It has predominately been the privilege of government bodies and business actors to dictate the direction and fate of environmental policy, however, in recent years, environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGO’s) have won influence and inclusion within decision making processes to ensure accountability, sustainability and equality to ecosystems and society. This article shall highlight the variation in the roles of ENGO’s in the fight to influence before exploring the need for ENGO’s themselves to work in a transparent and accountable manner.

State and Inter-State bodies are the predominant decision makers regarding environmental policies [1], however the influence of ENGO’s within decision making structures has grown rapidly. The World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 noted the role of ENGO’s as “the first stirrings of a new way of governing the global commons” [2]. Whilst the summit resulted in over 500 agreements and formed partnerships between ENGO’s and civil society, it also raised revolutionary questions regarding the value, under-representation and control of ENGO’s within environmental governance structures.

Function of Environmental NGO’s (ENGO’s)

Historically, ENGO’s sought to raise awareness, engage public support and influence governmental decisions or industrial practices. However in recent times, ENGO’s have evolved to adopt a number of roles to incorporate themselves directly within decision making arenas [3]. Here, the article shall briefly highlight this range of roles;

To Collate & Analyse Information: ENGO’s exist to inform decision makers and mobilise campaigners [4]. In this first respect, ENGO’s have significant expertise in environmental issues ([3] and [5]), and are capable of contributing their specialisations to the quality and durability of government policy. Large scale ENGO’s – such as Greenpeace or WWF – have an acknowledged reputation with substantiated greater expertise when contributing to agendas or policies with direct contact with government ministers. The extent of ENGO involvement at such a senior stage is a privilege open to a select few, but are only utilised in consultation. Whilst such an opportunity allows firms to interact directly with decision makers, ENGO’s jeopardise their impartiality and reputations if considered to be too involved with those they initially disputed.

To Advocate and Lobby: Whilst advocacy and lobbying activities were the underlying origins of ENGO’s, in today’s arena, ENGO’s act predominantly to build informal contacts within governmental agencies in a bid to provide influential information to negotiations [5]. In addition to this more evolved role, ENGO’s continue to revert back to the core cause of their being; to pressurise decision makers to revoke or adopt particular practices throughout its membership [4]. Financial constraints have dampened ENGO efforts to disperse their findings and causes to the public however the rise of the internet has remedied this.  ENGO’s monitor and assess governmental and corporate bodies to ensure transparency and responsibility. Pressure from ENGO’s and other parties have led to an explosion of corporate social responsibility reports from industries determined to salvage and maintain a positive reputation [6].

To represent the voiceless: ENGO’s act to communicate the voice of stakeholders – including the environment itself – who may be ignored or overlooked. In presenting such information and concerns to the decision making table, ENGO’s can greatly enhance the outcome of decisions by remedying consequences upon those who are sidelined whilst maintaining their commitment to their core causes.

Improving ENGO Participation in Environmental Governance

ENGO’s have evolved from protest administrators to valued advisors to policy makers. Whilst ENGO participation is encouraged through the internationally acknowledged Agenda 21 (chapter 27) ENGO’s and academics have highlighted the potential to undertake yet greater responsibility. The suggestions include:

Accreditation: This is the certified acknowledgement of an ENGO’s competency, credibility and authority within a particular arena. It represents the acceptance of an ENGO’s work within their sector and enhances, in theory, the respect given to that organisations achievements and contribution to their field. A select few authors who argue that ENGO’s with relevant impartiality and expertise in an industry should be accredited to international institutions to provide concrete and unbiased advice to decision makers ([3] and [7]). However fees for accreditation – currently £700 for the British Council – can deter ENGO’s who operate to tight financial constraints.

Access to Information & Meetings: It is widely argued ENGO’s should have access to meetings and information within which decisions are made ([2], [3] and [4]). Such access would allow ENGO’s to scrutinise or understand the rationale of decision makers or to contribute to such discussions. At present, ENGO’s are denied the opportunity to attend closed cabinet meetings, discussing the same issues “next door to the decision makers with no direct communication” [2]. ENGO’s remain under-represented in decision making structures and, to combat this inequality, Oberthur (2002) argues for a central fund to finance ENGO’s attendance at conferences or other such meetings [5]. This is perhaps an optimistic suggestion and, realistically, may  be dubious in assuming wealthier ENGO’s will willingly contribute to a fund they themselves are unlikely to benefit from – despite joint agendas.

Governance of ENGO’s

With such opportunity available to ENGO’s, it is worth taking a moment to discuss a significant concern – and threat – confronting the charities. The governance of ENGO’s has become a prominent concern due to their role in influencing society, businesses and governments to advocate changes in practices or policy – ironic given the well fought battle to achieve this desired status. ENGO’s have the potential to inform the opinion of millions of individuals – from consumers to chief executives – and it is this influence which has raised concerns regarding their impartiality when working alongside large multinationals [5]. Observers now question the intricacies of such complex partnerships which can supposedly give rise to a clouding of the accountability of any given organisation, or green-washing of unfavourable actions. If ENGO’s lose the trust of their members, their reputations and credibility would be irrevocably tarnished, causing a breakdown in support and legitimacy. Trust and legitimacy are the core foundations of ENGO survival, therefore activist demands for adequate governing boards are being adopted en masse. Transparency and accountability of ENGO’s is essential in an effort to allay those critics attempting to undermine the work of the ENGO [8]. Publicly available information – such as corporate social responsibility reports – are one solution to this problem and allow ENGO’s to operate openly. However, Jepson (2005) condemns such reports and suggests that the diverting of resources from the primary cause of ENGO’s and to CSR reports provide poor value and inadequate results [8].

A final – and highly contentious issue for ENGO’s is that of Staffing appointments. Those employed – or advocating ENGO’s – can be a final affliction upon the impartiality of ENGO’s due to the increasing numbers staff employed from corporate sectors. Whilst ENGO’s assumingly employ staff for their expertise in a given industry, many question the decision of appointments who may hold conflicting allegiances within an industry [2].

Conclusion

ENGO’s have evolved unto a role of influence; to make significant contribution to, and directly influence policy decision making structures. Despite the successes, ENGO’s face constraint through financial jeopardy, limited inclusion and critical audiences fearing a loss of focus, legitimacy and impartiality. The calls for ever greater governance of ENGO’s is one such attempt to improve transparency and accountability of ENGO’s. Positive commitments to such efforts can enhance the influence of ENGO’s in decision making models to better inform and represent both the environment and wider society whilst further enhancing the role of ENGO’s to represent their causes in influencing decision makers.

If you would like to learn more about environmental issues then take a look at our learning portal.

References

[1] Auer, M. R. (2000). Who Participates in Global Environmental Governance? Partial Answers from International Relations Theory. Policy Sciences. Issue 33 pp. 155 – 180.

[2] Witte, J. M. Et al. (2002). The Road from Johannesburg: What Future for Partnerships in Global Environmental Governance? Road from Johannesburg Article. Pp 59 – 84.

[3] Gemmill, B. (2006). The Role of NGO’s and Civil Society in Global Environmental Governance. Yale University Centre for Environmental Law and Policy.

[4] Esty, D & Ivanova, M. (2002). Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities. Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy. America.

[5] Oberthur, S. (2002). Participation of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Environmental Governance: Legal Basis and Practical Experience. Institute for International and European Environmental Policy. Berlin

[6] Kanie, N & Haas, P. (2004). Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance. United Nations University Office. Hong Kong.

[7] Pattberg, P. (2004). Private Environmental Governance and the Sustainability Transition: Functions and Impacts of NGO-Business Partnerships. Governance for Industrial Transformation. Environmental Policy Research Centre. Berlin.

[8] Jepson, P. (2005). Governance and Accountability of Environmental NGO’s”.Oxford University centre for the Environment. Oxford.