25th November 1998

(2,342 words)

How important is the role of non-state actors (both NGOs and
other groups) in global environmental politics?

The variety of forms that non-state actors take means that in order to judge their importance or success they must be distinguished from one another. This process is not necessarily simple, because not only do certain organisations have diverse actions, but also different issues are affected by different non-state actors, making it hard to see the relative importance of each. I shall try and identify three main forms of action that can be taken by non-state actors in relation to global environmental politics. The first of these is lobbying state actors and state institutions to use their powers to meet certain environmental goals. The second, not unrelated form of action is that of lobbying public opinion, what has been described as affecting the civic society. This form of action can produce behaviour or social norms that will perhaps eventually lead to state action, such as through legislation. The third way in which non-state actors tackle environmental issues, is by directly acting on the ground in solving problems, such as through programmes funded by their members which will help conservation. Within each of these tactics is also a variety of methods of achieving goals. These shall be discussed below. Also, this study is complicated by the vast array of environmental issues that are addressed by such action. These range from saving of endangered species to prevention of the pollution resulting in global warming.

A last point to mention is those non-state actors which will be ignored in this essay. Although, they are not strictly 'state actors', supranational institutions such as the European Union, and the World Bank are funded by governments and policies are usually dictated by state positions. This differentiates them from the more independent organisations and movements that shall be looked at. This contrasts with business, which is largely independent of state control and so is able to have its own effect on environmental politics. The role of business must therefore be addressed, both as the target of much action of other groups and for the effect that it has itself in dealing with environmental politics.

In their article, Barbara Bramble and Gareth Porter identify three types of environmental organisation within the US which act in the first form identified, namely the lobbying of state institutions. The first of these has limited relevance to this study, as it is the mass membership organisations which concentrate attention on domestic issues, often being quite specific in their action. The second strand is that of mass membership international groups, such as Greenpeace USA and Friends of the Earth. These campaign primarily on international issues, often using the same tactics as the domestic groups. The third type of environmental organisation typically has a small membership and derives its influence primarily from scientific, technical or legal expertise, the so called 'think tank' groups. The case is complicated further by certain organisations having multiple branches, working in different ways, and so one organisation might encompass all of the forms identified above.

One key feature of mass membership environmental groups is their independence. Their funding is typically through private donations and membership levies. Often because their main adversary is business, they have little corporate sponsorship. This independence perhaps allows such organisations greater legitimacy than other lobbying groups, as the need for often mass membership can give them a mandate which shows to politicians that they represent a sizeable proportion of the people. This does not however mean that all such groups follow just causes and are consistent in their beliefs. Often they will follow only media friendly stories, even giving bias and unjustified accounts of situations that they view. When for example such groups take direct action or begin letter writing campaigns the force of protest must be diluted by what some might see as a lack of credibility.

For this reason the third form of lobbying organisation, the 'think tank' groups are important in achieving ends. These groups are often highly specialised in their fields and have expertise which is greater often than governmental departments. They also do not necessarily see themselves as having a political agenda, but instead are often involved in certain areas, collecting data and scientifically drawing conclusions. These conclusions are then presented to government or to other environmental groups to take up campaigns. Having backing from such groups, which must, by this loose definition include some university research institutions, gives any environmental cause the credibility which it needs. In a democratic state this two stranded approach of mass popularity and feeling for an issue, along with scientific research to back it up must be highly persuasive for politicians who wish to both represent their citizens and carry out intelligent policies.

The aim of the lobbying by such groups is three fold. They wish the state governments to enact domestic legislation; they wish to make sure that there are environmental concerns considered with all other policy areas and they wish their governments to represent their interests in international negotiations and initiatives about the environment. Because of the nature of environmental politics, all of these have a baring on global issues as environmental issues do not respect state boundaries, so domestic action can be a first step to solving transnational problems.

The effectiveness of groups in such areas is hard to define, but there is clearly recognition of their role and many cases taken up by NGOs have resulted in action being carried out. At global environmental conferences, such as recently in Buenos Aires, there is an accepted presence of such groups, although it is clear that their power remains that of persuasion of governments. Without legislation and international agreements, such issues as reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and the imposition of bans on the trade of ivory would be impossible for powerless non-governmental groups to act upon. For this reason it is clear that the importance of non-state actors is highly dependent on their ability to shape the actions of state actors. Also, the greater unity that exists between environmental groups, especially if there is credible scientific backing, the greater the chance of governments acting.

An interesting alternative role of environmental groups, or as they are described by Wapner, transnational environmental activist groups (TEAGs) is their societal role. Although this cannot be detached from an effect on state governments, especially in democratic states, proponents would suggest that government action has a secondary role, rather than being the principle target of such groups. The effect that such action tries to have is of 'disseminating an ecological sensibility' in a society. By trying to raise awareness of environmental issues to individuals, it is hoped that they will change their own behaviour in a way that when summated will have an effect to help solve global environmental problems. The most successful such movements do not encourage letters to be written to heads of polluting corporations, but instead by encouraging boycotting the purchasing of certain brands, or conserving energy by turning off appliances or by insulating homes. Such measures are educational, and extremely hard to measure as successes are not through the passing of legislation, but the reduction in environmental problems. Further the socialising of the importance of green issues means that future political agenda will be shifted in this direction. Resent times have seen such moves increased dramatically, with American children being taught the 'three R's' of reduce, reuse and recycle at the same ages as they are being taught the more traditional 'three R's'.

This fluid approach to environmental activism results in actions by certain corporations being seen as unacceptable. By voting with their dollars, consumers can change these firm's policies. Examples of such movements include those which prevented tuna fishermen from catching dolphins in their nets and that changed the packaging of fast-food burgers. The movement towards use of unleaded fuel in Europe is also a clear example of an educated civic society making choices in behaviour relevant to what they perceive as global environmental issues. The role of TEAGs is therefore to define these issues and to bring them to the attention of the public. This leads inevitably to the role of the media which shall be discussed later as being pivotal to such group's activities.

This social conditioning can in its own way produce new markets which might eventually lead to trends that displace old markets. Examples of this include banks which advertise themselves as only investing in environmentally friendly projects, or firms producing low energy light bulbs. Although not the most powerful of mechanisms of political change, this constant movement towards a greener agenda must have some effect on environmental concerns.

The last major role of non-state organisations is there activities in actually solving problems themselves, rather than using their resources to persuade others to do so. The scope of such programmes is obviously limited by the size of organisations and the ease in which progress can be made. Such programs often again relate to the importance of social acceptance of environmental issues, such as teaching farmers in the developed world to farm in ways which are less harmful to the environment. This role of education of communities, with the incentive of funds from the organisation is able to galvanise civil support and change practices. Eventually this could also lead to governmental action, but this would complement the programmes being run by TEAGs, following their lead and using their expertise. An example of this is seen in Kenya, where poachers of endangered species are being educated to preserve the animals and develop skills to attract tourists. This strategy has though extremely limited effects on the grander environmental problems, mainly associated with large scale business. It is perhaps a worrying and obvious observation that in a free-market businesses will have little regard for actions of groups unless they result in legislation constricting practices, or if descent leads to a removal of a market for their goods.

Direct action in the form of programmes is therefore limited. The other forms of action are united in their need to persuade institutions or individuals towards a particular cause. For this reason the role of the media is vital. The media is not only a vehicle for NGO action, but it will also shape what types of issues groups see as worthwhile in pursuing. There is no question that TEAGs recognise the role of the media and much of their action is done to create pseudo-news stories in order to gain its attention. Greenpeace has a vast department of media relations, capable of producing information in a style and type that is required by media groups. This can help in some campaigns, but is hard to use in others. For example the plight of a friendly dolphin is easier to sell to the media than that of plankton. It might therefore be a waste of resources to continue the campaign with little coverage. The result of this is therefore action which is highly stylised towards certain types of issues. For example the case of the hole in the ozone layer lacked real coverage until its relationship with cancer was seen. If groups would have been able to gain coverage before the link with cancer was identified, the process of reducing those pollutants responsible for ozone depletion could have been started earlier. Another problem with heavy media dependency is that action by government in a response to such campaigns could be limited. Governments simply need to do enough to appease the major claims in the news stories and not to follow a more general environmental policy. News agendas also fluctuate greatly, and stories can be superseded by other events. Equally, if there is a lack of other news, certain issues can gain disproportionate attention to their real environmental significance. This inconsistency must therefore put TEAGs in a weak position, especially with the danger of public boredom being ever present.

The importance of TEAGs can therefore be easily exaggerated. Their power is in their ability to manipulate the new agenda and so public opinion. This can result in changes in state behaviour, but surely their adversaries in industry can also put a spin on new agendas and they have other leverage on politicians, such as the ability to invest in or out of a particular region. Environmental groups therefore lack the teeth to be important actors in decision making, but still do have capabilities of changing society to be more receptive and in the longer term, to move the political agenda towards their cause.

It is lastly worthwhile mentioning the role of an extremely significant set of non-state actors, namely business. Business has been portrayed as the main adversary of environmental NGOs, who wish to impose high costs on them to regulate their activities. In environmental issues, corporation use many of the same tactics as environmental NGOs, with their own set of scientists often used to contradict those supporting the NGOs. In addition, they are able to use other leverages over governments and have more traditional links, than the relatively modern environmental groups. For this reason, they too were represented at the conference in Buenos Aires. An interesting outcome from this conference was that in a pre-emptive step, expecting action by governments, firms have taken environmental initiatives themselves. For example BP has started to enact an internal market in pollution to make them more efficient when an expected world market in pollution comes into effect. Business will not necessarily initiate environmental schemes, unless they see a market for doing so, but they can be useful sources of information and ideas for governments when producing policy.

This again seems to point to non-state organisations being important primarily in petitioning governments and trying to set agendas towards environmental issues. This is a limited effect, so it should be concluded that state actors, and supranational institutions such as the World Bank have the lead with the powers of funding and legislating. Other organisations can therefore only ever be as secondary to them.