The actions and
effectiveness of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) have gotten mixed results.
There are two sides to the issue of NGOs. One side believes they are “the key
actors in moving societies away from trends of environmental degradation and
toward sustainable economies” (Princen and Finger 1994). And the other believes
that environmentalists have little power because “environmentalists do not hold
the levers of economic power” (Maurice Strong, UNCED Secretary General). However
I believe that NGOs are necessary and can be useful in holding governments and
businesses accountable for what their actions do to the environment.
NGOs along with Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs) operate
outside of the government and can be useful when local governments aren't willing
or are simply unable to address certain issues or when their actions negatively
affect the NGOs area of expertise. There are NGOs that focus on a wide variety
of issues including the environment, human rights, poverty, and medical care.
Last
week, the Green 10 a group of environmental NGOs that includes WWF and Greenpeace
has asked the European Parliament to block changes announced by the incoming
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. The group of NGOs stated
that the changes are a “serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of
EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality,
biodiversity protection and climate action.” The organizations went on to say
that “The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which
seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate.” [i] This
is an example of some of work that NGOs do in order to further environmental
issues.
It’s
important that NGOs exist and use their influence in order to call out and hold governments whose actions negatively affect the environment accountable. The Green 10’s
membership alone exceeds 20 million people. The group’s large membership base
allows the coalition of NGOs to use leverage politics in order to exert
pressure on a democratic government like the European Parliament. With ten
large NGOs working together it is easier for their voices to be heard by the
various members of the Parliament. The large membership base also increases its
ability to get their message out to the general public. This can be done through
the use of information politics. By framing the issue in a way that gains the
attention of the public, the public will use its power to influence members of
the government.
The
Green 10’s use of leverage politics ties into its ability to use accountability
politics to influence the issue in their favor. Their ability to raise
awareness on the issue of President Juncker undoing the work of years of
environmental regulations plays a large part in the pressuring government
organizations into acting in a manner that the aids the NGOs in obtaining their
goals.
The
opposing perspective on the issue of NGOs is that they cannot get things done
because they don’t hold the influence that economic growth does. This issue of
President Juncker proposed reforms highlight this side of the issue as well.
Members of the Green 10 have argued that these reforms show “a clear bias
towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the
environment”. If parliament doesn't listen to the Green 10 and passes these reforms then it would favor the
perspective that economic growth with trump the environmental issues more times
than not.[ii]
Some
believe that NGOs aren't worth much because economic self-interest usually wins
out. While most governments, businesses, and organizations will favor decisions
that will help their bottom line over decisions that favor the environment, I
don’t think this means that NGOs are pointless. The alternative which is NGOs
not existing would be much worse than the way things work currently.
Governments and businesses would be less environmentally conscious about their
decisions and business practices because they would be no one to attempt to
keep them in check through various means. NGOs may not get an environmentally
friendly outcome to every issue but the ability to be bring awareness and pressure can get organizations to conform is
enough to justify their use and existence.
[i] http://chemicalwatch.com/21287/ngos-demand-eu-parliament-prevents-erosion-of-environmental-policy
Though I wrote my post on the same topic with an opposing view, I agree with your point about NGO's as watch dogs. They serve an important and necessary function in that way. However, I think this is more the case in European nations than in the US. Your example reminded me of the way NGO's/TAN's reacted to the introduction of GMO's in Europe. There was immediate outcry, and this led to change. I think in that instance, and in the example you presented, NGO's played a large role in calling out businesses and governments. I believe these groups can play the same role in the US but they may be less effective. GMO's are fairly controversial in the US as well, yet the outcry from NGO's and the public has not lead to any concrete changes. While I agree with you that NGO's can influence the public and private sector, I feel they have more influence in other nations.
ReplyDeleteIs the alternative to NGOs being effective their non-existence?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your point of view that NGO's can be very useful, and that the alternative, which would be a world without them, would leave us all much worse off. Carley's comment brings up a good point about how NGO's may be more effective in some places of the world (and in regard to specific topics) than in others, and your example of the Green 10 in Europe is a good example of successful NGO action abroad. I had no idea about the Green 10 and their work in Europe, so I thought this blog post was both interesting and informative.
ReplyDeleteNGO's are a strong check on the governments environmental policy. I agree these "watch dogs" are essential to keep the government up to date with environmental politics, because most members of the government are not scientist and do not have environmental backgrounds. A congressperson is less likely to have any experience studying the science of climate or energy, but more likely to understand business or law. The NGO's and TAN's are necessary to bring up new ideas that would not otherwise be sparked or called to attention by a room of only congress.
ReplyDeleteI agree that NGO's do a great job of holding these multilateral organizations accountable. I wrote my post on the opposite topic, and believe that these NGO's should perhaps do more research before outright opposing policy from these TANs. While I'm not up to date on the issue mentioned in your post, I think that if NGO's tried to help these TANs, then they could agree on different kinds of policy.
ReplyDelete