Closing the Gap Between Policy Commitments and Action

This essay argues that persistent imbalances in non-state actor engagement undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of international climate and biodiversity governance and that more balanced engagement is essential for translating commitments into real-world action.

Working group session in Cali, October 2024 - Photo by Arthur van Buitenen

It is only weeks ago that the 30th United Nations Climate Conference in Belém was gavelled to a close. Many of the COP30 negotiations merit reflection over the coming weeks and months. For one, an increasing number of government delegations have raised questions concerning the data provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Until recently, this data was an undisputed baseline of scientific knowledge and a peer review result of collaboration of thousands of scientists from all continents and contexts. To question IPCC data is to question the urgency of climate action. A most disturbing development.

Who participated at COP30 also merits reflection. For the first time since the signing of the Climate Convention in 1992, one of the major contributors to climate change, the United States, was not represented during the negotiations. Observers may have different opinions about what this empty chair policy means. At a minimum it manifests that the current administration in Washington is not engaged in halting CO2 emissions and cooling down the planet.

Belém welcomed around 50,000 participants, including representatives from Indigenous Peoples, civil society, businesses, academia and think tanks. Non-state actor participation has become a defining feature of global climate and biodiversity conferences of parties of international environmental agreements. Not only the yearly Climate Conferences attract attention, the bi-yearly Biodiversity Conferences also see an increasing number of non-state actor engagement. The 2024 Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali Colombia, for example, registered more than 30,000 participants.

Behind these numbers lies an interesting reality. A closer look at the COP30 non-state actor participants reveals a persistent Global North - Global South imbalance. Notably Business and Industry (76% North) and Research and Independent organisations (72% North) are predominantly headquartered in the Global North, a reflection of where corporate and academic infrastructure is concentrated. Only Indigenous Peoples (62% South) and Farmers (54% South) show a Global South majority at COP30. A shout out to the Youth constituency with the most geographically balanced representation (55% North, 45% South). Deeper research is needed to provide insights into how this balanced representation is achieved. With 64% organisations marked as Environmental NGOs remain predominantly based in the Global North.

My research published earlier this year on non-state actor engagement in the DSI-negotiations under the Biodiversity Convention shows that, despite many efforts, participants from the Global North are still far more influential than those from the Global South, while Indigenous Peoples, women’s organisations, and local communities, often struggle to meaningfully participate in negotiations. Note that I distinguish between being visible during the conference and meaningfully engaging in negotiations. This North - South imbalance raises an uncomfortable question: are these global negotiations really living up to their promises of inclusiveness, accountability, and fairness?

Why Balanced Engagement Matters

There are two main drivers for balanced, inclusive, accountable and fair engagement of non-state actors in international policymaking. First, the ethical reason: diverse participation reflects democratic values, fairness, openness, and transparency. Everyone affected by climate and biodiversity decisions should have a voice in shaping policy outcomes.

Second, the practical reason: non-state actors make policy smarter. They bring data, expertise, and on-the-ground experience that government delegations alone often lack. When they’re meaningfully included, the resulting policies are not just more legitimate but also more likely to work in practice. In short, a balanced engagement of non-state actors is not just the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do.

One of the biggest contributions non-state actors make is bridging the gap between policy and action. Between high-level commitments and real-world implementation. Non-state actor involvement at an early stage, during problem definition and policy design, help identify practical obstacles, propose realistic solutions, and ensure affected communities are genuinely on board.

Because many non-state actor organisations operate close to affected people and ecosystems, they carry crucial local knowledge. This proximity allows them to translate international promises into meaningful local action, whether it is restoring forests, advancing climate adaptation, or strengthening community resilience. In complex policy arenas like climate and biodiversity, where success depends on cooperation across many levels and disciplines, this bridging role is essential.

Challenges

Increased non-state actor participation is not without challenges. When too many voices are brought in without clear structure, decision making can slow down or even stall. Power imbalances also persist. Well-funded actors often dominate the conversation, while smaller organisations or marginalised groups struggle to meaningfully participate. Besides funding, connectedness is also a challenge for many. To be timely and sufficiently informed about when and where negotiations take place, what is on the agenda and how to provide views is often challenging.

There is also a tension between the quantity of participation (how many people are invited) and the quality of participation (how meaningful their engagement is). If inclusion becomes merely symbolic, it risks becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than a tool for genuine inclusive decision making.

What Meaningful Engagement Looks Like

Research and experience suggest a few principles that can make participation both fairer and more effective:

1.     Start early: involve diverse actors from the beginning.

2.     Aim for broad representation: also include smaller Indigenous Peoples, women’s groups, and local communities. And give nature itself a voice as well.

3.     Be transparent: show clearly how input is used and why certain decisions are made.

4.     Level the playing field: offer technical and financial support so that smaller or marginalised actors can participate meaningfully.

5.     Ensure transparency in lobbying and prevent dominant interests from steering the agenda.

When these conditions are met, participation becomes more than symbolic. It becomes transformative.

Where We Still Need to Learn

Despite growing attention to non-state actor engagements, several gaps still remain. Much of what we know about non-state actor engagement comes from Europe and other OECD countries (the UNFCCC Annex I countries), while experiences from the Global South, where meaningful engagement is often most constrained, remain underexplored and less researched. Informal and digital spaces for engagement are also less well understood, even though they’re becoming more influential. Finally, we still know little about the long-term effects of inclusive engagement: does it lead to better compliance, stronger institutions, or more sustainable outcomes?

The Bottom Line

Mega-COPs remind us that balanced and meaningful engagement isn’t just a procedural nicety. It is the foundation of effective and legitimate global governance. When diverse voices are heard and respected, policies are not only more just but also more workable.

*) This article is the result of my own critical thinking as part of my current PhD research to non-state actor coalitions engagements in international climate and biodiversity negotiations. Following SpringerNature guidance I declare that ChatGPT was used to find sources beyond my usual frameworks and to helpfully compute the vast COP participation lists. ChatGPT was also used to support copy-editing. Every engagement with ChatGPT entailed my human scrutiny.