Environmental Management

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01355-9

Systematic Literature Review of Climate Change Governance

Activities of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations
in Southeast Asia
1,2
Siti Melinda Haris ●
Firuza Begham Mustafa1 Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin3,4
●

Received: 10 April 2020 / Accepted: 28 August 2020

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs) are considered key players for engendering good climate change
governance to address both climate change and sustainable development. The participation of ENGOs in climate change
governance occurs in a four-phase policy cycle. They include (1) identification of policy options, (2) policy formulation, (3)
policy implementation, and (4) policy monitoring and evaluation. The ENGOs, however, have been criticized for their lack of
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

effectiveness, and their roles in tackling climate change remain unclear. To date, the study on the roles and activities of
Southeast Asian ENGOs in climate change governance has been under-researched. This study, therefore, applies a systematic
literature review of 19 published articles from Scopus and Web of Science-indexed journal to understand the current state of
the Southeast Asian ENGOs participation in climate change governance based on the four-phase policy cycle. The findings
show that the ENGOs in Southeast Asia are involved directly and indirectly in climate change governance. They are
significant actors in the implementation of the climate change policy, but they play a minimal role in the formulation of said
policy. It implies that they could also be a vital partner to the government in the climate change governance process as they
can bring effective policy improvements. Lastly, this review will recommend future avenues of research for scholars.
Keywords Environmental nongovernmental organizations Climate change Governance Southeast Asia
● ● ●

Introduction (2002) and Betsill (2015) describe NGOs as formal inde-

pendent and nonprofit social organizations that promote
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are nonprofit shared objectives at either the national or international level.
institutions that are independent of any government colla- Generally, they work toward achieving common goals by
boration and are formed to address public issues by pro- nonviolent means.
moting development and democracy (Pokharel 2000; Environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs)
Thomas et al. 2001; Willetts 2002). Similarly, Martens are NGOs in the area of environmentalism. As defined by
Rodela et al. (2017), ENGOs are nonprofit legal entities
outside of the government sector concerned with environ-
mental protection. In performing their environmental
* Siti Melinda Haris activities, they are administered by their organizational
melinda_haris@yahoo.com.my constitution. Their activities are based on volunteerism, and
1 they are funded largely by public donations and from other
Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia agencies (e.g., national government and international aid
2 agencies) (Werker and Ahmed 2008).
Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia In the broadest strokes, ENGOs consist of envir-
3 onmentalists and activists who could become both objective
Department of Administrative Studies and Politics, Faculty of
Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, 50603 against and cooperative with the government. Szarka (2014)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia has pointed out, however, that some ENGOs critique gov-
4
International Institute of Public Policy and Management, ernment measures addressing climate change. They hold the
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia government and companies (vs. the public) accountable for

climate change despite the fact that both consumers and
producers emit greenhouse gases. They are critical of the
government except when government policy benefits the
public.
Historically, environmental groups have been a vital
organ of environmental protection. They provide the
bottom-up pressure on the government to conform to public
demand for action, either by acting against or collaborating
with the government. Among other things, they advocate
for environmental issues by aiming to influence policy. As a
component of civil society, NGOs cooperate with the
government in the negotiation process for creating envir-
onmental policy and operate as a liaison for the policymaker
(Lane and Morrison 2006). Beyond its influence on national
climate policy, NGOs also make their presence felt at the
international level. Citizens and governments value the
participation of NGOs in international climate negotiation
as they can gain public support toward international
agreements (Bernauer and Gampfer 2013; Rietig 2016).
NGOs are recognized as a critical component of good
governance through their participation in the governance
process (Banks et al. 2015). The significance of NGOs has
been emphasized by the United Nations (1992) under
Article 4 (1) (i) of the United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The provision
underscores that all members to the agreement agree to
promote public participation in the governance of climate
change, particularly via educating, training and increasing
public awareness of climate change concerns.
Climate change is not a novel issue, and it is one of the
most complex and daunting challenges for humankind
(Prokopy et al. 2015). As a consequence, the complexity of
climate change necessitates effective climate change gov-
ernance involving various stakeholders. By definition, cli-
mate change governance involves a variety of alternatives in
coordinating adaptation and mitigation strategies (Fröhlich
and Knieling 2013). The undertaking involves a state sys-
tem that includes actions from the government, businesses,
civil society, and NGOs (Ha and Dhakal 2013).
Osmani (2008) states that the participation of non-state
actors in governance can occur in four phases of the policy
cycle. These include the identification of policy options,
policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy
monitoring and evaluation to ensure the accountability of
policymakers. NGOs participate in climate change govern-
ance through various activities that constitute different
stages of the policy cycle, including negotiation at the
international and national levels (Giorgetti 1998), agenda-
setting (Carter and Childs 2017) as well as public advocacy
(Liu et al. 2017). However, a given political system or
regime could determine the relationship between the gov-
ernment and NGOs (Risse-Kappen 1995). How
government–NGO relations take shape affects the degree of
Environmental Management
openness of the state toward the NGO (Mcloughlin 2011),
in which good government–NGO relations will influence
the degree to which NGOs participate in governance.
Civil society, including NGOs, participates in the process
of planning and the execution of environmental activities,
particularly in a democracy (Risse-Kappen 1995). Stake-
holder participation in strategy formulation for sustainable
development will help in enhancing the effectiveness of
policy implementation, monitoring, and the evaluation of
the development programs (United Nations Development
Programme 2009). Concern for climate change impact has
engendered stakeholder collaboration for environmental
conservation. The ENGO, as one of the stakeholders, is a
significant actor in governing climate change for better
mitigation and adaptation strategies. Active stakeholder
collaboration and government partnership will promote
good climate change governance (Kalesnikaite 2019).
Historically, state actors have dominated the policy-
making process (Tantivess and Walt 2008). At this point,
the government allows non-state actors (e.g., NGOs) a
greater role in shaping policy (Breslin and Nesadurai 2018).
For instance, since the 1980s, the Indonesian government
has legally recognized ENGOs, while ENGOs in Thailand
are considered influential actors. Subsequently, since the
1990s, the Philippines allows ENGOs to participate in
shaping environmental policy (Shins 2015). Still, there is an
absence of democratic practices in states dominated by
authoritarian regimes globally (e.g., North Korean and
Turkmenistan) as they prohibit nearly all non-state asso-
ciations in their countries (Lewis 2013).
The literature on governance has focused on non-state
actors especially NGO involvement in climate policy such
as Giorgetti (1998), Szarka (2014), Bernauer et al. (2016),
Lei Liu et al. (2017), Carter and Childs (2017), McGregor
et al. (2018), and Gereke and Brühl (2019). The literature
mainly has discussed the role of stakeholders in climate
change policy, especially the ENGOs, as public repre-
sentatives in the policy sphere. They argued that the ENGO
is a key actor with an essential role in the climate change
policy debate. Moreover, the literature revealed that ENGO
engenders scientific knowledge and public awareness
(McGregor et al. 2018), promotes public participation
(Szarka 2014), and enhances public support to climate
change policy (Bernauer et al. 2016).
Non-state actors’ effectiveness has been the focal point in
debates on governance, especially in less democratic
countries. In climate change governance, the effectiveness
of the non-state actor’s role has been explored in Bäck-
strand et al. (2017). The non-state actor’s effectiveness
could be enhanced through a continuous commitment to
climate change governance. Nevertheless, participation
alone does not guarantee effectiveness. Effectiveness
requires consistent moves toward the achievement of clear
Environmental Management
goals. It was further noted that they are often recognized as
agents in the climate change policy implementation and
evaluation despite them being acknowledged as important
actors in climate change policy-making.
Touraine (1973), as cited by Berny and Rootes (2018),
clarified that social movement has led to the institutionali-
zation of NGOs, whether to become part of the policy-
making process or to compromise with the state. If they bear
little influence on policy formation, they tend to compro-
mise (Berny and Rootes 2018). However, Berny and Rootes
(2018) reasoned that it is unfair to solely blame the ENGO
for the failure to solve environmental issues as it involves
many stakeholders. In addition, limited ENGOs participa-
tion is also a governance issue that needs to be addressed to
promote effective governance of climate change.
It is crucial to address the governance issue since the
Southeast Asia region is populated by about 662 million
people in 2019 (United Nations, Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific 2019). As a populous
region, Southeast Asia is more vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change. Hence, the active participation of key sta-
keholders, particularly ENGOs, in climate change govern-
ance is becoming increasingly important. However,
authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia have restricted the
freedom of ENGOs to perform their activities (Boomgaard
2007). Consequently, the roles and activities of ENGOs in
the national climate change governance of Southeast Asian
countries remain unclear. To date, the study of the roles and
activities of ENGOs in the national climate change gov-
ernance of Southeast Asian countries is under-researched.
Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to
provide an overview of ENGOs activity in climate change
governance of Southeast Asian countries. It offers an
understanding of how ENGOs participate in national cli-
mate change governance in this region.
Methods
This section discusses the methods of retrieving articles
about ENGO activities in climate change governance in
Southeast Asian countries. Systematic literature review
(SLR) is employed to synthesize empirical evidence from
previous studies in order to provide an overview of the
current state of the activities of ENGOs in climate change
governance in Southeast Asia and to describe directions
for future research. This method contains a critical sum-
mary of the findings of the publications on a topic
(Linares-Espinós et al. 2018). The SLR for this study was
conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) that help to ensure
transparency in reporting the literature review (Moher
et al. 2009).
PRISMA
The present study employed the PRISMA as guidance for
searching, filtering, selecting, and analyzing the findings
from the literature based on the objective of the study. The
present study aims to review studies about the role of
ENGOs in climate change governance in Southeast Asian
countries. PRISMA provides systematic and rigorous pro-
cedures to review studies via a checklist of the analysis
(Moher et al. 2009). This study has fulfilled several key
points in the checklist, including title, abstract, introduction,
methods, results, and discussion. The PRISMA provides
four steps, namely, identification, screening, eligibility, and
inclusion, to perform the SLR (Moher et al. 2009).
The procedures were conducted as follows:
Identification
For the first phase, several keywords were determined as
search strings to search for relevant literature from the
database. The resources of literature for this study are from
two databases, namely, Scopus and Web of Science. The
two databases were chosen because they provide the best
coverage for social science research (Norris and Oppenheim
2007). Scopus serves 21 research institutions and contains
more than 300 researchers and librarians (Burnham 2006).
It has indexed over 14,200 journals and 12,464 social sci-
ences titles from more than 5000 publishers (Elsevier 2020).
Meanwhile, the Web of Science has over 100 million arti-
cles from 33,000 journals with 5200 social science pub-
lications (Analytics 2017). The identified key terms are
shown in Table 1. Several terms related to the concept of
climate change and ENGOs were used in the search strings
for Scopus and Web of Science. In order to limit the lit-
erature for Southeast Asian studies, all eleven countries in
the region were included in the search strings.
Screening
The search strings retrieved 42 and 27 records from Scopus
and Web of Science, respectively. During the screening, 19
duplicate articles were eliminated. Furthermore, the inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria, as shown in Table 2, were also
set to obtain the relevant literature in both databases. Only
English language journal articles without a circumscribed
range of publication years from all study areas were inclu-
ded in the search. After the exclusion of irrelevant records,
only 35 articles remained for the next phase.
Eligibility
In the eligibility stage, seven articles were removed as they
were not relevant in the study region, and another nine
 Environmental Management

Table 1 Search strings used in the database

Database Keywords

Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“Climat* chang*” OR “climat* risk*” OR “climat* variabilit*” OR “climat* extrem*” OR “climat*
variability*” OR “climat* uncertaint*” OR “global warming*” OR “temperature ris*” OR “sea level ris*” OR “el-nino” OR
“la-nina”) AND (“environmental nongovernmental organi*ation” OR “ENGO” OR “civil society” OR “grassroot
communities”) AND (“malaysia” OR “singapore” OR “thailand” OR “indonesia” OR “philippines” OR “laos” OR
“myammar” OR “cambodia” OR “brunei” OR “vietnam” OR “timor leste”))
Web of Science TS = ((“Climat* chang*” OR “climat* risk*” OR “climat* variabilit*” OR “climat* extrem*” OR “climat* variability*” OR
“climat* uncertaint*” OR “global warming*” OR “temperature ris*” OR “sea level ris*” OR “el-nino” OR “la-nina”) AND
(“environmental nongovernmental organi*ation” OR “ENGO” OR “civil society” OR “grassroot communities”) AND
(“malaysia” OR “singapore” OR “thailand” OR “indonesia” OR “philippines” OR “laos” OR “myammar” OR “cambodia” OR
“brunei” OR “vietnam” OR “timor leste”))

Table 2 Eligibility criterion Results

Criterion Eligibility
Literature type Journal articles
Language English
Areas All areas
Timeline All years
articles were rejected as they did not provide empirical
findings. Only 19 articles were included based on the
eligibility criteria. Figure 1 illustrates the selection of the
articles following the PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al.
2009).
Inclusion for the review process
After the screening and eligibility phase, 19 articles were
reviewed for the study. Robinson and Lowe (2015)
recommended the inclusion of 10–50 papers for a sys-
tematic review. A small number of papers are acceptable to
conclude a specific area of inquiry through systematic
reviews, such as in Karantzas et al. (2019) and Shaffril et al.
(2019). Since the topic was confined to the ENGOs in cli-
mate change governance in Southeast Asian countries, it
retrieved a limited number of articles for the systematic
review. Even though the number of articles for systematic
review was small, the articles were considered relevant and
sufficiently determined by the screening and eligibility
process. The systematic review was conducted qualitatively
using thematic analysis. The thematic analysis method
facilitates the organization of extensive data. It also
encourages researchers to utilize a well-organized method
to produce a logical and systematic analysis (King 2004).
The researchers followed the six steps of thematic analysis
by Nowell et al. (2017), which involve the process of data
familiarization, generation of initial coding, grouping the
codes in themes, reviewing the themes, defining and naming
the themes, and report writing.
Background of the Studies
Among the 19 selected articles, 12 were a single case study
of a country in Southeast Asia, and 7 were multiple case
studies covering several countries from both inside and
outside of the region. Seven case studies were conducted in
Indonesia (Astuti and Mcgregor 2015; Jagger et al. 2014;
Jefferson et al. 2020; Moeliono et al. 2014; Never and Betz
2014; Sayer et al. 2015; Archer and Dodman 2015). There
were four studies in Thailand (Archer and Dodman 2015;
Simpson and Smits 2018; Laeni et al. 2019; Smits 2017),
and three studies done in the Phillippines (Allen 2006;
Dressler 2017; Laycock and Mitchell 2019). Next, Cam-
bodia (Christoplos and McGinn 2016; Dany et al. 2017),
Laos (Clarke et al. 2018; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al. 2017),
and Malaysia (Er 2015; Puppim de Oliveira 2019) each
recorded two studies. Only one study was found for both
Myanmar (Simpson and Smits 2018) and Vietnam (Smits
2017). Finally, no studies were found for Brunei, Singapore,
and Timor Leste. There is still a lack of studies on the
ENGOs role in climate change governance in the region as
relative to studies among European countries.
Moreover, 15 studies employed a qualitative method,
3 studies applied a mixed method, and only 1 study used a
quantitative method. The articles’ publication dates ranged
from 2006 to 2020. There has been a fluctuation in the
number of studies done in Southeast Asian countries since
2014 (see Fig. 2).
Main Findings
Nineteen articles in the included stage were analyzed
through categorizing the findings of empirical studies into
themes of ENGOs activities in climate change governance.
The findings are identified in Table 3.
This SLR has revealed four main themes. They include
identification of policy options, policy formulation, policy
implementation, and policy evaluation and monitoring.
Environmental Management

Fig. 1 Selection of articles flow

diagram. Adapted from Moher
et al. (2009). Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: the PRISMA
statement; PLoS Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000097

5 Table 3 The main themes of ENGOs activities in climate change

governance
4
No. Author(s) Year Governance activities
3
IPO PF PI PEM
2
1 Allen 2006 /
1 2 Archer and Dodman 2015 /
3 Astuti and Mcgregor 2015 /
0
2006 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 4 Er 2015 /
5 Christoplos and McGinn 2016 / /
Fig. 2 Year of publication
6 Clarke et al. 2018 /
7 Dany et al. 2017 /
8 Dressler 2017 /
Identification of policy options 9 Jagger et al. 2014 /
10 Jefferson et al. 2020 /
Osmani (2008) described the identification of policy options
11 Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al. 2017 /
as a process to determine public preferences on the social
12 Laeni et al. 2019 /
outcomes and processes of the policy. It includes activities
13 Laycock and Mitchell 2019 / /
such as policy debates in forums and conferences, stake-
14 Moeliono et al. 2014 /
holder consultation, and the provision of relevant docu-
15 Never and Betz 2014 /
ments and information. In the present review, six studies
revealed that ENGOs assist the government in identifying 16 Puppim de Oliveira 2019 /
policy options for various advocacy and lobbying strategies. 17 Sayer et al. 2015 /
The Indonesian NGOs and civil society, for example, con- 18 Simpson and Smits 2018 / / /
tribute to the governance of climate change by organizing 19 Smits 2017 / / /
forums and conferences (Jagger et al. 2014). Although there Frequency 6 1 11 7
was a weak information exchange between the Indonesian IPO identification of policy options, PF policy formulation, PI policy
government and NGOs, some ENGOs were able to engage implementation, PEM policy evaluation and monitoring

in policy debates on strategies for reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) to contribute
toward climate change mitigation (Moeliono et al. 2014).
Under the same theme, international ENGOs in Thailand
participated in stakeholder consultation to exchange views
on climate change issues, although their participation is
minimal (Laeni et al. 2019). They also tried to influence
policy to mitigate climate change in Thailand (Smits 2017).
Also, ENGOs in Laos involved in policy framing activities
as well as conveyed government information on climate
change to the communities (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al.
2017). Furthermore, ENGOs in the Philippines produced
climate change documents to assist the government in
framing the issue (Laycock and Mitchell 2019).
Policy formulation
Howlett and Giest (2015) described policy formulation as
the process of creating and choosing the most feasible
courses of action from a range of policy options by various
policy actors. It is the process of developing the blueprint for
the best alternatives from a list of policy options. For policy
formulation, only ENGOs in Myanmar were involved in the
process by helping the government draft the Environmental
Law 2012 and Environmental Impact Assessment proce-
dures. Besides, they assisted in preparing the Intended
Nationally Determined Contribution of Myanmar for sub-
mission to the UNFCCC (Simpson and Smits 2018).
Policy implementation
In general, policy implementation refers to the execution of
activities by the government and other actors to attain policy
goals and objectives (Van Meter and Van Horn 1975). It
concerns the implementation of government decisions
through programs and projects to achieve desired policy
outcomes. Out of the 19 articles analyzed for the present
study, 11 revealed that ENGOs were involved in conducting
activities related to policy implementation. Some ENGOs
involved in capacity building for communities. For example,
ENGOs in the Philippines provided training for capacity
building in disaster preparedness and climate adaptation
(Allen 2006). ENGOs performed the same function in
Indonesia and Thailand (Archer and Dodman 2015).
Next, ENGOs in several countries participated in policy
implementation by providing support for government pro-
jects. For instance, the ENGOs in Indonesia supported the
REDD+ program (Astuti and Mcgregor 2015), while those
in Laos, including unions, supported the dry direct seeding
project as a climate adaptation option for farmers (Clarke
et al. 2018). Similarly, ENGOs in Cambodia are involved in
climate adaptation projects funded by their government
(Dany et al. 2017).
Environmental Management
Furthermore, some ENGOs carry out community-based
activities and programs related to climate change. For
example, ENGOs in Vietnam generally work on activities to
mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts (Smits 2017).
Thailand, for example, is involved in activities related to
energy and climate mitigation (Simpson and Smits 2018).
ENGOs in Malaysia run conservation programs and urban
initiatives for climate change mitigation efforts (Er 2015;
Puppim de Oliveira 2019), while the Philippines performed
post-disaster recovery activities (Laycock and Mitchell
2019). In addition, Cambodian ENGOs provide services for
climate change adaptation (Christoplos and McGinn 2016).
Policy evaluation and monitoring
Policy evaluation is the systematic assessment of policy
outcomes based on policy goals and objectives (Nachmias
1979). Policy monitoring involves an ongoing analysis of
policy performance based on the expected results (OECD-
DAC 2002). Both activities focus on the assessment of
policy effectiveness and government performance in
addressing the public problem. Seven studies found that
ENGOs participated in climate change governance through
policy evaluation and monitoring activities. In Cambodia,
ENGOs monitored human rights practices in climate change
adaptation strategies by the government (Christoplos and
McGinn 2016). ENGOs in the Philippines protested their
government via anti-mining and anti-oil palm campaigns in
Palawan (Dressler 2017).
In addition, Never and Betz (2014) revealed that Indo-
nesian ENGOs tried to influence their government’s climate
change policies through environmental protests and cam-
paigns. Sayer et al. (2015) found that the Indonesian
ENGOs also launched a campaign against a palm-oil
plantation project to create pressure on the companies to
stop the projects. They also negotiate to protect the rights of
the people affected by the projects. In the case of Indonesian
peatland fires, ENGOs act as a watchdog by monitoring and
supporting the enforcement of the government’s fire man-
agement interventions (Jefferson et al. 2020). ENGOs in
Thailand monitor the misuse of market-based climate policy
instruments. They criticized the government through official
letters to the government officials about the issue and used
more aggressive tactics utilizing demonstrations and civil
resistance (Simpson and Smits 2018). They have also pro-
tested against the government on climate change mitigation
policy (Smits 2017).
Discussion
This study provides an SLR on previous research on climate
change governance performed by ENGOs in Southeast
Environmental Management
Asia. The literature review was restricted to climate change
governance. The review of Southeast Asian ENGOs’
activities within the context of climate change governance
reveals a significant gap between the formulation and
implementation of the climate change policies among the
ENGOs. In particular, the ENGOs actively participated in
policy implementation, but very few had participated in the
climate change policy formulation.
In the context of the four stages of the policy cycle by
Osmani (2008), it has been observed that ENGOs in the
region participated primarily in the climate policy imple-
mentation stage. According to Puppim de Oliveira (2009),
the efficacy of climate policy implementation depends on
several factors, including the integration of the state, civil
society, and ENGOs in the process. The ENGOs are
essential in facilitating government implementation of cli-
mate change policy for mitigation and adaptation. They
took the initiative to organize activities and programs to
support mitigation and adaptation strategies. The con-
centration of ENGOs activity at the implementation stage
implies that there is an opportunity for a fruitful partnership
between ENGOs and the government to implement climate
policy. In other Asian countries (e.g., China), ENGOs
contribute significantly to the implementation of climate
change policies as well (Liu et al. 2017). This is also the
case for developed countries in Europe wherein ENGOs
play an active role in the policy implementation stage of
climate change policy (Berny and Rootes 2018).
Apart from active participation at the implementation
stage, ENGOs are keys for identifying policy options and
for evaluating and monitoring policy activities. Identifica-
tion of policy options is a stage whereby the policymakers
must generate and consider alternatives to solve the climate
change issue. In order to extend the range of options, the
government will obtain some input from non-state actors
such as ENGOs. The ENGOs submit their policy proposals
for consideration. As in the Philippines, ENGOs are con-
sidered experts in climate change policy and conversance
(Laycock and Mitchell 2019), and thus they could provide
expertise and information to assist the government (Pandey
2015). For example, the Thai Climate Justice network in
Thailand is condemnatory of market-based strategies as
spurious solutions to mitigate climate change (Smits 2017).
It means that the ENGOs could counter and debate expert
knowledge and identify information deemed threatening to
public interests (Betsill 2008). In that sense, ENGOs
activities in providing information through debates could be
highly political (Betsill 2008).
ENGOs’ policy evaluation and monitoring are as
important as their implementation. ENGOs both monitor
and evaluate the implementation of climate change policy in
a human rights watchdog function. Human rights abuses
have given rise to a social movement to combat the
environmental destruction that affects humanity (Dressler
2017). They responded to poor climate change governance
via aggressive actions such as protests and demonstrations
to force the government’s hand concerning climate change
action (Dressler 2017; Never and Betz 2014; Sayer et al.
2015; Smits 2017). However, in a political system that
corroborates with an ENGO on climate change governance
(e.g., Indonesia), they could advocate human rights by
urging the government to involve local communities in
governing REDD+ strategy (Jagger et al. 2014). This
practice appears to be more democratic and sensible in
managing climate change.
To keep their role in policy evaluation and monitoring
uncorrupted, Kim (2002) highlights that they prefer funds
from donors rather than government subsidies as they think
that they might lose their independence from and objectivity
of the government. The dependence on a subsidy presents a
conflict of interest as it would hinder the evaluation and
monitoring of the government’s actions in addressing
climate change.
The review reveals that ENGOs in Southeast Asia bear
little influence on climate change policy. Only the study by
Simpson and Smits (2018) found that ENGOs in Myanmar
influences policy formulation. The authors argued that non-
liberalism in Myanmar and Thailand thwart ENGOs influ-
ence on shaping policy. The situation reflects the dominance
of the Southeast Asian Government and the financial elites
in writing environmental and climate change policy. It is a
peculiar tendency among developing countries that envir-
onmental democracy appears to be less preferred because of
the public demand centers on socio-economic policies
(Spilker 2013). This is also the case in Bangladesh, in which
ENGOs are not allowed to participate in steering commit-
tees for climate change (Lopa and Ahmad 2016).
On the whole, the findings attest that ENGOs in less
democratic Southeast Asian countries had little (if any)
influence on climate change governance. As asserted by
Risse-Kappen (1995), democracy reflects the relationship
between the states and the ENGOs, which subsequently
determine the freedom of civil society. Thus, the level of
ENGO participation depends on the government’s openness
to expand civic space at the national governance process to
address climate change issues. For instance, although Dany
et al. (2017) noted how stakeholders in Cambodia, includ-
ing civil society, were restricted from climate change
policy-making participation in their national development
plans, they were still allowed to implement the govern-
ment’s climate change projects. This indicates that not all
authoritarian governments, particularly in Southeast Asia,
will inhibit ENGO participation in climate change govern-
ance. This is the case in Myanmar, in which the ENGOs are
an essential actor in formulating environmental laws
(Simpson and Smits 2018). Nevertheless, ENGOs do not

compromise on matters of human rights violations. This
point contradicts the argument of Berny and Rootes (2018)
that ENGOs tend to compromise if they are unable to par-
take in governance.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, ENGOs can contribute to climate change
policy improvements in developed and developing coun-
tries (Pandey 2015). They have been observed as an
important actor in policy formulation for tackling climate
change (Huang et al. 2020). The findings of the present
review suggest that research on Southeast Asian ENGOs
impact on climate change governance remains under-
researched. Although there are limited studies, it is clear
that ENGOs in Southeast Asia participate in all phases of
the policy cycle. They are involved in a broad range of
activities that contribute to more participation in the
national climate change governance. It also reveals that
ENGOs participated more in policy implementation (vs.
policy formulation). Despite the dearth of research, it seems
that their potential to address climate change effectively has
been hampered by the government’s readiness to open
political space to ENGOs for climate change policy nego-
tiation. A few studies have indicated that the type of regime
is a possible factor for the degree of ENGOs to participate in
climate change governance, but it still needs to be studied to
provide more recent evidence due to the dynamic of
democratization in the region. Therefore, this review
recommends that more studies should focus on ENGO
policy formulation activities to explore how their partici-
pation can be enhanced, particularly in less democratic
countries in the region.
While the ENGOs barely negotiate in formulating cli-
mate change policy, they do not tend to compromise with
poor climate change governance as they are public repre-
sentatives. They exhibit their disagreements via protests and
demonstrations, which reflect their seriousness in addres-
sing climate change. Therefore, they should be appreciated
and recognized as a critical partner in achieving policy
objectives. Furthermore, future studies should focus on the
government as it is the most powerful actor in the govern-
ance of climate change in Southeast Asia.
Finally, the limited number of studies reported on the
topic in Southeast Asia could be due to the selection of only
two databases for the current systematic review. Moreover,
the fluctuating trend of publications at present implies that it
receives relatively moderate attention from authors to study
ENGOs activities in climate change governance in the
region. Therefore, future review research on climate change
governance should utilize a broader range of databases to
Environmental Management
identify other dimensions (e.g., opportunities and chal-
lenges) of ENGOs participation in Southeast Asia.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Allen KM (2006) Community-based disaster preparedness and climate
adaptation: local capacity-building in the Philippines. Disasters
30(1):81–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00308.x
Analytics C (2017) It’s time to get the facts: the Web of Science fact
book. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploa
ds/sites/2/2019/08/d6b7faae-3cc2-4186-8985-a6ecc8cce1ee_
Crv_WoS_Upsell_Factbook_A4_FA_LR_edits.pdf
Archer D, Dodman D (2015) Making capacity building critical: power
and justice in building urban climate resilience in Indonesia and
Thailand. Urban Clim 14:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.
2015.06.007
Astuti R, Mcgregor A (2015) Governing carbon, transforming forest
politics: a case study of Indonesia’s REDD+ Task Force. Asia
Pac Viewp 56(1):21–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12087
Bäckstrand K, Kuyper JW, Linnér BO, Lövbrand E (2017) Non-state
actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris
and beyond. Environ Polit 26(4):561–579. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09644016.2017.1327485
Banks N, Hulme D, Edwards M (2015) NGOs, states, and donors
revisited: still too close for comfort? World Dev 66:707–718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028
Bernauer T, Gampfer R (2013) Effects of civil society involvement on
popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Glob
Environ Change 23:439–449
Bernauer T, Gampfer R, Meng T, Su YS (2016) Could more civil society
involvement increase public support for climate policy-making?
Evidence from a survey experiment in China. Glob Environ Change
40:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.001
Berny N, Rootes C (2018) Environmental NGOs at a crossroads?
Environ Polit 27(6):947–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.
2018.1536293
Betsill MM (2008) Reflections on the analytical framework and NGO
diplomacy. In:Betsill MM, Corell E (eds) NGO diplomacy: the
influence of non-governmental organizations in international
environmental negotiations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Betsill MM (2015) NGOs. In: Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (eds) Research
handbook on climate governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chel-
tenham, p 251–261. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783470600
Boomgaard P (2007) Southeast asia: an environmental history. ABC-
CLIO, California
Breslin S, Nesadurai HES (2018) Who governs and how? Non-state actors
and transnational governance in Southeast Asia. J Contemp Asia 48
(2):187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2017.1416423
Burnham JF (2006) Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr 3:1.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1
Carter N, Childs M (2017) Friends of the Earth as a policy entrepre-
neur: ‘The Big Ask’ campaign for a UK Climate Change Act.
Environ Polit 27(6):994–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.
2017.1368151
Environmental Management
Christoplos I, McGinn C (2016) Climate change adaptation from a
human rights perspective: civil society experiences in Cambodia.
Forum Dev Stud 43(3):437–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.
2016.1199443
Clarke E, Jackson TM, Keoka K et al. (2018) Insights into adoption of
farming practices through multiple lenses: an innovation systems
approach. Dev Pract 28(8):983–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09614524.2018.1504890
Dany V, Taplin R, Bajracharya B, Regan M, Lebel L (2017) Entry
points for climate-informed planning for the water resources and
agriculture sectors in Cambodia. Environ Dev Sustain 19(4):
1167–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9788-5
Dressler WH (2017) Contesting moral capital in the economy of
expectations of an extractive frontier. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 107(3):
647–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1261684
Elsevier (2020) Scopus content coverage guide. Elsevier BV,
Amsterdam, https://www.elsevier.com/?a=69451
Er AC (2015) Societal and environmental drivers affecting the sus-
tainable development of coastal tourism in Kudat. J Food Agric
Environ 13(3–4):147–149. https://doi.org/10.1234/4.2015.5450
Fröhlich J, Knieling J (2013) Conceptualising climate change gov-
ernance. In: Knieling J, Filho WL (eds) Climate change gov-
ernance. Springer, Berlin, p 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
642-29831-8_2
Gereke M, Brühl T (2019) Unpacking the unequal representation of
Northern and Southern NGOs in international climate change
politics. Third World Q 40(5):870–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01436597.2019.1596023
Giorgetti C (1998) The role of non-governmental organizations in the
climate change negotiations. Colo J Int’l Envtl L Pol’y 9(1):115–137
Ha H, Dhakal TN (2013) Governance approaches to mitigation of and
adaptation to climate change in Asia: an introduction. In: Ha H,
Dhakal TN (eds) Governance approaches to mitigation of and
adaptation to climate change in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, p 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137325211
Howlett M, Giest S (2015) Policy cycle. In: International encyclopedia
of the social & behavioral sciences, vol 18, second edn. p
288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.75031-8
Huang P, Broto VC, Westman LK (2020) Emerging dynamics of
public participation in climate governance: a case study of solar
energy application in Shenzhen, China. Env Pol Gov 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1886
Jagger P, Brockhaus M, Duchelle AE et al. (2014) Multi-level policy
dialogues, processes, and actions: challenges and opportunities
for national REDD+ safeguards measurement, reporting, and
verification (MRV). Forests 5(9):2136–2162. https://doi.org/10.
3390/f5092136
Jefferson U, Carmenta R, Daeli W, Phelps J (2020) Characterizing policy
responses to complex socio-ecological problems: 60 fire manage-
ment interventions in Indonesian peatlands. Glob Environ Change
60(2020):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102027
Kalesnikaite V (2019) Keeping cities afloat: climate change adaptation
and collaborative governance at the local level. Public Perform
Manag Rev 42(4):864–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.
2018.1526091
Karantzas GC, Romano D, Lee J (2019) Attachment and aged care: a
systematic review of current research. Curr Opin Psychol 25:37–46
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, Friberg L, Saccenti E (2017) Read all about
it!? Public accountability, fragmented global climate governance
and the media. Clim Policy 17(8):982–997. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14693062.2016.1213695
King N (2004) Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In:
Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Essential guide to qualitative methods
in organizational research. Sage, London, UK, p 257–270
Laeni N, van den Brink M, Arts J (2019) Is Bangkok becoming more
resilient to flooding? A framing analysis of Bangkok’s flood
resilience policy combining insights from both insiders and out-
siders. Cities 90:157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.
02.002
Lane M, Morrison T (2006) Public interest or private agenda? A
mediation on the role of NGOs in environmental policy and
management in Australia. J Rural Stud 22:232–242
Laycock KE, Mitchell CL (2019) Social capital and incremental
transformative change: responding to climate change experts in
Metro Manila. Clim Change 152(1):47–66. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10584-018-2360-6
Lewis D (2013) Civil society and the authoritarian state: cooperation,
contestation and discourse. J Civ Soc 9(3):325–340. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17448689.2013.818767
Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL et al. (2018)
Methodology of a systematic review. Actas Urol Esp 42
(8):499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2018.07.002
Liu L, Wang P, Wu T (2017) The role of non-governmental organi-
zations in China’s climate change governance. Wiley Interdiscip
Rev Clim Change 8(6):1–16
Lopa FGR, Ahmad MM (2016) Participation of CSOs/NGOs in
Bangladeshi climate change policy formulation: co-operation or
co-optation? Dev Pract 26(6):781–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09614524.2016.1200536
Martens K (2002) Mission impossible? Defining non-governmental
organizations. Voluntas 13(3):271–285. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1020341526691
McGregor I, Yerbury H, Shahid A (2018) The voices of local NGOs in
climate change issues: examples from climate vulnerable nations.
Cosmopol Civ Soc 10(3):63–80. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v10.
i3.6019
Mcloughlin C (2011) Factors affecting state-non-governmental organi-
zation relations in service provision: key themes from the literature.
Public Admin Dev 31:240–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.611
Moeliono M, Gallemore C, Santoso L, Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M
(2014) Information networks and power: confronting the “wicked
problem” of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecol Soc 19(2):9. https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-06300-190209
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA state-
ment. Plos Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Nachmias D (1979) Public policy evaluation: approaches and methods.
St. Martin’s Press, New York
Never B, Betz J (2014) Comparing the climate policy performance of
emerging economies. World Dev 59:1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.016
Norris M, Oppenheim C (2007) Comparing alternatives to the Web of
Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. J Informetr
1(2):161–169
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ (2017) Thematic ana-
lysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Meth
16:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
OECD-DAC (2002) Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-
based management. DAC Network on Development Evaluation,
OECD, Paris
Osmani S (2008) Participatory governance: an overview of issues and
evidence in participatory governance. In: Department of Eco-
nomic and Social Affairs (ed.) Participatory governance and the
millennium development goals (MDGs). United Nations, New
York, p 1–45
Kim PS (2002) The development of Korean NGOs and governmental
assistance to NGOs. Korea J 42(2):279–303
Pandey CL (2015) Managing climate change: Shifting roles for NGOs
in the climate negotiations. Environ Value 24(6):799–824. https://
doi.org/10.3197/096327115X14420732702734
Pokharel TP (2000) NGOs and their functioning in Nepal. In: Vartola
J, Ulvila M, Hossain F, Dhakal TN (eds) Development NGOs

facing the 21st century perspectives from South Asia. Institute for
Human Development, Kathmandu, p 55–64
Prokopy LS, Arbuckle JG, Barnes AP, Haden VR, Hogan A, Niles
MT, Tyndall J (2015) Farmers and climate change: a cross-
national comparison of beliefs and risk perceptions in high-
income countries. Environ Manag 56:492–504. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00267-015-0504-2
Puppim de Oliveira JA (2009) The implementation of climate change
related policies at the subnational level: an analysis of three
countries. Habitat Int 33:253–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ha
bitatint.2008.10.006
Puppim de Oliveira JA (2019) Intergovernmental relations for envir-
onmental governance: cases of solid waste management and cli-
mate change in two Malaysian states. J Environ Manag
233:481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.097
Rietig K (2016) The power of strategy: environmental NGO influence
in international climate negotiations. Glob Gov 22(2):269–288.
https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02202006
Risse-Kappen T (1995) Bringing transnational relations back in: intro-
duction. In: Risse-Kappen T (ed.) Bringing transnational relations
back in: non-state actors, domestic structures and international
institutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 3–36
Robinson P, Lowe J (2015) Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.
Aust NZ J Public Health 39(2):103
Rodela R, Udovč A, Boström M (2017) Developing environmental
NGO power for domestic battles in a multilevel context: lessons
from a Slovenian case. Environ Policy Gov 27(3):244–255.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1735
Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Dale A, Sunderland T,
Supriatna J, Saryanthi R (2015) Landscape approaches: what are
the pre-conditions for success? Sustain Sci 10(2):345–355.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0281-5
Shaffril HAM, Samah AA, Samsudin SF, Ali Z (2019) Mirror-mirror
on the wall, what climate change adaptation strategies are prac-
ticed by the Asian’s fishermen of all? J Clean Prod 232:104–117
Shin S (2015) Environmental policy in East Asia: institutions in
comparative perspective. In: Harris PG, Lang G (eds) Routledge
handbook of environment and society in Asia. Routledge, New
York, p 71–85
Environmental Management
Simpson A, Smits M (2018) Transitions to energy and climate security
in Southeast Asia? Civil society encounters with illiberalism in
Thailand and Myanmar. Soc Nat Resour 31(5):580–598. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1413720
Smits M (2017) The new (fragmented) geography of carbon market
mechanisms: governance challenges from Thailand and Vietnam.
Glob Environ Polit 17(3):69–90
Spilker G (2013) Globalization, political institutions and the envir-
onment in developing countries. Routledge, New York
Szarka J (2014) Non-governmental organizations and citizen action on
climate change: strategies, rationales and practices. Open Political
Sci J 7:1–8. https://doi.org/10.2174/187494960140701000
Tantivess S, Walt G (2008) The role of state and non-state actors in the
policy process: the contribution of policy networks to the scale-up
of antiretroviral therapy in Thailand. Health Policy Plann
23:328–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn023
Thomas A, Carr S, Humphreys D (2001) Environmental policies and
NGO influence, 2nd ed. Routledge, New York
United Nations (1992) United Nations framework convention for climate
change. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_
publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (2009) Handbook on plan-
ning, monitoring, and evaluating development results. UNDP,
New York, http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/
english/pme-handbook.pdf
United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific (2019) ESCAP Population Data Sheet 2019. ESCAP,
Bangkok, https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Population
%20Data%20Sheet%202019.pdf
Van Meter DS, Van Horn CE (1975) The policy implementation
process: a conceptual framework. Admin Soc 6(4):445–488
Werker E, Ahmed FZ (2008) What do non-governmental organiza-
tions do? J Econ Perspect 22:73–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.
22.2.73
Willetts P (2002) What is a non-governmental organization? In:
UNESCO encyclopedia of life support systems Section 1 insti-
tutional and infrastructure resource issues Article 1.44.3.7.
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.
HTM#Part1