Filling the gap? An analysis of NGO and representation deficits in global climate governance

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

• NGO's could remedy shortcomings in democratic legitimacy and accountability of institutions of earth systems governance. Three NGO responses (a) Proposals designed to remedy repesentation inqualities, (b) NGO proposals to ensure participaton (c) representative practices in terms of accountability and authorisation in NGO's only structure.
• Article brings together NGO desire for inclusion in formal governance and goverance within NGO's themselves within context of climate change deliberations. On the one hand NGO's can bring scrutiy, however on the other they must be adquately scrutinised.
• Citizens and local communities may be underreprsented for a number of reasons - lack of democratic institutions on a local level, lack of transparency, minorities within states (such as indegenous) and outright lack of representation (such as G8 or G20).‘all those potentially affected by risks should have some meaningful opportunity to participate or otherwise be  represented  in  the  making  of  the  policies  or  decisions  which  generate  such  risks’ (Eckersley 2000, 118).
• Some recent reforms such as giving more balanced representation - often synonomous with Global NGO representation. author is concerned about extent of this : The Report of the Com-
  mission  on  Global  Governance,  for  instance,  states  that  ‘‘Global  Civil  Society  is  best
  expressed  in  the  global  non-governmental  movement’’  (Commission  on  Global  Gover-
  nance 1995, 254).
• Two ideas that have -> NGO's gaining credence. First is that they lend legitimacy and second is that they are a link to local voices. Question of this article is how to ensure legitimacy and the link.
• In UN treaty - one vote one state. Hower this does not reflect the political influence.
• NGOs have been influencing development of majority developing country boards for proposed financial mechnisms as they have contributed least and will suffer most. Have also looked at country ownership vs subsidiarity to ensure that most effected countries and the most effected groups within countries have greatest influence over national outcomes - could be country level board.
• NGO roles include emphasising moral responsibility for climate change rests with North, provisiion of financial and technology resources, and offering direct support in information services to delegations form developing world. Addressing significant issue of capacity. Some NGO's lobby for minimum standards in stakeholder representation. Key idea is ensuring representation by particularly effected groups.
• Question of authorisastion and accountability of the NGO itself. Took example of CAN - 450 groups. Members elecet themselves to he group and then become part of local "nodes". Strategic decisions taken by consensus which include national and regional nodes and representative NGO's in 20 countries.
• Conclusions - NGO's argue that stregnthening legiimacy of climate regimes will -> more likely that they are implemented at a national level. Also argue they support groups with most at stake but least voice. Could be argued that by pushing for participation of these groups it is pushing forward NGO agenda. Note that different NGO's may agree on procedural demands but differ on suggested reaction to climate change. Particular question is what if the local is resisting the local - Friends of the earth only operates on local basis and thorugh this engagement has moved away from dominant institutions - this means they no longer have focus on intermediation function. Other challenge is for NGO's to balance representing current requirements with "future generations". If it takes on the "Trustee" mentality it gives greater challenge to current legitimacy.