Mechanisms and Perceptions in Strengthening Youth in Climate Decision-Making
“The voice of youth can be so profound. It hits you hard.”
— Severn Suzuki (2022)
During my Richard von Weizsäcker Fellowship at the Robert Bosch Academy (March–August 2025), I explored how youth engage in climate decision-making and how institutions respond to this engagement. I am grateful to the Academy for its generous support and to the many interlocutors — youth advocates, policymakers, scholars, and organizations — who shared their experiences and insights. The reflections in this post distil the key messages that emerged from these rich conversations.
March 3, 2023, New York, New York, USA: Student protesters lead a march across the Brooklyn Bridge holding a banner that reads Climate Can t Wait. Youth climate activists and allies gathered in Foley Square before marching across the bridge on the global day of Fridays For Future student led climate strikes.
Introduction
Public policymaking takes place within a complex political system shaped by actors who have different interests, influence, and power. Among these actors are youth. Their level of participation varies widely: in some processes they are visible and organized, while in others they remain almost invisible and rely mainly on informal spaces to express their concerns.
STOCKHOLM 20180822 Greta Thunberg. 15, is seen outside the parliament building in Stockholm, Sweden. Greta is on strike from school to protest against the climate crisis. She intends to strike until the general elections September 9.
In 2011, the UNFCCC recognized YOUNGO as its official children and youth constituency, creating a structured space for young people aged roughly 15–35 to contribute to global climate negotiations. [1] At the same time, youth have long used informal pathways to speak up, from Severn Suzuki’s powerful address at the 1992 Earth Summit [2] to the Fridays for Future movement sparked by Greta Thunberg’s school strike. These moments show how formal and informal channels coexist and sometimes reinforce each other.
At the national level, youth are increasingly expected to be involved in developing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), in line with calls for a whole-of-society approach.
In their recent inputs to UNFCCC processes, young people highlighted that ambition in climate policy cannot be achieved without structured and meaningful youth participation.[3]
Across policy documents, youth are often presented in two contrasting ways: as a vulnerable group strongly affected by climate impacts, and as agents of change with innovative ideas and energy. How policymakers interpret these roles influences the depth and quality of youth engagement.
Formal and informal mechanisms for engagement
Youth engagement in climate governance generally follows two channels: formal mechanisms embedded in political systems and informal mechanisms such as mobilization, advocacy, and public campaigns. Both provide opportunities, and both present challenges.
June 7, 2024, Bonn, Germany, Germany: CATERINA FELICIA BITTENDORF, Plant for the Planet Foundation speaks in a press conference, YOUNGO: Highlighting key demands of children and youth, during the first week of the SB60 conference on Climate Change.
Formal mechanisms
The formal mechanisms integrate youth into institutional processes. The recognition of YOUNGO by the UNFCCC opened specific avenues for youth to speak in official sessions, submit statements and observe negotiations. Youth observers do not negotiate text, but they bring youth perspectives into rooms where agenda-setting and framing occur.
Using these platforms effectively requires navigating a complex political environment. It is important for youth representatives to understand negotiation stages, identify where decisions are shaped, and recognize the interests and influence of different actors.
During the preparations for COP30, YOUNGO’s Strategic Policy Position— formally submitted to the COP30 leadership and the Presidency Youth Climate Champion — served as a structured advocacy instrument to align youth priorities with the conference process.[4]
Despite these advances, important gaps remain. The Paris Agreement preamble acknowledges intergenerational equity but does not explicitly mention youth, and national climate strategies vary widely in how they refer to young people. In some cases, youth are listed among vulnerable groups consulted during drafting; in others, specific youth-focused measures are clearly articulated. Where youth are absent or only briefly mentioned, their concerns risk remaining peripheral when implementation decisions are taken.
Informal mechanisms
Informal mechanisms often provide youth with their most visible tools. Protests, social media campaigns, and public awareness initiatives can quickly bring youth voices to the center of public debate. Greta Thunberg’s school strike, which grew into the global Fridays for Future movement, demonstrated how a single act can mobilize a generation and reshape the climate conversation.
However, informal organizing requires energy, time, and resilience. Youth movements can face political co-option, backlash, or declining public attention when mobilization cannot be sustained. Many young activists described the difficulty of balancing studies, work, and activism, especially when most efforts depend on volunteer structures.
Strategic litigation has become another informal pathway. Youth-led cases have pushed governments to review climate targets and brought climate justice arguments into wider public debate. At the same time, legal processes are long and outcomes uncertain. Cases such as Juliana v. United States [5] and the German constitutional challenge on climate law [6] illustrate both the potential of legal strategies to shift policy and their limits as tools for rapid change.
Perceptions of youth
How youth are perceived by policymakers strongly shapes the opportunities they have to participate in policymaking.
Youth as vulnerable
Many policy frameworks portray youth as vulnerable because of their long-term exposure to climate impacts and limited access to resources such as education, employment, and political capital. Youth themselves sometimes use this framing to communicate urgency – for example, when drawing attention to the situation of low-lying island states. [7]
Yet vulnerability can also limit participation. Young people who face economic insecurity or discrimination may lack the time, skills, or networks needed to influence policy debates. In such cases, intermediaries — civil society organizations, community groups, or the media — often play a central role. Without reliable data on youth needs and experiences, engagement risks becoming symbolic, a kind of “youth washing” where youth appear in photos and speeches but not in actual decision-making.
November 15, 2025, Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines: Progressive green groups trooped to the streets of Manila this Global Day of Action for Climate Justice. Environmentalists highlight recent environmental destruction brought by recent typhoons, denouncing state inaction and gross corruption for worsening the climate crisis. Groups ended with a cultural performance: youth covered in mud, viciously attacking caricatures of Philippine President BONGBONG MARCOS leashed to US President DONALD TRUMP.
Youth as agents of change
In contrast, youth are frequently presented as agents of change — innovators, community leaders, and drivers of transformation. Youth-led initiatives range from local adaptation projects to national advocacy campaigns and global coordination within the UNFCCC. Their ability to question established practices can bring new energy into climate governance.
However, being described as agents of change does not automatically translate into influence. Many youth initiatives depend on volunteer structures that are overstretched and underfunded. Access to mentorship, institutional allies, and spaces such as innovation hubs often determines whether ideas remain proposals or become sustained programs. The most impactful examples observed during the Fellowship were those in which institutions treated youth as genuine partners — sharing responsibility, resources, and accountability.
Balancing these two perceptions — recognizing structural vulnerabilities while supporting youth agency — is essential for designing policies that both protect and empower youth.
Pathways to enhancing youth engagement
Despite the challenges youth face, clear pathways exist to strengthen their role in policymaking. As one YOUNGO statement put it, borrowing from Nelson Mandela: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.” [8]
- Create seamless spaces for engagement
Recognizing youth as a constituency is an important step. But for engagement to be meaningful, formal structures must be youth-friendly, accessible, and linked to local community networks to ensure information flows smoothly. Equally important is enabling informal engagement — offering safe spaces, resources, and continuity so that youth movements can mobilize sustainably and build trust beyond one-off consultations. - Strengthen capacity for participation
Effective participation depends on understanding how policymaking works. Youth benefit from learning how negotiation processes unfold, how different actors influence outcomes, and when strategic intervention is possible. During my Fellowship, I saw how mentorship and decision-making training can quickly transform motivated young people into confident advocates. - Foster belonging through value creation
Young people thrive when they feel that their contributions matter. Creating inclusive environments for youth-led initiatives — spaces for co-creation, experimentation, and reflection — helps build skills, purpose, and long-term commitment. Policies should recognize volunteerism and support youth with practical resources that allow their ideas to grow. - Balance perceptions with targeted action
Youth want to be listened to, not just heard. Policymakers can challenge perceptions of youth powerlessness by prioritizing youth-led initiatives and strengthening participatory dialogue. Better data on youth experiences helps ensure decisions respond to real needs rather than assumptions. When youth perspectives shape policy choices, engagement becomes authentic and lasting.
Conclusion
Policymaking is a dynamic and complex process with several actors who have different interests, influence, and power. Youth are increasingly demanding not only a seat at the policymaking table, but also meaningful opportunities to influence decisions that will shape their future. Their engagement is affected by the formal and informal mechanisms available to them and by how institutions perceive their role in society.
Strengthening youth engagement requires effort from both sides. Policymakers need to design mechanisms that are open, accessible, and responsive to youth perspectives. At the same time, youth must continue to organize, build their capacity, and learn to navigate the political system so that their priorities can gain the attention of decision-makers. My Fellowship experience showed that meaningful engagement of youth is not simply a symbolic gesture or an act of goodwill. It is essential for the quality of democratic governance. When youth can participate as respected partners, climate governance becomes more inclusive, forward-looking, and resilient.