The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in
Global Environmental Governance
Dr. Barbara Gemmill (and Ms. Bimbola Izu)
(a chapter contributed to a book on Global Governance by Yale University Centre for Environmental Law and Policy)
Civil society has a key role to play within global environmental governance. Within this paper, we would like to argue that existing structures do not enable it to play those key roles effectively, and expect inappropriate roles from non-governmental organizations. We suggest a more positive enabling environment should be built for civil society participation in global environmental governance.
Definition of environmental governance
If we define “environmental governance” as the manner in which people exercise authority over nature, we must acknowledge that at present, the health of the global environmental commons is trending in a negative direction, while governed by a plethora of treaties with little synergies among them, and little authority to change management practices. Thus a looming, and overarching topic for the upcoming Johannesburg Summit (World Summit on Sustainable Development) will be finding new structures of international environmental governance.
International governance, of any issue, is fraught with difficulties. Governance is NOT “governments”. It is not buildings, nor is it principles- which can be constructed, but also undermined. At its essence, it is the structure of dialogue and agreements among all stakeholders, and the means embedded in those agreements to change human behaviour.
A short recent history of civil society participation
Historically non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were viewed by the United Nations (UN) primarily as valuable partners in the implementation of some programmes particularly with respect to emergency activities, human rights and election monitoring. While civil society organizations have always been recognised as “partners” of the UN system in that they are critical to service delivery and implementation, they have not always received more than a certain amount of credit for this, with one exception. The role of voluntary agencies in emergency and relief work has been institutionalized, and well-developed structures for delegations of responsibility between the UN system and international non-governmental organizations have been thoroughly worked out. Where partnership roles appear more politicized, as with human rights or environmental issues, the interaction of the United Nations system with civil society is not so clearly supported or articulated, although the key and independent role of non-governmental organizations is clearly essential and appreciated.
At the same time, within the last ten years their roles within the system have expanded dramatically, in ways that are not officially recognised. In particular, over the last ten years, a new element has been added to the work done by NGOs: their substantive contributions and their contributions to the policy-setting processes and fora of the UN. Before the 1990s, while various social movements may have used the UN as a global forum to advance particular agendas, such as for the International Women’s Decade (1976-1986), the focus was not on official UN deliberations. Through the process leading up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, environmental organizations have begun to focus on building capacity within themselves to understand how international policy making takes place, and to us this to influence UN policy and intergovernmental negotiations. In response, member states officially recognised the contribution of civil society in Agenda 21, the major outcome document adopted at UNCED. This comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development identified eight ‘major groups’ or stakeholders of civil society and elaborated ways that they should be involved in the further development and implementation of sustainable development initiatives.
Throughout the 1990s, non-governmental organizations have continued to focus on official UN deliberations and the international policy arena. Numbers of accredited NGOs to a number of Un bodies have increased dramatically in recent years. (ex:, table: 1985: Conference on Women: 400 NGOs were accredited/ 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, the number of accredited NGOs :2,600. Number of NGOs accredited to Stockholm : X; number accredited to UNCED: 1400. ) NGOs have sought accreditation at international intergovernmental conferences to be able to circulate their documents and statements in person, to make official address to the plenary sessions, to organize briefings, to publish daily bulletins, and to lobby government delegates. A number of government delegations are now including NGOs.
In two important instances, representatives of NGOs and other civil society organizations have partaken of more officially recognised roles. In the preparatory process for the UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), NGOs and local authorities participated in the informal drafting groups that drew up the Declaration and Programme of Action. In the negotiation of the Aarhus Convention on Public Access to Information, Participation in Decision-making and Access to Environmental Justice, representatives of civil society actually participated in the negotiation process. In both cases, a special, semi-official status was accorded representatives of civil society at these conferences.
Over the same time period, the NGO community around the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) has undertaken to organize themselves into working groups and issue caucuses. Through lobbying by major groups, a “multistakeholder dialogue” between major groups and government delegates, on specified issues, has become an integral part of the CSD.
Many observers of the United Nations have felt that NGO involvement has leant legitimacy to social initiatives undertaken by the UN, and has helped some conferences to achieve an international consensus on challenging issues. Clearly identifiable successes of civil society have been in pressuring for the accords to ban anti-personnel landmines and to establish the International Criminal Court. As the decade ended, the Jubilee campaign for debt relief also began to explore possibilities at the UN to advance its concerns.
While these advances in civil society participation have been dramatic, they have been informal arrangements. Formal mechanisms for NGO presence and participation (and assessment of performance) at the UN remain very limited. Formal procedures have changed little since the founding of the UN and, in the words of the Non-Governmental Liaison Service, “do not readily facilitate the insights, experience and expertise of NGOs as a contribution to decision-making and policy-setting other than as communicated through governments”.
Inappropriate expectations of civil society
The United Nations system has, both openly and by implication, welcomed civil society participation because it helps to “build legitimacy” for international processes, if the processes are followed by an interested, engaged civil society movements. While politically this makes some sense, it has a number of problems.
Government representatives to international processes are, presumably, representing their citizens, but there is no means to assure that NGOs are indeed representative of broad constituencies, or that they act in ways that respond to the needs of those constituencies. NGOs are “held accountable” to those they represent by far slimmer threads than any government official, and are often taken to task by each other for their failures to be responsive or representative. Short of monitored democratic elections among civil society organizations that would turn them into parallel governments, NGOs should rarely be expected to be speaking for vast groups of people who are not present. To expect this is to undermine the creative advocacy role of civil society organizations, which may arise, for example, because groups of committed people seek to overcome a particular problem. Civil society organizations are often ahead of the rest of the public in perceiving a problem, and envisioning a solution. If we require at the same time that they solidly represent that public, this may truly exceed reasonable expectations.
There has long been a hope that the NGO world could empower itself by building strong, strategic networks- and most NGO consultations these days includes some moments of despair on the part of NGOs that we have not adequately built strong networks. Donors, too, have promoted the concepts of networks, as the concept of supporting one or two groups with a vast reach to many others is highly attractive. This also has implications for NGOs attending civil society consultations- an initial question is who do we represent? What is our constituency?
Several contributors to a recent e-mail list serve discussion on NGOs in sustainable development have suggested that these hopes for vast, comprehensive networks are more often than not an illusion. Experience with networks shows that they are viable structures that form and work when they are being used, for a clear and proximate purpose- and then erode past that purpose. People will use networks when there is a compelling need. At their best, they enable a two-way flow of information. Also useful, but less dynamic are largely one-way networks with one committed organization compiling and sending out information to an audience that appreciates the information but does not have time or inclination to really “network” and discuss the issues, except when there is a clear target on the horizon. It may be wrong to think that a single, or a few viable global networks can and should be built and will be uniformly accessed. A diversity of communication structures, respecting the diversity of views is more realistic.
The fact that governments have come to appreciate the need for civil society input into international negotiations has been a major triumph. While it is understandable that governments would prefer to see that input expressed in a concise, consensus document, the reality is that civil society is rarely in consensus. Intergovernmental negotiations have often left the door open for one civil society statement, and are surprised when this is hard to develop. The solution may not necessarily be to carry out more consensus building exercises among civil society groups, although this can be helpful. But a more realistic solution may be to agree that there may be multiple opinion statements, developed on the basis of differing views.
High expectations of civil society organizations often founder on the reality of limited funding, a perennial condition of non-governmental organizations. While effectiveness may demand that groups link together and find commonalities in interdisciplinary and joint work, the threat of funding is often a stumbling block. Instead of addressing common positions, much energy is devoted to competing over the scarce funds available for environmental issues. A deeper exploration of funding issues also leads to questions of the role of NGOs vis a vis governments, whether domestic or foreign. It cannot be denied that there is a complicated dependence of non-governmenal organizations on governmental or other donor funding. None of this can be avoided, yet it should be recognised as a distinct shortcoming if non-governmental organizations are to be expected to offer legitimacy to international processes.
Making realistic roles more effective
The above statements should not in any way negate the fact that extremely valuable roles are to be played by non-governmental organizations in global environmental governance. The roles should not be expected to be either representative of civil society as a whole, or of broad consensuses. Rather, non-governmental roles in environmental governance derive their strength from insightful, creative, visionary and compassionate responses to current events. As such, there are a number of ways in which these roles should be fostered and enabled under a new architecture of international governance.
Information-based and normative roles
One of the strongest roles for non-governmental organizations to play in international environmental governance is that of information provision for norm setting. This clearly is the role which is most valued in most international environmental processes; delegates rarely wait to hear an NGO consensus statement, but eagerly read the literature and opinion papers provided by civil society organizations, to inform their own positions and statements. The conferences of several conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, are distinguished less by what is said in plenary than by the richness of documents produced by NGOs and timed to be released at the conferences, shedding increasing sharper light on the costs of inaction and options for change.
This alternative analysis emerge that can emerge from civil society should be valued for its highly distinct role vis a vis government analyses. For example, Peggy Antrobus noted “In the process leading up to Rio, women did what governments failed to do- they turned the debate on the environment on its head by redefining its terms and naming issues that had been deliberately excluded by Northern financial and political interests”. Whether delegates agreed with the analysis or not, the courage to make such critiques must come from civil society groups.
Such information and analysis is not produced cheaply, or quickly. In Minu Hemmati’s forthcoming book "Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict" London, Earthscan 2001, a number of examples of civil society input into sustainable development decision making are given. The section on examples is full of many inspiring (and some fairly dismal) examples of efforts to build partnerships. One striking feature of success stories is that partnerships were rarely built in those processes which were, for example, preparatory to a meeting (such as Beijing+5, Finance for Development) than with those which really undertook a longer and more focused process (World Commission on Dams, Global Reporting Initiative) or were focused on an immediate real-life issue (Brent Spar). The author noted something of the same: "Generally, it seems that ongoing processes allow the groups to build more trust and closer relationships, which should be associated with greater success (a judgment that we didn't aim to make)."
Indeed, it is difficult to see how substantial civil society input can be expected to emerge solely from “NGO forums” preceding international conferences, where it takes already some days to define terms and initiate a free-flowing dialogue. While such forums serve many valued functions in providing an immediate voice to civil society in an international venue and an opportunity for concerned people to participate they are not the most effective means of involving civil society in policy development. The value of longer, on-going discussions, which may breathe life in nascent networks, is gaining increasing recognition. Civil society has much to contribute in an observing, monitoring, and commenting role, yet this role is not well fostered through short term consultations. In the few instances where NGOs have been invited to serve on high-level multistakeholder commissions which have taken an investigative role with a sufficient investment of time and resources, such as the World Commission on Dams, the Mining Initiative, the Global Reporting Initiative or the Crucible Group, the results have been extremely positive and enduring for all stakeholders.
These constructive roles of civil society in providing information and establishing appropriate norms could best be fostered by the development of a spectrum of public policy networks which bring civil society stakeholders to the table with representatives of other groups to engage in in-depth dialogue over critical issues, in a process which is targeted and time-delimited, but allows time and space for the development of common visions and solutions. Most critical, in the formation of public policy dialogues, is to ensure the deliberate inclusion of marginalized groups in such dialogues, as the identification of problems will thereby be much more complete.
Assessment and monitoring roles
Civil society has traditionally played a strong role in assessment and monitoring activities, and always will, as it requires individuals and groups outside of governance to fairly and effectively carry out assessment exercises. Scientists and non-governmental organizations have a critical role to play. Assessment processes can serve for far more than simply production of information. They can serve to build capacity, and raise the level of awareness of the public, when conducted in a transparent and participatory manner.
There are numerous ongoing assessment initiatives. Some are more effective than others, and some are better linked to key decision points or valid ecological linkages. Given that assessment can serve to build capacity, it is unfortunate that many existing initiatives fail to capitalize on these roles. As noted by a publication of LEAD fellows, “existing skills and resources for assessment are often underappreciated. In developing regions like Africa, the best information may be found in the university system. Yet these resources are only connected weakly, if at all, to international assessment processes. Nor do the universities receive much support from the international community. Conversely, much of the information collected by international agencies is housed at agency headquarters and neither known nor available at national and regional levels where it could support decision-making. Perhaps the greatest weakness of most assessments today is that they are not used to consider trade-offs between development objectives.”