Reinvigorating Democratic Governance Through Procedural Innovation: Comparative Lessons from Climate Policy Implementation in Colorado and the Swiss Canton of Valais

Democratic systems increasingly struggle to translate ambitious climate commitments into effective and legitimate policies. This “implementation deficit” weakens institutional trust and opens space for anti-democratic narratives. Drawing on comparative fieldwork in the Rocky Mountain region of Colorado (USA) and the Canton of Valais (Switzerland), this paper analyses how procedural policy instruments can help rebuild democratic responsiveness in climate governance. Anchored in the political sociology of public action (Lascoumes & Le Galès; Massardier; Hrabanski; Montouroy) and policy design scholarship (Howlett; Peters), procedural instruments are defined as tools that structure policymaking processes rather than prescribing substantive outcomes. They organise participation, deliberation, agenda-setting, and coordination, shaping who is included, how problems are framed, and how decisions evolve. Examples include deliberative forums, policy dialogues, co-design processes, collaborative platforms, and territorial labs. The analysis focuses on two such instruments: (1) Policy Dialogues developed with mountain ranchers in Colorado; (2) a Mountain Policy Lab being co-designed with livestock farmers and cantonal actors in Valais. Both instruments seek to reconfigure the interface between public authorities and local actors by redistributing problem-definition power, integrating situated knowledge, and enabling adaptive forms of climate policy learning. Empirically, the study draws on more than 40 interviews, participant observation, and iterative co-design workshops. Findings show that procedural instruments can: reconnect climate action with everyday socio-economic realities; create hybrid deliberative arenas where local, administrative, and scientific knowledge interact; improve implementation by revealing hidden constraints and enabling policy feedback; enhance perceived legitimacy among actors historically marginalised in climate policymaking. However, the paper also identifies limits linked to entrenched power asymmetries, sectoral path dependence, and the often-fragile institutionalisation of participatory arenas. The contribution demonstrates that procedural and participatory innovations can make democratic governance “work again” by empowering local actors, improving institutional responsiveness, and strengthening legitimacy during climate transitions. The comparative analysis offers actionable insights for designing more inclusive, democratic and context-sensitive climate policies in rural and mountain regions.