F H

October 2003

What has been the greatest challenge to the global environmental movement over the last decade?

A concise examination of the declining influence of environmental non-governmental organisations.

The influence of ideology is weakened as groups’ battle for influence.

Jordan & Maloney, 1997, 195.

Former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer MP, recently published an article in The Guardian examining the current position of environmental NGOs. He suggested that NGO ‘influence has significantly declined’ (01.10.03, 13). This essay proposes that this has been ‘the greatest challenge to the global environmental movement’ and will examine the development of environmental NGOs over the last decade in order to assess the principal causes of a reduction in influence. The essay will focus on two key developments for environmental NGOs. Primarily the role that NGOs played in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), generally referred to as the Rio Earth Summit, and the affects this has had on their influence, both with policy makers and the general public. The essay will then consider the changing institutional structure of large environmental NGOs and assess the impact on NGO influence. In conclusion the essay will both clarify the main causes of reduced environmental NGO influence detailed within the main body of the text but additionally propose further possible causes, which the length of this piece limits receiving greater examination.

Princen and Finger (1994) suggest that UNCED had a significant influence on the NGOs that took part in the process. UNCED certainly encouraged NGOs to organize themselves and in some cases it improved their status by establishing them as international actors. It is suggested however that UNCED and NGOs had somewhat different perceptions of the NGO role in the conference. Whilst UNCED saw the role of NGOs as one of providing data, expertise and legitimizing the process, NGOs sought to influence the policy decisions regarding the direction of environmental protection and world development. NGOs accepted the sustainable development theory in exchange for access to the process, but as a result they ‘compromised their ability to challenge economic growth’ (ibid). NGOs effectively traded their radical nature and much of their political power for a place at the table. Approximately 1,420 NGOs attended the preparatory committees where their role was to provide information but not to debate the causes or solutions of global environmental and development issues. In contrast ‘business and industry were asked for advice and guidance and fed directly into the consultation process’. Put succinctly, ‘business had access to the power brokers’ (ibid). This suggests that UNCED was organized with the intention of keeping NGO influence to a minimum. By accepting the concept of sustainable development as the way forward, NGOs reduced their influence further as they limited the policy suggestions they could propose. A statement from the UK’s Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) illustrates this point, ‘sustainable development is concerned with achieving economic growth, in the form of higher living standards, while protecting the environment and where possible enhancing it’ (in Blowers, 2000, 384). The first eight words of the statement epitomize the Government’s vision of sustainable development and illustrate how overnight many NGO’s policy proposals were drastically restricted and consequently their influence.

Furthermore, UNCED caused a fragmentation between many NGOs. The more politically active groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FOE) maintained their independence at a cost of reduced influence on the proceedings. Many other NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), experienced a loss of independence as a result of increasing their influence. Princen and Finger argue such NGOs became co-opted in this process and isolated from the rest of the environmental movement (1994). Doyle and MaEachern suggest the ability of these ‘co-opted’ NGOs to respond to problems became compromised as they became more like governments and international development agencies (1998). As a result public trust in some NGOs reduced as they were seen to be working hand in hand with governments rather than from a neutral position. Additionally NGOs were also supporting the principles of sustainable development, which Blowers, amongst others, argues, ‘serves and legitimize those practices, policies and institutions that support processes of economic growth based on capitalist modes of production and consumption’ (2000, 372). For some of the general public and many from the grassroots of the environmental movement this has done nothing to improve NGO influence and has arguably increased disillusionment with environmental NGOs.

In 1971 FOE London had 6 full-time staff and an annual income of ₤10,000. By 1994 this had increased to 96 staff and an annual income of ₤5.6 million (Jordan & Maloney, 1997, 39). At first sight this appears to be a step forward for environmental NGOs (the same pattern occurring with Greenpeace, WWF and others). This increased financial success has however come at a cost. In order to raise these vast sums of money many NGOs in western countries have ‘developed into highly institutionalised mass membership organisations’ (Van Der Heijden, 1997, 25) with significant affects on NGO influence. Van Der Heijden suggests there are several key elements to the process of institutionalisation. Firstly an organizational growth in the constituency of the NGO resulting in a corresponding growth in financial resources. A second element concerns internal organisation most clearly seen through increased bureaucracy and a centralisation of power. The last element proposed by Van Der Heijden is an external institutionalisation which implies ‘the accommodation of former adversaries’ which ‘manifests itself by fewer numbers of radical actions, a less unconventional action repertoire, and more institutional cooperation with actors active in the field, principally government organisations’ (1997, 33).

Seel et al argue that organisations with consultative positions do ‘not want to risk their insider status either by arguing for highly radical change or by employing provocative tactics’ (2000, 16). As with the 1992 UNCED, environmental NGOs appear to have been compromised by achieving their ‘place at the table’. This has certainly had an impact on the level of influence NGOs have on government organisations and moreover arguably on the general public. NGO members ‘have ideological reservations about too close an identification with business’ (Jordan & Maloney, 1997, 183) and this may be a significant contributing factor to falling membership numbers. FOE membership peaked in 1991 and Greenpeace subscription income fell by half during the 1990s. Van Der Heijden concludes that ‘the environmental movement of the 1970s and 1980s with its much smaller (but also more active and more concerned) constituency, in a sense could be conceived of as stronger than the movement of the past decade’ (1997, 46). Peter Wilson who ran the first FOE campaign supports this view and suggests that ‘dollar for dollar, it [FOE] is achieving less change now than in the early days’ (in Jordan & Maloney, 1997, 19).

This essay has examined only two of the possible contributing factors to a decrease in environmental NGO influence. Primarily the essay examined the part played by the 1992 UNCED before progressing to briefly address the increasing institutionalisation of environmental NGOs. A further substantial element to be examined with greater space would be the role of declining media coverage. Research by Hansen (1993) between 1987 and 1991 suggests that in environmental issues the government and formal politics are increasingly taking the news making initiative. Effectively NGOs are losing their role as the ‘primary definer’. Combining this with the decreasing news value of environmental stories as the public grow accustomed to ominous predictions, it can be assumed that the reduced media coverage is a significant factor in declining influence on the general public.

Setting the media element aside however, this essay proposes that the principal cause of declining NGO influence is a gradual process of co-option and compromise during the past decade. Seel suggests that Greenpeace and FOE ‘are perceived as compromising with corporate interests to such a degree that they gain little but minor concessions, while giving much legitimation to the capitalist political economy’ (1997, 172). This essay should not be misinterpreted as an attack on environmental NGOs. Their role is most certainly a vital one and achieving a ‘place at the table’ is in many ways a step forward. ‘Minor concessions’ are concessions nonetheless. This essay has rather, detailed strategic decisions, which may have resulted in a significant decline in influence. Last year Steven Tindel, a Greenpeace spokesperson, speaking on Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’, acknowledged that although working with the government was a ‘positive move’ there were ‘problems of compromise’ (10.04.02). Returning to John Gummer’s article from The Guardian, he suggests ‘it is as if their [NGO] success at being included has happened just when their influence is on the wane’ (01.10.03, 13). It is proposed here that their influence in on the wane as a result, in part, of being included.

Bibliography

Blowers, A., (2000), ‘Ecological and Political Modernisation’, Town Planning Review, 71, 4, 371-393.

Doyle, T., McEachern, D., (1998), Environment and Politics, London: Routledge.

Gummer, J., (01.10.03), ‘No news is bad news’, The Guardian, Society, 13.

Hansen, A., (1993), The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, London: ? University Press

Jordan, G., Maloney, W., (1997), The protest business?, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Seel, B., (1997), ‘If not you, then who? Earth First! In the UK’, Environmental Politics, 6, 4, 172-179.

Seel, B., et al, (2000), (eds), Direct Action in British Environmentalism, London: Routledge.

Tindel, S., (10.04.02), ‘You and Yours’, Radio 4.

Princen, T., Finger, M., (1994), Environmental NGOs in World Politics, London: Routledge.

Van Der Heijden, H., (1997), ‘Political Opportunity Structure and the Institutionalisation of the Environmental Movement’, Environmental Politics, 6, 4, 25-50.

PAGE

PAGE 5

Foye Hatton – Challenge to the Environmental Movement – October 2003.