eds.), NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations (pp. 43–66). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H. & Siebenhüner, B. with contributions from K. Conca, L. da Costa Ferreira, B. Desai, S. Tay & R. Zondervan (2009). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the earth system governance project. Earth system governance report 1, IHDP Report 20. Bonn, IHDP: The Earth System Governance Project.

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., Siebenhüner, B. & Zondervan, R. (2010) Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4). doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3.

  • CAN (2009a) Finance position paper, principles for climate finance under the UNFCCC, September 2009. Last retrieved November 12, from http://climatenetwork.org/climate-change-basics/by-meeting-and-date/bangkok-sept-oct-2009/CAN_Principles_of_Financial_mechanism_september09.pdf/view.

  • CAN (2009b) Submission to UNFCCC ad hoc working group on long-Term cooperative action regarding an adaptation action framework, 24. April 2009. Submitted to UNFCCC on 24 April 2009. Last retrieved February 13, 2010 from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  • Castiglione, D. & Warren, M. E. (2006). Rethinking democratic representation: Eight theoretical issues. Paper prepared for delivery to ‘Rethinking democratic representation’, Centre for the Study of Democratic Representation, University of British Columbia (18–19 May).

  • Chatterjee, P., & Finger, M. (1994). The earth brokers: Power, politics, and world development. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian Aid on behalf of APRODEV (2009). The United Nations climate fund. An equitable financial mechanism under the UNFCCC. Submitted to UNFCCC on 25 June 2009. Last retrieved October 12, from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  • Climate Action Network (2002) ‘Our network rules and guiding principles for network governance—CHARTER’. Retrieved on September 17, 2009 from http://www.climatenetwork.org/about-can/CANCHARTER.pdf/view.

  • Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our global neighbourhood: The report of the commission on global governance. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K. (1996). Greening the United Nations: Environmental organizations and the U.N. System. In T. Weiss & L. Gordenker (Eds.), NGOs, the UN, and global governance (pp. 103–120). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • David Suzuki Foundation, Germanwatch e. V., Greenpeace International, IndyACT, NECU and Worldwide Fund for Nature International (2009). A Copenhagen climate treaty. Version 1.0. A proposal for a Copenhagen agreement by members of the NGO community. submitted to UNFCCC on 6 June 2009. Last retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  • Desai, N. (2010). When two’s company, Times of India. January 4.

  • Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnationalism: Transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. Transformation of the state series. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Doherty, B. (2006). Friends of the Earth International: Negotiating a transnational identity. Environmental Politics, 15(5), 860–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, M. (2001). The climate action network: A glance behind the curtains of a transnational NGO network. Reciel, 10(2), 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a democracy of the affected. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 117–132). New York Routledge: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECO newsletter, (2007 December). Volume CXIII, Issue Nr. 4, 6. Last retrieved October 11, 2009 from http://climatenetwork.org/eco/bali-ecos/ECOcop13n06.pdf/view.

  • ECO newsletter, (2008 December). Volume CXVI, Issue Nr., 4. Last retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/poznan-ecos.

  • ECO newsletter, (2009 March) Vol CXVII, Issue Nr. 3, 31. Last retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/bonn-i-2009-ecos.

  • Fogel, C. (2004). The local, the global, and the Kyoto protocol. In S. Jasanoff & M. Long Martello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 103–125). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, S., & Segaar, D. (2006). New coalitions for global governance: The changing dynamics of multilateralism. Global Governance, 12, 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Witness on behalf of the Ecosystem Climate Alliance (2009) ‘Response to calls for submissions on the UNFCCC processes’ (11 February 2009).

  • Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, F. (2010). Green is the colour of climate discord. Financial Times. January 28.

  • Held, D. (2004). Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 364–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, D., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). Introduction. Special issue on global governance and public accountability. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, A. (2001). NGO transnational advocacy networks: From ‘legitimacy’ to ‘political responsibility’. Global Networks, 1(4), 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICLEI (2009) Submission of ICLEI for inclusion in the negotiating text of the Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, 24 April 2009, 2. Last retrieved on February 10, 2010 from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (2003). Global governance and democratic accountability. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Taming globalization: Frontiers of governance (pp. 130–157). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2006). Introduction. Institutional diversity in global governance. In M. Koenig-Archibugi & M. Zürn (Eds.), New modes of governance in the global system: Exploring publicness, delegation and inclusiveness (pp. 1–30). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, T. (2008). Global stakeholder democracy: Power and representation beyond liberal states. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (2005). The new accountability: Environmental responsibility across borders. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, N. (2009). The United Nations and civil society: Legitimating global governance—Whose voice? London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, B. (2009). Is there room for compromise? The debate on institutional arrangements for climate finance. October 2009, Oxford energy and environment comment. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

  • McKeon, N. with Kalafatic, C. (2009). Strengthening dialogue: UN experience with small farmer organizations and indigenous peoples. UN NGLS, New York and Geneva: United Nations.

  • Newell, P. (2000). Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. A., & Samhat, N. H. (2004). Democratizing global politics. Discourse norms, international regimes, and political community. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Princen, T. (1994). NGOs: Creating a niche in environmental diplomacy. In T. Princen & M. Finger (Eds.), Environmental NGOs in world politics: Linking the global and the local (pp. 29–47). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1998). Interdependence and democratic legitimation. MPIfG working paper 2 http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/workpap/wp98-2/wp98-2.html.

  • Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe. Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, J. A. (2004). Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4). doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9138-2.

  • Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (Eds.). (2008). Civil society participation in European and global governance: A cure for the democratic deficit? Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (2003). Democratizing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank: Governance and accountability. Governance, 16(1), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooy, A. (2004). The global legitimacy game: Civil society, globalisation and protest. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and world civic politics. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. (2001). Making the IMF and the World Bank more accountable. International Affairs, 77(1), 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. (2010). Global governance after the financial crisis: A new multilateralism or the last gasp of the great powers? Global Policy, 1(1), 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worldwide Fund for Nature (2008 November) Technology action programs as a way forward. Submitted to UNFCCC on 24 March 2009. Last retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://unfccc.int/parties_observers/ngo/submissions/items/3689.php.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue, Frank Biermann and Ruben Zondervan, for their very helpful comments. Earlier drafts of this article also benefited from comments by Daphne Josselin and the participants of the ‘Private Actors in World Politics’ workshop at LSE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Relations Department, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom

    Kathrin Dombrowski

Authors
  1. Kathrin Dombrowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathrin Dombrowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dombrowski, K. Filling the gap? An analysis of non-governmental organizations responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance. Int Environ Agreements 10, 397–416 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9140-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9140-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation