Environmental Diplomacy and Non-state Actors

Since the mid-1980 the concern about the environment has been growing and diplomacy has played an important role in this issue. So, nowadays we can talk about environmental negotiations as a way to try to solve the problems caused by the humans/nations in the environment.

In environmental negotiations, states are not the only parties involved, non-state actors such as NGOs or International Organizations are also involved in the negotiations. Non-state actors are used as advisors by states, as representatives of poor countries and as sources of independent analysis of situations and problems. Moreover, due to the experience, legitimacy, independency and resources of non-state actors, they are also important setting the agenda and conducting debates.

However, even though non-state actors play an important role in environmental negotiations, states are still the only ones that can sign, accept and implement the agreements achieved in the negotiations. Therefore, the real power of non-state actors in this kind of negotiation is very limited. They can neither impose anything to any state, nor sanction states for not applying the agreements. They can only recommend and provide information and analysis.

During the environmental negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, there were hundreds of NGOs accredited and they were very active trying to engage everyone to: 1) a huge reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and; 2) to a solution to the climate change. But, in the end, states were the only ones signing the agreement and the national interest of some states was before any solution to the problem.

Thus, can we talk about non-state actors as key players in environmental negotiations or is it just an illusion?

Carles Reina Tortosa

The significance of non-state actors in environmental and trade negotiations

Environmental NGOs are generally successful in influencing environmental negotiations and agreements because these NGOs often consist of people who are experts in environmental science, and they tend to have information that is not available to government negotiators. Hence their expert knowledge and contributions are welcomed and highly regarded (Rahman and Roncerel, 1994, p241). The agreement drawn up at the recent Cancun climate change conference was influenced by approximately 300 NGOs who voiced their opinions at several meetings and events hosted by Mexico’s Foreign Ministry (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-12/11/c_13644965.htm) . Gordon Shepherd, head of the World Wide Fund’s (WWF) Global Climate Initiative gave credit to the Mexican presidency for “creating a negotiation atmosphere that was inclusive and efficient” (http://wwf.panda.org/?197831/Global-climate-deal-in-reach-with-Cancun-outcometcome) .

The WWF is a leading international independent conservation organisation registered under Swiss law in 1961. WWF has 90 offices in over 40 countries across the world and they are involved in a wide range of environmental, conservation and climate change issues. http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_quick_facts.cfm http://www.wwf.org.za/who_we_are/

However, not all aspects of WWF activities are embraced by some governments. For example, WWF is committed to marine conservation, and have campaigned for the banning of Whaling. In previous years, they along with Greenpeace, they have successfully lobbied the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to implement whaling restrictions. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/why-greenpeace-won%E2%80%99t-compromise-commercial-whaling-20100621

But, along with all other environmentalist groups, they were excluded from the opening discussions of the 62nd annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, held in Morocco during June 2010. It is believed that pressures from Japan, Norway and Iceland to negotiate in private, in their drive to resume commercial whaling, may have been behind the NGOs and Media initial exclusion. The meeting ended without any agreement or satisfactory proposals. Wendy Elliot, WWF International Species Manager said, “we are left with a situation in which yet again, Japans whaling fleet will kill hundreds of whales in the Southern Ocean in the name of ‘science’”. http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/marine/?2601/Whaling-meeting-ends-in-failure-after-shutting-out-NGOs-and-mediaNGOs-and-media


It is reported that Whaling is a valuable and corrupt industry and that an estimated 35,000 whales have been killed in 24 years, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7149086.ece) during this timeframe there was a moratorium on Whaling, with the exception that Japan had a licence to whaling for scientific research. Elliot argued that “the IWC should step up its responsibilities to help save these majestic animals”. Another member of WWF suggested that “the IWC should consider creating a sponsorship programme for delegates from developing countries to avoid further allegations of vote-buying”.

WWF also has a Trade and Investment Programme that works with governments and industry in emerging economies, to provide ‘green’ goods and services domestically and internationally in order to reduce the depletion and pollution of natural resources and achieve sustainable trade. The programme also includes sustainable development. http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/trade_investment/ .

In summary, as a non-state actor, WWF plays a leading and significant role in environmental and trade diplomacy.

Environmental Diplomacy: The Cancún Agreement and its Implications.

On Friday 10th December, 2010 an agreement was reached in Cancun by delegates from almost 200 countries at the United Nations climate change conference; this was achieved by overoding objections from Bolivia to agree to a framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to establishing a new fund to help developing nations combat global warming. This fund will manage the annual $100 billion pledged to developing countries at the Copenhagen summit, the money will be handed out from early 2020 (CTV News, 2010).

Although this will not make a big change, but it is a little step that will lead to the expected change; Asad Rehman a campaigner from Friends of the Earth's International Climate clarified it when he said "The world needed strong and determined action to tackle climate change in Cancun - the outcome is a weak and ineffective agreement but at least it gives us a small and fragile lifeline." (Guardian Newspaper, 2010).

The Cancún conference brought about a positive outcome as a result of the efforts of non-governmental organizations like the Greenpeace, Friends of the earth and many other organizations. Friends of the earth United Kingdom for example helped draft the Household Waste Recycling Act made doorstep recycling which was implemented by the parliament in 2003 (Friends of the Earth, online). Greenpeace on the other hand has contributed immensely in creating awareness about the impact of global warming and climate change respectively that its research budget is known to be larger than that of the United Nations environmental department. It has tried to advice and encourages countries and multinational co-operations to be mindful of its environment.

As much as I believe that the environment needs to be maintained in a way to avoid further damage to the planet, I do not agree with the way campaigners has carried on, especially when it involved developing or third world countries. Take the Greenpeace campaign in Africa against G.M crops for example, according to a Channel4 Documentary entitled “What the Green Movement got wrong” evidence has shown that G.M sorghum is more nutritious than the one that was cultivated the natural way, this will help improve the lives of young people and probably reduce kwashiorkor in kids; in actual fact, poverty campaigners now resort to 'pro-poor GMOs', developed by public institutions and aimed at improving the nutrient content of basic subsistence crops in Africa.

The argument now is, why should Greenpeace campaign against such research in Africa or Asia, were China is using same technique to produce its rice so as to be able to feed its growing population and encourage healthy living. Imagine a country that needed food aid, rejecting G.M corn from the United States because they were advised by organizations like the Greenpeace that it is not safe for them (Channel4 2010, online). When it is clear that even in the United Kingdom today G.M meats, and even milk from G.M cows are in sales.

Therefore based on these facts, it is evident that developing economies have not reached that stage where they can afford to go green and that is why the Cancún agreement should have focused more on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol than paying developing economies.

Also as the New York Times reported, the Cancún agreement “preserves an escape hatch for Japan and other industrial nations” it goes on to report that after the agreements were formalised, a United States envoy Todd Stern sidestepped a question about whether the compromise effectively kills Kyoto; "I'm not going to speculate on whether this is the end of the Kyoto Protocol or not, he said.”There’s a strong feeling on both sides" (Friedman 2010, New York Times).

In conclusion, as much as I believe in the impact of global warming on the environment, it is imperative that developing countries should take the first step towards saving the planet by reducing their CO2 emission instead of concentrating on paying developing economies to develop in a green way. The fact still remains that whilst developing countries can afford to go green, developing countries cannot. The best way of tackling climate change will be to follow the words of Gandhi “be the change you want to see” (Robinson 2008, 186). Developed economies should show that they are as concerned about the climate by working towards the Kyoto protocol instead of trying to devise a way to deviate the tension with the new Cancún agreement which might see the Kyoto protocol discontinued after 2012 and developing economies receiving money.