Publications
Description
This report studies the role of non-legislative processes in EU climate change policymaking from the first von der Leyen Commission through to September 2025. We analyse processes whereby the European Commission is given the mandate to amend basic legislation (through delegated and implementing acts), and processes in which the Council of the European Union acts as the sole institution able to amend Commission proposals (emergency procedure under TFEU Article 122). We study how these processes contribute to policymaking efficiency and any potential trade-offs for democracy. Our empirical analysis consists of a database of all non-legislative processes pertaining to climate policy since 2020 initiated by DG CLIMA, DG ENER, and other relevant DGs, complemented by 10 semi-structured interviews conducted with policymakers working at the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the permanent representations of EU member states. We find that non-legislative processes have been used more frequently over time, and are a rapid means to update or clarify policy: implementing act processes are completed quickly, with delegated act processes taking somewhat longer. However, non-legislative processes tend to sideline or only partially reflect certain key features of democratic governance systems: including representation, accountability, participation, and knowledge. Our results highlight an important tension in EU climate policymaking between the need for efficient policymaking and democratic decision-making—in other words, between rapid emissions reductions and policymaking procedures that are inclusive, fair and just. More research is required to study this tension, and to draw attention to it, particularly in a constrained political context in which climate action is a lower priority, especially following the results of the 2024 European elections.
Description
The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis of far-reaching societal, economic, and political impacts. Responses to the pandemic were no less far-reaching. This report presents a systematic literature review of 150 peerrevpeer-reviewediewed articles on how European democracies responded to the COVID-19 crisis with the aim of drawing out
useful learnings for climate democracy. In this review, we thus build upon the RETOOL analytical framework to distill lessons about the effectiveness and democratic quality of governance responses to the pandemic in Europe, and what these experiences teach us for future crises – notably the climate crisis. Key lessons show
that robust democratic institutions, anchored in legal safeguards against executive overreach and sustained by cultures of consensus, pluralism and tolerance, are crucial to withstand crises. This is a relatively rare combination however, and one that cannot be guaranteed during times of crisis. This points to a need for new participatory forums to bolster existing democratic institutions. The review also looks at issues of justice, since
democratic governance should produce just decisions and this is a key issue in climate democracy discussions. The reviewed literature sees justice dimensions as deeply intertwined: threats to recognitional justice often coincide with distributive and procedural injustices, again pointing to a need for more meaningful and inclusive
participation. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic is also read as a critical juncture, exposing institutional weaknesses while also opening space for democratic innovation. However, most studies focus on resilience over renewal, and justice aspects are rarely addressed explicitly. Future research should clarify the meaning of democracy and what democratic innovation, especially concerning non-majoritarian, deliberative, and prefigurative democratic movements, and examine how diverse justice dimensions can be integrated into
emergency governance.
Description
Over the past two decades, public involvement in environmental and climate-related regulatory decisions has expanded across Europe and beyond. These initiatives have highlighted citizens' rights to information about environmental and health risks while underscoring the democratic imperative of participatory decision-making. Moreover, environmental movements, NGOs, and activists have urged a redefinition of democratic processes.
This paper argues that such phenomena emerged as consequences of environmental activism from the 1970s and 1980s. Through analysis of social mobilizations following the Seveso disaster (Italy), the Gorleben nuclear facility controversy (Germany), and the Żarnowiec nuclear plant dispute (Poland), we trace the emergence and evolution of some specific environmental movements, examining their techniques, repertoires, democratic practices, and political demands. Despite their differences, these controversies and the following mobilization introduced environmental concerns into decision-making processes at local, national, and European levels.
More significantly, they challenged the structural limitations of governments in managing risk. Confronted with opaque decision-making, technocratic delegation of power, and lack of transparency, environmental movements demanded more participatory governance forms. These movements advocated for including affected communities and citizens in public deliberation, enabling them to raise scientific and moral questions, express autonomous assessments, and help define political priorities. This democratic transformation was largely an unintended consequence of 1970s-1980s environmental mobilization. What began with minimal ambitions – introducing environmental controls and addressing environmental crises – produced results exceeding activists' expectations: renewed political participation, grassroots knowledge production, and alternative participatory democratic models. Nevertheless, these ambitious outcomes were only partially achieved. While national and European institutions received many specific environmental protection and governance requests, citizens' and movements' involvement in decisionmaking processes, along with their proposals for transforming European democracies, remained marginalized.
Description
Why public participation matters
Meaningful and high-quality public participation in climate policymaking promises a two-fold reward: it can strengthen democracy and increase public support for robust climate action. These outcomes are achieved through increased transparency, enhanced trust in democratic processes, heightened legitimacy of policy decisions and processes, and reduced political polarisation.² ³ As the EU advances its green transition policies, increasingly directly affecting citizens' daily lives, meaningful public participation is critical to ensure climate action that is effective, legitimate, fair and broadly supported by society.
The European Commission has highlighted the strengthening of public participation in EU decision-making as part of its strategic priority to improve overall democratic governance. To do so, the Commission is planning to enhance existing mechanisms and introduce new ones, including annual Youth Policy Dialogues and a Youth Advisory Board. In any case, public participation mechanisms should follow established good practices to ensure inclusive engagement of citizens and stakeholders, and to foster meaningful discussion and deliberation. Only high-quality public participation can maximise benefits for democracy and climate action and contribute meaningfully to the Commission's goals of simplification and effective implementation.
Description
Following the EU leaders' retreat at the picturesque Alden Biesen Castle, Commission President von der Leyen outlined sweeping reforms to be delivered by 2027. The narrative is clear: EU policymakers need to act fast or the EU risks falling behind. Under this pressure, democratic safeguards are increasingly treated as obstacles rather than essentials. This misses the point: good governance is not an onerous liability but ensures high-quality policy decisions and maintains public trust. The Commission’s ongoing review of the Better Regulation Guidelines is the chance to prove that speed and democratic legitimacy are compatible, not competing objectives.
Description
This report examines how national parliaments across the European Union have responded to climate governance challenges through institutional innovation. Drawing on comparative mapping of all EU member states and three detailed case studies, we identify four categories of parliamentary climate innovations: commitment mechanisms (e.g., framework laws, emission budgets, sectoral targets) that bind future governments; oversight innovations (e.g.,post-legislative scrutiny, climate accountability provisions) that enhance monitoring capacity; information innovations (e.g., climate advisory councils, parliamentary research services) that reduce information asymmetries; and participatory innovations (e.g., e-petitions, digital platforms, deliberative mini-publics) that expand citizen engagement beyond elections. The comparative analysis is complemented by three case studies. Austria illustrates how parliamentary budget offices can evolve into climate-competent fiscal watchdogs, embedding environmental considerations into the budget cycle. The example of the Estonian Riikikogu shows how digital participation platforms can broaden public agenda-setting and institutionalise citizen voice in parliamentary procedure. The example of parliamentary accountability mechanisms introduced under Ireland’s 2021 Climate Act amendments highlight the limits and potential of accountability reforms embedded in climate framework legislation, particularly the tension between policy ambition and implementation capacity. Together, the findings underline that parliamentary climate innovation is uneven across member states, that they are reliant on political will, but also that parliaments are becoming pivotal sites of democratic adaptation to climate transitions. Across all three cases, we show that formal institutional design matters less than sustained political commitment and thoughtful integration into existing parliamentary processes and practices. However, we stress that parliamentary climate innovation remains uneven across member states and reliant on political will, but that despite this, parliaments are becoming pivotal sites of democratic adaptation to climate transitions.
Description
This report studies the impact of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) on climate action and democratic governance. It presents a novel analytical framework for understanding impact, which integrates components of the RETOOL Analytical Framework (Brawley-Cheshworth et al., 2025) and the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies (KNOCA) Impact Evaluation Framework (Demski et al., 2024). This framework is used to carry out a systematic review of 121 articles on climate change and energy transition focused DMPs, which highlights gaps in research on the impact of DMPs on justice and accountability, as well on the impact of DMPs on expertise/ resources and thinking. The framework is also used to guide case studies of DMPs in Belgium, Sweden, and Ireland. These case studies were chosen to allow for exploration of a range of national contexts and innovations in DMP practice and are informed by semi-structured interviews and primary analysis of DMP recommendations. They explore not only the impact of the DMPs, but also the extent to which the DMPs were institutionalised or embedded into national climate governance and contributed to governance innovation. Takeaways for academics and policymakers on how to understand and enhance the impact of DMPs are presented in the final section. They emphasise the need for strong political coupling and commitment, effective and innovative communication, and careful consideration of the purpose of DMPs within democratic climate governance.