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

  • Kathrin DombrowskiEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Accountability Earth system governance International organizations Legitimacy NGOs Representation United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Participation 



Climate action network


Clean development mechanism


Non-governmental organization


Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation


United Nations



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.


  1. Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs: Case studies on the climate and biodiversity conventions. Utrecht: International Books.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. CAN (2009a) Finance position paper, principles for climate finance under the UNFCCC, September 2009. Last retrieved November 12, from
  7. 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
  8. 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).Google Scholar
  9. Chatterjee, P., & Finger, M. (1994). The earth brokers: Power, politics, and world development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Climate Action Network (2002) ‘Our network rules and guiding principles for network governance—CHARTER’. Retrieved on September 17, 2009 from
  12. Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our global neighbourhood: The report of the commission on global governance. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Desai, N. (2010). When two’s company, Times of India. January 4.Google Scholar
  16. Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnationalism: Transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. Transformation of the state series. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Doherty, B. (2006). Friends of the Earth International: Negotiating a transnational identity. Environmental Politics, 15(5), 860–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duwe, M. (2001). The climate action network: A glance behind the curtains of a transnational NGO network. Reciel, 10(2), 177–189.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. ECO newsletter, (2007 December). Volume CXIII, Issue Nr. 4, 6. Last retrieved October 11, 2009 from
  21. ECO newsletter, (2008 December). Volume CXVI, Issue Nr., 4. Last retrieved October 20, 2009 from
  22. ECO newsletter, (2009 March) Vol CXVII, Issue Nr. 3, 31. Last retrieved October 20, 2009 from
  23. 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
  24. Forman, S., & Segaar, D. (2006). New coalitions for global governance: The changing dynamics of multilateralism. Global Governance, 12, 205–225.Google Scholar
  25. Global Witness on behalf of the Ecosystem Climate Alliance (2009) ‘Response to calls for submissions on the UNFCCC processes’ (11 February 2009).Google Scholar
  26. Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvey, F. (2010). Green is the colour of climate discord. Financial Times. January 28.Google Scholar
  28. Held, D. (2004). Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 364–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Held, D., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). Introduction. Special issue on global governance and public accountability. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hudson, A. (2001). NGO transnational advocacy networks: From ‘legitimacy’ to ‘political responsibility’. Global Networks, 1(4), 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. MacDonald, T. (2008). Global stakeholder democracy: Power and representation beyond liberal states. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  36. Mason, M. (2005). The new accountability: Environmental responsibility across borders. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  37. McKeon, N. (2009). The United Nations and civil society: Legitimating global governance—Whose voice? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Newell, P. (2000). Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Scharpf, F. (1998). Interdependence and democratic legitimation. MPIfG working paper 2
  45. Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe. Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Scholte, J. A. (2004). Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. Stiglitz, J. (2003). Democratizing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank: Governance and accountability. Governance, 16(1), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Rooy, A. (2004). The global legitimacy game: Civil society, globalisation and protest. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and world civic politics. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  52. Woods, N. (2001). Making the IMF and the World Bank more accountable. International Affairs, 77(1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Relations DepartmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations