Governments and businesses no longer havea monopoly on environmental decision-making. A third force—civil society—is changing the power balance. Citizen groups ofall sorts now routinely participate in decisions about the envi-ronment and development. The growing inf luence of theseorganizations is one of the most dynamic changes in environ-mental governance today, lending a stronger voice to the indi-viduals, interest groups, and communities that must live withthe consequences of environmental decisions.

WORLD RESOURCES

2002–2004C H A P T E R 4

65

A W A K E N I N GC I V I L S O C I E T Y

What Can Civ i l Society Offer?Civil society brings pressure to make environmental decisions more inclusive and repre-sentative. And it brings new creativity to environmental problem-solving. Citizen groupsare capitalizing on expanding democratic liberties and press freedoms in many countries,as well as new and cheaper communications technologies. They have used these tools toshape public opinion, sway markets, mobilize political action, and provide services andinformation—in short, to insert themselves into the decision-making process (Anheier etal. 2001). This awakening of civil society is as important to the development of good gover-nance as free markets are to boosting economic efficiency. Innovation and change areoften the result when individuals come together in the self-motivated activity that a robustcivil society fosters.

Examples of the growth of citizen power abound: Anationwide movement by traditional fishermenforced the Indian government to stop issuinglicenses to environmentally destructive trawlers

(Kothari 2000). Facing powerful financial interests, non-governmental organizations and social movements blockedor reformed plans to construct huge dams in Asia (Khagram2000:87–88, 99). Labor unions played a critical role in bring-ing about democratic leadership in Poland, which ultimatelyexpanded the opportunities for environmental activismthere. Churches have helped biodiversity-friendly coffeegrowers in developing countries connect to Western con-sumer markets and earn a living through the Fair Trade andEqual Exchange movements. Environmental groups havepurchased tracts of rain forests to keep development anddestruction at bay.

All these groups are part of civil society—a term thatencompasses voluntary, citizen-based groups that areautonomous from government and business (Fowler 1997:8;Edwards and Gaventa 2001:2). Civil society includes non-governmental organizations, foundations, religious groups,consumer and shareholder groups, labor associations, sportsor hobby clubs, and a variety of informal citizen groups estab-lished to address particular concerns. Independent press out-lets (that is, media not controlled by the state), educationalestablishments, and independent political parties may alsobe included.

Civil society is marked by variety in its composition: Somegroups are formally registered while many are informal. Someare membership-based, like unions, but many are smaller,self-contained organizations such as think-tanks, servicegroups, and science organizations. They operate at everyscale: in the community, and at the national, regional, andinternational levels.

Civil society has a long history of involvement in environ-mental governance. Groups dedicated to nature conserva-tion, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds(UK), or the Sierra Club (U.S.), have been active since the late

19th century. In fact, it was civil society groups that put envi-ronmental issues on the global agenda starting in the 1970s.Now, however, this sector is larger and more influential thanever before. This awakening of civil society is as important tothe development of good governance as free markets are toboosting economic efficiency. Innovation and change areoften the result when individuals come together in the self-motivated activity that a robust civil society fosters.

Of course, civil society is not always constructive and civicgroups can engender contention as well as creativity andcooperation. More public participation can add inefficien-cies and tensions to the decision-making process, and not allcivic groups support a more “open” society or broader citizenparticipation. Many work for limited and parochial goals thatcan aggravate community divisions. But the achievementsand potential of civil society outweigh its drawbacks. A

vibrant civil society provides a vital democratic counter-weight to the profit-driven impulses of businesses and thebureaucratic responses of states.

Civi l Society : Power in Numbers Of all the various types of civil society groups, nongovernmen-

tal organizations (NGOs) are perhaps the most prominent newforce for improving environmental decisions. EnvironmentalNGOs range from grassroots groups with just a few members toglobal organizations like the 5 million-member World WideFund for Nature (WWF) with offices in 48 countries (WWF2003). Such groups serve as lobbyists, organizers, funders,researchers, networkers, and advocates, among other roles.

The number of environmental NGOs has grown signifi-cantly in the last few decades. This is part of a larger growthtrend in NGOs in general, covering a wide range of sectorsand issues. The precise numbers are difficult to ascertainbecause NGOs can be defined and counted in many ways. Forexample, some estimates include only officially registeredgroups. Others count the number of “nonprofit groups” or“private voluntary associations,” which may not include all

66W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

T h e g r o w i n g

i n f l u e n c e o f c i v i l

s o c i e t y i s o n e o f t h e

m o s t d y n a m i c

c h a n g e s i n

e n v i r o n m e n t a l

g o v e r n a n c e t o d a y .

(continued on p. 68)

67C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

The global trend toward democracy has been a key con-tributor to the growth of civil society and the floweringof environmental activism worldwide. Democratic

movements, which have taken root in an unprecedented num-ber of countries since the 1990s, typically increase the abilityof citizens to voice their concerns. Freedom to organize,access to information, and press freedoms have contributed tothe effectiveness of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)and other civil society groups.

Several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countriesillustrate the connection between democratization and envi-ronmental activism. During the 1980s, Communist regimes tol-erated environmental organizations that were perceived asapolitical. The Czechoslovak Union of Nature Conservation-ists, for example, had hundreds of branch offices (Tolles andBeckmann 2000:8). But with the collapse of Communism in1989, some 180 new environmental groups were founded eachyear to address the problems of dying forests, air pollution,undrinkable water, and threatened biodiversity as well as toseize the opportunity to have a larger voice in public policy

(REC 1997:16; Salamon et al. 1999:18; Tolles and Beckmann2000). The total number of environmental groups in 15 CEEcountries jumped from about 800 in 1992 to 3,000 in 2001; some46,000 people now volunteer in environmental efforts in thosecountries (Atkinson and Messing 2002:11).

Just as democratization allows environmental organiza-tions to thrive, sometimes environmental movements open thedoor to wider democratic and civil rights. In Central and East-ern Europe, environmentalism acted as a vehicle for nation-wide rallies and an outlet for popular dissatisfaction with theCommunist government. The Danube Circle in Hungary, Eco-glasnost in Bulgaria, the Lithuanian Green Movement, and thePolish Ecology Club protested Communist regimes in the late1980s (OECD 1999:82) and helped shape the first democraticgovernments. In Slovakia in 1998, environmental NGOs cam-paigned to boost voter turnout and helped sweep democraticforces into power, including several green parties. Today, Slo-vakian environmental NGOs continue to battle corruption, andwork to support open and transparent decision-making (OECD1999:81–82; Tolles and Beckmann 2000:39).

Box 4 .1 Democracy and C iv ic Rena issance in Centra l and Eastern Europe

1990s: A Period of Environmental Activism

74%

1990–1996

18%

1980–1989

8%1900–1979

Number of

Country Environmental NGOs

Albania 45

Bosnia and Herzegovina 38

Bulgaria 100

Croatia 187

Czech Republic 520

Estonia 35

Hungary 726

Latvia 60

Lithuania 81

Macedonia 73

Poland 600

Romania 210

Slovakia 141

Slovenia 114

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia 90

TOTAL 3,020

Source: REC 1997:13.

Two thirds of environmental NGOs in the region are located inHungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Most NGOs arebased in small towns and operate mainly at the local level.About 60 percent have less than 25 members.

Environmental NGOs in the CEE Region

About one fourth of the environmental groups operating in theCEE region today were already active in the 1980s, but far morewere formed in the early 1990s. Now, with funding decreasingsince the early years of the transition to a market economy,growth in environmental NGOs has slowed.

When were environmental NGOs in Central and Eastern

Europe officially registered?

Source: REC 1997:16.

NGOs—often just those working for charitable objectives.Whatever definition is used, it is clear that the NGO sector isnow significant worldwide. Once clustered mainly in Westerndemocracies, NGOs have shown particularly dramatic growthin Central and Eastern Europe (see Boxes 4.1 and 4.2) andparts of Asia (REC 1997:13, 16).

The NGO sector’s expenditures and employment rates areother indicators of its reach. A 1995 survey found that thecombined expenditures of the nonprofit sectors in 22 coun-

tries (excluding religious organizations) was $1.1 trillion—some 4.6 percent of these countries’ combined GDP. Thesame survey found that more than 26 million people areemployed by, or volunteer for, nonprofits in Western Europe,the United States, Japan, and Australia combined (Salamonet al. 1999:9, 479). As impressive as these numbers are, theydon’t really capture the most influential features of NGOs:their contributions of new ideas and the “social energy” and“social capital” they mobilize for environmental preserva-

68W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

Organizing citizens to take responsibility for the envi-ronment is difficult even when there’s adequate fund-ing, trained leaders, clearly understood environmen-

tal problems, and a public experienced in working together andwith the government to propose alternative policies. CentralEuropean communities lacked these basic necessities andmore in 1989 when Communist rule came to an end. A half-cen-tury of centralized decision-making had eroded the notion thatone should or even could care for the land. People were unac-customed to weighing other perspectives, forging compro-mises, and resolving conflicts. They didn’t trust organizationsor government, and they lacked a sense of community empow-erment and initiative.

Three American foundations, however, recognized thathelping to curb environmental deterioration was not onlyimportant in its own right, but could become a potent tool tofoster democracy and build civil society. In 1991, the CharlesStewart Mott Foundation, the German Marshall Fund, and theRockefeller Brothers Fund initiated the Environmental Part-

nership for Central Europe (EPCE)—a con-sortium of five national foundations operat-ing in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,

Slovakia, and, since 2000, Romania. Led and staffed locally,these independent foundations stimulate community-basedenvironmental action and participation in the region (Tollesand Beckmann 2000:5).

Since its inception, EPCE has invested over $15.4 million tosupport more than 4,000 projects and to provide training, tech-nical assistance, and study tours to 3,000 Central Europeanorganizations. Those organizations, in turn, have mobilized30,000 volunteers, planted 175,000 trees, protected more than150 endangered species of flora and fauna, and insulatedapproximately 1,000 homes, schools, and other buildings. TheEPCE foundations are currently the most significant privatesource of funding for community-based environmental initia-tives and advocacy projects in Central Europe (Ruzicka 2002).The EPCE is also the most important source of money in Cen-tral and Eastern Europe for advocacy projects.

The partnership has not only helped protect the environ-ment, but has nurtured grassroots action:

■ In the 1980s, Kosenka, an NGO in an eastern Moraviantown, tried to preserve rare species of orchids in the WhiteCarpathians region by organizing volunteers to mow fields.Now, with support from EPCE, Kosenka takes a more holis-tic approach to biodiversity protection: the group partnerswith farmers to improve pasture health and helps commu-

B ox 4 . 2 Pa r t n e r i n g fo r t h e E n v i r o n m e n t i n C e n t ra l E u r o p e

“To learn fundraising is not so difficult, but to learn from others—to really listen and think about

what others are saying—that’s a real problem. This inability to exchange experience is the biggest

limit to the development of Czech conservation NGOs.”

— Petr Dolejsky, CSOP, Bílé Karpaty, Czech Republic

tion, anticorruption efforts, democratic participation, or amyriad other endeavors (Putnam 1993:167; Brown 2002; Pax-ton 2002).

Environmental NGOs and Cit izen Act ion Although global data on environmental NGOs is scarce, oneestimate suggests that by 1990 there were more than 100,000groups working on environmental protection worldwide—most of them founded in the previous decade (Runyon

1999:13). The increasing number of domestic and interna-tional environmental NGOs and the growing membershipbase of many groups (see Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1) is aresponse to the worldwide attention given to environmentalproblems since the 1970s, along with rising incomes, and sev-eral major political and sociological factors. One such factoris the demand for opportunities to participate. For example,the number of Asian environmental NGOs grew rapidly in the1990s as industrialization, pollution, and attendant environ-

69C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

nities and businesspeople develop and market traditionalcrafts and goods made from local produce, creating incen-tives to preserve the area’s natural heritage (Tolles andBeckmann 2000:34).

■ EPCE helped The Alliance of Greens in Hungary and MME(Birdlife Hungary) collaborate with other NGOs to estab-lish a land trust—one of the first in Central and EasternEurope—covering 500 ha of wooded steppe in the Biharregion. The first 28 nonprofit land trusts, totaling over 1,600ha, have received official accreditation in the CzechRepublic (Beckmann 2000:23).

■ A group of environmental scientists from the Daphne Insti-tute of Applied Ecology in Bratislava used EPCE support toengage local farmers and residents in restoring 130 ha ofwetland habitats in the Morava-Danube floodplain insouthwestern Slovakia (Tolles and Beckmann 2000:25).

■ The Energy Conservation in Schools Program sponsoredby EPCE involved over 9,700 schoolchildren and 1,800teachers, parents, and other volunteers in local schoolenergy conservation projects and educational activities.About 260 schools throughout Central Europe participated,with many receiving special grants to insulate windows,replace old lights and thermostats, and buy more efficientfurnaces (Ruzicka 2002).

■ The EPCE-funded Central European Greenways (CEG) pro-ject has involved hundreds of local communities, state andlocal representatives, businesses, and national govern-ment offices in creating a network of largely automobile-free recreational routes and trails. The 11 CEG routes total3,000 km, and attract tourism and promote the region’s nat-ural and cultural heritage (Ruzicka 2002).

These and other initiatives supported by the partnershipshare a commitment to involve citizens in looking for andimplementing sustainable land use practices and supportingpublic involvement in decision-making. In the context of post-Communist Central Europe, this is an approach that is nothingshort of revolutionary.

T h e R o ot s o f S u c c e s sInitially—and importantly—the Western foundations commit-ted multi-year support to EPCE to give the partnership time totrain local personnel, create a cadre of independent leaders,and broaden its funding. Staffing and start-up efforts con-sumed the consortium’s first year as the founding leaders ofthe EPCE organizations struggled to find staff capable ofmanaging local grant-making programs, and community mem-bers experienced enough to serve on the Boards of Directorsof the new foundations. Beyond financial support, the threeWestern foundations cooperated closely with the EPCEgroups to discuss strategy and create links between theEPCE consortium and established NGOs in Western Europeand North America.

In reviewing its progress over the last decade, the EPCEconsortium stresses one lesson above all: let local communi-ties themselves decide on their conservation priorities, ratherthan having them imposed from the outside. Finding effectivelocal leaders to spearhead projects is also essential for suc-cessful action. The EPCE foundation staff see their task asfacilitating discussion, advising on local decisions, and offer-ing technical support to create projects that address thesecommunity-identified priorities.

As EPCE works through its second decade, it faces thechallenge of a society still trying to develop a sense of civicengagement, initiative, and self-responsibility. Other chal-lenges loom as well, including the need to increase itsfundraising capacity. The coalition is now moving towardgreater autonomy from its Western founders, whose financialsupport will phase out by 2005 (Scsaurszki 2002). Fortunately,the consortium has already secured funding from some Euro-pean foundations such as the Dutch Foundation DOEN, andthe Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt Foundation in Germany.Businesses and governments have agreed to help, too, includ-ing a unique arrangement in the Czech Republic, where thegovernment has set up a special endowment fund for Czechfoundations (Ruzicka 2002). Meanwhile, EPCE has become amodel for the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states in howto engage civil society to meet local needs through care for theenvironment.

mental risks increased and as a new middle class expanded.With an educated and better informed public and visible evi-dence of environmental degradation, more people are joiningorganized environmental efforts (Gan 2000:112–113).

Increasing access to a variety of resources has also createdconditions ripe for the growth of environmental groups:

■ Volunteerism is growing. One recent survey found thatworldwide the number of volunteers devoting time toenvironmental NGOs increased by 50 percent in lessthan 10 years (Pinter 2001:200);

■ The Internet and cell phones are helping individualsand groups get, share, and act on information quickly;collaborate across borders; hold institutions account-able; monitor environmental changes; and circumventgovernment controls on information (see Box 4.3);

■ Total development funds channeled through NGOs bygovernments and international donors is growing(Anheier et al. 2001:26), though it’s not clear what por-tion is directed to environmental NGOs. In the 1970sand 1980s many donors began to see NGOs in Africaand Asia as more effective at running health and devel-opment programs than government bureaucracies(Baron 2002). Now, more than $7 billion in private andgovernment aid to developing countries flows throughNGOs, compared to $1 billion in 1970 (UNDP2002:102). Many European governments channel10–30 percent of their aid through NGOs (Pinter2001:201–202);

■ During the 1990s, Western and international donorsprioritized aid for civil society and for groups workingin areas such as good governance, the environment,human rights, and the media. The U.S. Agency forInternational Development increased its support for“civil society” from $56 million to $230 millionbetween 1991 and 1999 (Carothers 1999:210; Pinter2001:201).

At the same time, democratization has contributed to therenaissance of civil society in general and environmental

activism in particular (see Box 4.1), and globalization hasbroadened awareness of environmental problems that crossborders (Wapner 1997:75; Brown et al. 2000:4, 6; Florini2000:224, 227–228).

Beyond Environmental NGOsMany strands of civil society other than formal, registeredenvironmental NGOs influence environmental managementand decisions. In fact, many civil society groups are not for-mally constituted or legally registered—yet they play a strongcommunity role. One study in South Africa found that 53 per-cent of civic associations there were not legally registered(Swilling and Russell 2002:20). The proportion may be evenhigher in other countries of sub-Saharan Africa and parts ofSouth and Southeast Asia. In these areas, informal NGOssuch as rural savings associations and farming cooperativesare often key players in local decisions.

So-called “people’s movements” are another influentialelement of informal civil activity. These movements may con-sist of hundreds of locally autonomous initiatives all focusedon a common theme and using similar tactics. Examplesinclude Kenya’s Green Belt Movement in which citizens planttrees on public and private lands; the Sarvodaya Shramadanamovement in Sri Lanka, which has organized more than12,000 villages to produce small-scale improvement projectssuch as wells for drinking water and gardening; and theCHIPKO movement in India where villagers placed them-selves between trees and the axes of timber harvesters (Sala-mon 1994:111).

Another important trend is the increasing diversity ofcivic activism on environmental issues. Though their objec-tives are not strictly “environmental,” groups that focus onpoverty alleviation, human rights, rural development proj-ects, indigenous and women’s rights, and world peace areincreasingly collaborating with environmental groups toinfluence decision-making. The recent World Summit on Sus-tainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg drew a widemix of issue-oriented NGOs. In contrast, the NGOs thatattended the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 were predominantlyenvironmental NGOs.

A variety of causes are bringing these diverse groupstogether. The effects of globalization on jobs, health, andthe environment is one very visible issue uniting humanrights groups, trade unions, and environmental groups(Boyle and Anderson 1996:2–3; Zarsky 2002:1–2). The environmental justice movement has also linked environ-mental and human rights communities with religious organizations.

Further alliances are forged as environmental organiza-tions recognize that promoting civil rights can help toachieve their goals. For example, the right to freely associateand the right to a free press were both integral to the successof the environmental movement in the 1970s. In turn, manyhuman rights organizations have come to see access to a

70W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

decent environment—clean air, water, and a minimum stan-dard of health—as a basic human right.

A Mult itude of Roles Civil society groups play a multitude of roles that affect theenvironment directly or bear on environmental decisions:

Implementing Programs and Providing Services In many budget-strapped nations, NGOs are the institutionsmost capable of implementing environment and develop-ment programs. For example, some 1,500 neighborhoodassociations, called “Civic Exnoras,” backstop the impover-ished municipal government of the Indian city of Chennai bymanaging the primary waste collection for almost half a mil-lion people (Anand 2000:34–35). In Bangladesh the RuralAdvancement Committee’s 17,000-member staff works withmore than three million people in rural communities. Its ser-vices reach nearly 60 percent of the country’s 86,000 villages,and it has established some 35,000 schools (Weiss and Gor-denker 1996:30; Gan 2000:126). Some NGOs help run eco-tourism projects or help maintain parks and protected areas.The Belize Audubon Society manages 7 protected areas total-ing approximately 150,000 acres for the Belize government(BAS 2003).

Educating and InformingNGOs, informal grassroots groups, and academic institu-tions are all resources that help people, businesses, and gov-ernments make more informed environmental decisions.The information can be aimed at changing governance at thevillage level or the global level. For example, the Indian NGOBeej Bachao Andolan helped village farmers revert to usingtraditional seeds and agricultural practices that benefit bio-diversity, while the U.S.-based Business for Social Responsi-bility provides tools, training, and advice to help companiesincorporate responsible practices in their strategies andoperations. Information dissemination can be geared towardcrafting sound policy, rallying opposition to environmen-tally harmful projects or policies, increasing transparency in

71C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

Snapshots of NGO Sector Growth

■ The United States has 1–2 million NGOs, 70 percentof which are less than 30 years old.

■ 60,000 NGOs were created in France in 1990 alone,compared to 10,000–15,000 in the entire decade of the1960s. Associations in Germany have grown at acomparably high rate.

■ New Zealand’s civic sector includes at least 36,000incorporated groups, with perhaps 20 new groupsformed each week.

■ Hungary boasted 13,000 associations two years afterthe end of Communism, at least half of them formedin the preceding two years.

■ By the mid-1990s, about 1 million NGOs were operat-ing in India, 210,000 in Brazil, 96,000 in the Philip-pines, 27,000 in Chile, 20,000 in Egypt, and 11,000 inThailand.

Sources: Salamon 1994:111; Salamon and Anheier 1996:5; Robin-son 1997:100; Runyon 1999:14; Silk 1999:16; Independent Sector2001:3; UNDP 2002:5.

Fi g u re 4 . 1 G r o w t h o f I n te r n at i o n a l N o n g ove r n m e n ta l O r g a n i z at i o n s

1951 1964 1978 1987 1991 1995 1998 20010

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Num

ber o

f NG

Os Total Number of NGOs

Source: UIA 1999, 2001:1519 as reported by EarthTrends.

72W

OR

LD

R

ES

OU

RC

ES

2

00

2–

20

04

Organization

Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds (UK)

Sierra Club (U.S.)

New Zealand Ecological Society

Singapore Nature Society

World Wide Fund for Nature

Hungarian Ornithological andNature Conservation Society(MME-BirdLife Hungary)

Grameen Bank

Sanasa - Sri Lanka Thrift andCredit Cooperative Societies

Environmental Law Foundation(UK)

Korean Federation forEnvironmental Movement

EarthAction

Asia Pacific Forum ofEnvironmental Journalists

Union de Grupos Ambientalistas(Union of Environmental Groups)(Mexico)

Forest Stewardship Council

Mission

Creates and manages nature reserves and develops environmentalpolicy alternatives.

Pursues environmental activism and policy development, andpromotes outdoor recreation.

Promotes the study of ecology and the application of ecologicalknowledge in planning and management of the environment.

Promotes the study, conservation, and enjoyment of the naturalheritage in Singapore, Malaysia, and the surrounding region.

Works to conserve nature and ecological processes worldwide throughfield projects, policy development, and research.

Works to protect wild birds and their habitats through monitoring,nature conservation, and education.

Provides credit to low-income individuals to promote economic andrural development.

Provides credit and promotes rural development.

Provides communities and individuals with information and advice onhow the law can help resolve environmental problems.

Promotes environmental protection, peace keeping, and human rights.

Mobilizes people around the world through a global action alertnetwork to press for stronger measures to solve global problems.

Promotes honest and accurate reporting of environmental anddevelopment issues.

Promotes the conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement of theenvironment through awareness-raising and education.

Defines and promotes sound forest management and certification offorest products through a coordinated network of NGOs andcommunity and trade groups.

Date Founded

1889

1892

1952

1954

1961

1974

1976

1981

1992

1993

1992

1988

1993

1993

Recent Growth

25% (1990–2002)

102% (1985–2003)

33% (1985–2002)

182% (1983–2002)

80% (1987–2002)

75% (1985–2002)

1,279% (1985–2002)

264% (1984–2001)

98% (1995–2002)

74% (1998–2002)

329% (1992–2002)

318% (1988–2002)

257% (1993–2003)

737% (1995–2002)

Current Membership

1 million individuals

738,000 individuals

600 individuals

2,200 individuals

4.5 million individuals

6,941 individuals

2.3 million individuals

850,000 individuals

476 individuals

87,000 individuals

2,150 NGOs

46 organizations

75 organizations

561 organizations andindividuals

Ta b l e 4 . 1 T h e Tre n d to Jo i n : Va r i et y a n d G r o w t h o f S e l e cte d N G O M e m b e r s h i p O r g a n i z at i o n s

decision-making, or alerting citizens to threats to theirhealth.

Governments often turn to NGOs for environmental dataand analysis. In many cases, local NGOs have specializedknowledge of an area and the environmental threats it faces,but they can be important partners in larger-scale analyses aswell. The UN Environment Programme’s Global Environ-

ment Outlook (GEO), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assess-ment (MA) are examples of collaborative processes amongNGOs, national governments, and international organiza-tions to integrate local and regional data into a larger-scaleassessment of environmental trends (Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu 2002:87).

Promoting Partic ipation and Increasing EquityNGOs can open doors to broader citizen participation in envi-ronmental decisions at all levels. Some NGOs focus on creat-ing a climate conducive to participation. Many groups orga-nize citizens for public hearings on environmental issues, orencourage their participation in Environmental ImpactAssessments (EIAs). NGOs alert the public to opportunitiesfor formal consultations with governments or internationalinstitutions on policies in agriculture, land use, or other sec-tors. They may help citizens prepare for these meetings, help

them articulate and advocate their views in writing, or eventransport them to capital cities to lobby government represen-tatives directly. In these ways, they bring grassroots voicesdirectly to the ears of decision-makers.

Civil society groups also create channels for participationby people typically excluded from decision-making. For exam-ple, women’s participation in microcredit cooperatives pro-vides them with greater control over their livelihoods. Like-wise, agricultural cooperatives in Latin America and Africacan give poor farmers a stronger voice in rural developmentplans that dictate farming techniques, agricultural policies,and pesticide use. In male-dominated societies, participationin civic groups can help women assume greater leadershiproles (see Figure 4.2). For example, in Japan, where the busi-ness and government sectors are dominated by men, about 38percent of nonprofit organizations are founded or headed bywomen (Kuroda 1998:9).

Watchdogs for Accountabi l i ty A vibrant civil society increases the demand for transparencyand accountability of decision-makers in both governmentand business. Citizen groups and NGOs press for governmentreform and work to expose corruption. The NGO Trans-parency International taps a worldwide network to collectdata on corruption and spotlight the most egregious exam-ples. TRAFFIC—a partnership between the World Wide Fundfor Nature and the World Conservation Union (IUCN)—aimsto reduce illegal trade in endangered species by tracking andhighlighting goods traded under the CITES treaty—the Con-vention on International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora. Other NGOs shame corporations intobetter behavior by documenting and publicizing their behav-ior. Global Witness, a London-based NGO, has played a cen-tral role in exposing corrupt practices in the oil industry inAngola and pressing transnational oil companies to adoptaccounting practices to combat this corruption (Global Wit-ness 2002:1–4). (See also Chapter 6.)

NGOs also enforce accountability at the local level.Between 1997 and 2000, a community-based monitoring proj-ect by an Indonesian NGO, Yayasan Duta Awan, uncoveredproblems with a multi-million dollar World Bank and Indone-sian government project called “Integrated Swamps Develop-ment.” The NGO exposed violations of the World Bank’s pol-icy on pest management, and documented farmers’ increaseddependence on chemical pesticides, the lack of informationabout the health effects of pesticides, and the exclusion ofwomen from agricultural training. Their findings led to revi-sions in the project as well as efforts to implement recom-mendations from local farmers that the NGO had recorded aspart of its monitoring work (PANNA 2001).

Working with the Private SectorRather than play an adversarial role, civil society can some-times join with businesses in cooperative ventures. Together

73C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

they can make decisions to protect the environment withoutsignificant government involvement. For example, the WorldResources Institute is collaborating with leading businessesto build a market among corporations for “green power”—power generated from renewable sources. Since January2001, member companies of WRI’s Green Power MarketDevelopment Group have purchased over 50 megawatts ofgreen power at over 200 U.S. facilities (Hanson 2003).

Conservation groups have also gained experience in bro-kering deals with financial lenders, paper mills, and otherforest product companies to save land, and sometimes jobs.In 2002, the Nature Conservancy, a United States NGO,assumed $50 million in loans made to financially strugglingGreat Northern Paper. In return, the company turned over200,000 acres of land in the state of Maine for conservation,recreation, and sustainable timber harvesting (Jiang2002:B2).

Joining in Global Environmental Governance In the 1990s, more than ever before, NGOs began to work onenvironmental issues beyond their own nation’s borders. Thenumber of international NGOs focusing on the environmentgrew almost 20 percent—from 979 in 1990 to 1,170 in 2000(Anheier et al. 2001:300) and the number of all internationalNGOs more than doubled (see Figure 4.1) (UIA 2000;2001:1519). Even countries typically considered withdrawnfrom international engagement, including Iran, Iraq, andKuwait, have strong public participation in NGOs. Currently,individuals from high-income countries tend to dominate themembership and activities of international groups. However,

there has been dramatic growth in the number of interna-tional NGOs operating in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, andthe trend is toward greater parity in the participation of resi-dents from all over the world (Boli and Thomas 1999:57, 77;Anheier et al. 2001:287–288).

One key to civil society’s increased role in global gover-nance is that these groups have forced international andregional governing bodies to officially acknowledge their pres-ence and input. Some governments have actually made spacefor NGOs at the decision-making table by including NGO rep-resentatives in their official delegations. NGOs have success-fully sought accreditation at international summits and otherhigh-level meetings where they could lobby government dele-gates, organize briefings, officially address the governments,and submit official statements, commentaries, or researchfindings as guidance to delegates.

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit, in particular, provided aboost to NGO efforts to participate more broadly in interna-tional governance. Agenda 21—the blueprint for sustainabledevelopment that emerged from the Rio Summit—affirmedthat the United Nations should expand the involvement ofcivil society groups in its decisions (Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu 2002:81–82). The response to this call has been impres-sive. While only 41 NGOs had “consultative” status with theUN system in 1948, almost 3,000 were accredited to partici-pate in the 2002 Johannesburg Summit (see Figure 4.3) (Wil-letts 2002). (Consultative status affords at least some oppor-tunity to propose agenda items, and to designaterepresentatives to attend meetings of the UN Economic andSocial Council and its subgroups.)

74W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

Fi g u re 4 . 2 Pe r c e n ta g e o f F u l l - t i m e Po s it i o n s H e l d byWo m e n i n S o ut h A f r i c a n N o n p r o f i t O r g a n i z at i o n s

Blue Collar

Support/Administration

Management

Professional/Technical

0 25 50 75 100Percent

46

57

59

76

Women wield significant authority in South Africa’s nonprofit organizations, dominating the ranks of professionals, managers, and support staff.

Source: Swilling and Russell 2002:25.

Civil society groups have also sought to have greater inputinto the work of multilateral banks such as the World Bankand the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Theseefforts have expanded opportunities for citizen participationin decisions about project financing for roads, dams, health-care, and agricultural development. Today, about half of allWorld Bank projects involve the input or direct involvementof NGOs, compared to only 6 percent 30 years ago (WorldBank 1996; 1997:2). In December 2000, the World Bank’sNGO-Bank Committee agreed to create a new Bank-Civil Soci-ety Global Forum to provide more opportunities for dialoguebetween the Bank and a cross-section of civil society organiza-tions. In creating the Forum, the World Bank acknowledgedthat these groups have become “critical allies in designinginnovative operations, implementing solutions, and moni-toring results” of the Bank’s work (World Bank 2001:105).

Civi l Society Is Not Perfect Civil society organizations don’t always contribute to goodenvironmental decisions. These groups are not immune fromproblems of legitimacy, transparency, and accountability—thesame issues that NGOs often raise about governments and cor-porations. Nor are they universally effective, open to newideas, or eager to collaborate with others. These weaknessescan leave civil society groups open to attack by governmentbureaucrats, politicians, and the media, and can damage theircredibility in the eyes of many donors (Sinclair 2002).

Who Do NGOs Represent?NGOs may claim to represent the “public interest” or “com-mon good” and are often credited with some moral authority(Risse 2000:186). Yet, because of their diverse motivationsand sources of funding, civil society groups aren’t alwayslegitimate or credible spokespersons for the broad publicinterest they claim to represent. Sometimes the public isappropriately skeptical of NGOs that are too closely identi-fied with special economic or political interests. Indeed,NGOs don’t always successfully maintain their independenceand ability to speak freely when working with or acceptingfunding from corporate or government sponsors, or wealthyprivate benefactors. For example, an NGO called the Green-ing Earth Society—heavily sponsored by the United States coalindustry—argues that global warming is good because it willenhance vegetation growth (World Watch 1999:2). The self-described grassroots organization People for the West! (nowPeople for the USA) advocates broader access to land for min-ing, but it too is largely supported by mining companies.

75C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

NGO Coal it ions: Networks of Inf luence

International coalitions of NGOs have widened theirinfluence to the global stage. The number of interna-tional NGO networks has reached 20,000 according tothe UN Development Programme (UNDP 2002:102).When they work best, transboundary NGO coalitionscan help to transcend issues of national sovereignty,reconcile North-South differences, and bring the atten-tion of a world audience to important regional or localissues. In some instances, these coalitions haveachieved successes that many policy experts wouldhave deemed impossible:

■ The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, acoalition of 1,400 NGOs from 90 countries, convinced146 countries to sign a treaty to ban landmines at atime when private companies and government agen-cies in 52 countries were manufacturing antiperson-nel mines and 2.5 million new landmines were beinglaid each year. Since the 1997 signing of the treaty,more than 30 million stockpiled mines have beendestroyed (Mekata 2000:145; UNDP 2002:103; Wixley2002).

■ A civil society coalition spanning more than 60 coun-tries organized the “Jubilee 2000” campaign thatalerted millions to the staggering debt of the poorestcountries and caused G7 leaders to cancel morethan $110 billion in foreign debt. The coalitionincluded labor unions, physicians, religious organi-zations, environmental groups, food aid organiza-tions, and peace and justice groups, and evenenlisted the aid of rock star Bono as a spokesperson(Florini 2000:228; UNDP 2002:103–104; Jubilee 20002003).

■ Networks of NGOs from the West and from develop-ing countries have successfully slowed or halted thebuilding of large hydroelectric dams in India, Thai-land, Malaysia, and other countries. These cross-border coalitions also influenced the World Bank’sdecision to give greater weight to the potential envi-ronmental and social impacts of a dam when makingdecisions on financing such projects (Khagram2000).

B y 1 9 9 0 , m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 N G O s w e r e h e l p i n g t o p r o t e c t t h e

e n v i r o n m e n t w o r l d w i d e — m o s t o f t h e m f o u n d e d i n

t h e p r e v i o u s d e c a d e .

(continued on p. 78)

An international diffusion of affordable informationtechnologies—Internet, mobile phones, pagers,faxes, e-mail, and mapping programs (Global Infor-

mation Systems or “GIS”)—is giving civil society organiza-tions new ways to participate in environmental governance. Injust the last decade, these new technologies have helped toalter the balance of power among governments, corporations,and civil society groups (Keohane and Nye 2001:22). The newsmedia, for example, have actively embraced the on-line world,with about 40 percent of daily newspapers worldwide nowoffering their content on-line as well as in print (Norris2001:180). Political parties have also used the Internet tospread their messages abroad, with “Green” parties espe-cially quick to do so. As of 2000, 71 percent of Green partieshad an on-line presence (Norris 2001:157–158).

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have become par-ticularly adept at using new technologies like the Internet andGIS. In fact, they have often proven to be quicker and better atexploiting these technologies than governments and busi-nesses (Naughton 2001:147; Norris 2001:171). In a typical week,Greenpeace International’s website gets 58,000 visitors(Norris 2001:187); the site provides information about issuesranging from whaling, to nuclear arms, to illegal logging. Witha click of the mouse, the Sierra Club lets a visitor to its web-site e-mail letters to his or her political representativesexpressing opinions on a variety of environmental topics. AtNGO-sponsored “Village Information Shops,” rural residentsin India can use e-mail, Internet, phone, and CD-ROMs tolearn about credit, seed prices and availability, transportationoptions, pest control and a number of other agricultural practices—information that benefits resource managementdecisions (Pigato 2001:31–32).

The advent of video cameras and growth in television own-ership makes it easier to dramatize the scale and humanimpacts of environmental damage. In Honduras, an organiza-tion of small-scale fishermen sent a videotape to the Hon-duran Congress depicting the illegal destruction of mangrovesby politically powerful commercial farmers, and protesting theloss of their livelihoods and habitat (UNDP 2001:32).

Activist groups have demonstrated that they can use Inter-net-based campaigns to quickly link people worldwide. In1997–98, an Internet-based coalition of environmental NGOs,consumer groups, religious and human rights organizations,and trade unions from 67 countries came together to defeatthe Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)—an agree-ment that multinationals and the industrialized countriesstrongly supported. Many NGOs opposed the secrecy of theMAI negotiations process and the agreement’s lack of envi-ronmental safeguards, among other shortcomings (Bray 1998).The NGOs used websites, e-mails, and “listservs” (electronicmailing lists) to quickly share strategies and detailed analy-

B ox 4 . 3 N e w C o m m u n i c at i o n To o l s fo r E n v i r o n m e n ta l E m p o we r m e n t

Sources of Information

and Communication Percentage of Percentage of

(based on surveys) Rural Poor Urban Poor

Radio 71 71

Newspapers 24 43

TV 2 57

Telephone 1 13

Computer 1 4

Fax 0 0

Friends 83 73

Family 81 83

Political Leaders 78 12

Local Leader 70 19

Schools 21 16

Source: Pigato 2001:29–30.

Access to Information by the Poor in Nepal

76W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

ses of draft MAI texts, mobilize citizens to contact decision-makers, and coordinate activists around the world. TheInternet-based campaign enabled NGOs to shape the publicdebate, influence domestic media coverage in some countries,and made it harder for OECD officials to dismiss NGO posi-tions as “fringe” (Smith and Smythe 2000).

Of course, the diffusion rate of new communication tech-nologies varies by country and region (see Figure). The cur-rent “digital divide” means that only 6.7 percent of the world’spopulation uses the World Wide Web, with the majority ofusers clustered in developed nations and urban areas (Free-dom House 2001:1). But this number can be deceiving whenjudging the significance of Internet technology for environ-mental empowerment. In fact, there is evidence that NGOsmay have a much higher level of Internet access than the gen-eral public, even in the developing world. A representativesample of 468 groups drawn from the Yearbook of Interna-tional Organizations found that about one fourth can bereached through their own website (Norris 2001:189). Many

more undoubtedly have access to the Web and can spread theadvantages of connectivity to their membership (Sinclair2002).

Nonetheless, differences in access do have real implica-tions for how the Internet is used by civil society. In NorthAmerica and Europe, thousands of “connected” people with e-mail accounts can be quickly rallied to action or protestthrough e-mail alerts and discussion boards. Those same peo-ple can use the Web to share information on-line and accessenvironmental data. By comparison, in poor countries, thepower of the Internet may be more indirect. An NGO mayindeed have access to environmental information and may beable to collaborate with other groups in far-flung places on-line. But the majority of citizens will be far more likely to relyon other technologies as their day-to-day information source.Surveys of communities in sub-Saharan Africa and SouthAsia have found that most people still rely on family, friends,and local leaders, or on the more basic technologies of radio,television, and newspapers (Pigato 2001:ii, 13). (See Table.)

Mobile Phone and Internet Use, 2001

World Average

Sub-Saharan Africa

Asia (excluding Middle East)

Middle East & North Africa

Central America & Caribbean

South America

North America

Europe

Oceania

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

81153

923

4285

22104

35157

60158

493432

196449

331543

Internet Users

Mobile Telephone Subscriptions

Usage per 1,000 People

Source: ITU 2002 as reported by EarthTrends.

77C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

It is sometimes difficult to determine exactly who a partic-ular civil society group represents, and how effective they areas advocates for their constituents (Brown and Kalegaonkar2002:25). Domestic and even international civil societygroups may claim to represent local people—such as low-income families or indigenous groups—but may fail to consultthem, or represent only one faction’s interests.

This problem of representation extends to internationalNGO networks. In the past, large, wealthy Northern NGOsdominated such networks, calling into question how well theycould reflect the priorities of the South. In the late 1980s andearly 1990s, environmental and human rights groups joinedin a battle against the oil company Conoco’s plans to drill inthe rain forests of Ecuador. United States and European NGOswere active and influential actors in this campaign, but typi-cally had little contact with the local indigenous group—theHuaorani people—on whose territory the drilling was to occur.As a consequence, they often failed to take Huaorani interestsadequately into account when they settled on action strategiesor negotiating tactics (Jordan and van Tuijl 2000:2061).

The dominance of Northern NGOs has historically beenprojected into official circles as well. More than 85 percent ofNGOs with consultative status in the ECOSOC are from theNorth (Edwards and Gaventa 2001:9). Similarly, of the 738NGOs accredited to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO)1999 ministerial conference in Seattle, Washington, 87 per-cent hailed from industrialized countries (UNDP 2002:8).This problem seems to be diminishing as NGOs in the devel-oping world grow in number and capacity (Florini 2000;Anheier et al. 2001:111). The majority of the NGOs who par-ticipated in negotiations on the Convention to Combat Deser-tification in the early 1990s were from the South (UNCCD2003) and thousands of southern NGOs attended the WSSDconference in 2002.

Some NGOs lack both legitimacy and a real constituency.In some places, they have proliferated less out of communityneed than to take advantage of available donor funding, taxbreaks, and employment opportunities. Such groups may notbe serious about achieving a social mission or the publicgood. In fact, they may simply wish to compete with for-profitbusinesses (Brown et al. 2000:12; Anheier et al. 2001:198).The result can be duplication of programs and wasted effort.

Are They Rel iable? Accountable?Civil society groups are not always honest brokers. NGOsvying for media attention and donor funding may sometimesuse tactics and information that is more alarmist than realis-tic. Greenpeace, for example, lost credibility in 1995 when ithad to admit the inaccuracy of some of its claims about RoyalDutch Shell and its planned disposal of the Brent Spar off-shore drilling rig in the North Atlantic (Keohane and Nye2001:225). Greenpeace had greatly overestimated theamount of waste oil remaining on the rig. On the other hand,many NGOs realize that they risk discrediting themselveswhen they skew findings or supply inaccurate research, andtherefore strive to make their information reliable and theirbiases clear (Diamond 1994:10).

Transparency and accountability may also be problems.Some civil society groups may not be vigorous in disclosingtheir sources of funding, or how they choose their projectsand spend their budgets. They may not communicate regu-larly with their constituents or donors through newsletters,year-end reports, or other methods, and thus remain alooffrom those they claim to serve. For example, a recent study ofNGOs in Kenya found that it was impossible to trace the fund-ing sources and expenditures of most NGOs, and often diffi-cult to obtain information on their activities (Kunguru et al.2002). Indeed, worldwide, many groups do not have any for-mal accountability mechanisms such as elections, auditors,or oversight committees. Often this is simply due to theirsmall size, limited budget, and lack of capacity. But some doengage in corrupt practices, misallocating funds under theguise of community service.

Donors, members, and collaborating partners can helphold civil society groups accountable for their actions and theaccuracy of their research by serving on boards of directors,demanding progress reports, and participating in internalstrategy sessions. Funders hold a powerful tool for accountabil-ity through their capacity to remove financial support. Still, itcan be difficult, if not impossible, for funders and constituentsto know how decisions are made and moneys spent in the manyremote venues where NGOs may work, or to determine whetherthe work accomplished was effective and appropriate.

Contention and DiscordNGOs don’t always agree on how to tackle environmentalproblems. Southern environmental NGOs may have morepragmatic interests in environmental conservation thantheir Northern counterparts. Or, NGOs from both hemi-spheres may agree there’s a problem, such as climate change,but not on the solution. Sometimes NGOs define their issuesor goals very narrowly, or are blind to the possibilities ofmutual gain from working with others. An NGO road-buildingprogram in the Dominican Republic, for example, helpedsome villagers get to the market, but also created erosionproblems for neighboring villages not involved in the pro-gram (Brown and Kalegaonkar 2002:235–236).

78W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

Often NGOs simply have conflicting objectives and opin-ions. When the United States company Scott Paper proposedto develop a tree farm and pulp mill in southeastern Indone-sia in 1988, a coalition of local NGOs eventually accepted theproposal, working with the company to reduce the project’senvironmental costs and increase its local employment bene-fits. However, some international-level NGOs campaigned toblock the plantation altogether in the belief that large-scaleforest development of any sort was unjustifiable (Jordan andvan Tuijl 2000:2059–2060).

Some contention among civil society groups isn’t bad. Thecontribution of civil society to good environmental gover-nance is strengthened by a diversity of ideas, debate, and crit-icism. But discord and conflicting positions can mean lostopportunities to advance forward-looking policies andachieve environmental progress. A fragmented environmen-tal NGO community is often an ineffective community, butunited and coordinated, civic groups can articulate and pur-sue more influential strategies (Brown and Kalegaonkar2002:236). In global and national politics, one of the major

constraints to NGOs exercising political influence is disunityat the bargaining table (Vanasselt 2002:157).

Empowered or Marginal ized? The capacity of civil society groups to organize and influenceenvironmental outcomes varies widely by country and region.In some countries, NGOs are an accepted and empoweredpresence. They boast memberships and budgets in the mil-lions and have ready access to the best and most up-to-dateinformation technology. In other countries, government con-trol remains very strong and civil organizations are weak.

Political and social contexts are important determinantsof the power balance between governments and civic groups.For example, the United States has a long tradition of pri-vately funded and managed public interest groups with a vari-ety of mandates working on a wide range of issues. But in Eastand Southeast Asia, the centralized state typically has limitedthe scope for NGO participation in decisions about socialissues and public policy. Nonprofit groups are met with sus-picion about their motives and intentions, and government

79C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

Fi g u re 4 . 3 M o re N G O s C a n Pa r t i c i p ate i n U N M e et i n g s

1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 20010

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Num

ber o

f NG

Os

General — Large, international NGOs that work on a broad range of issues

Special — Smaller NGOs that have special competence in fewer UN fields of activity

Roster — NGOs with a narrower focus that can provide occasional contributions to the UN on specific issues

Total — NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC

NGOs in Consultative Status with ECOSOC

Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs NGO Section, as reported by Willetts 2002.

Catalyzed by the impressive NGO presence at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, NGO mobilization gained speed in other conferences in the followingdecade, including the Vienna Human Rights Summit (1993), the Cairo Population Summit (1994), the Beijing Women’s Summit (1995), the IstanbulSummit on Human Settlement (1996), and the Johannesburg Summit (2002).

bureaucrats are reluctant to proactively work with NGOs(Baron 2002).

Governments may welcome NGOs that focus on social ser-vices, the delivery of aid programs, or those that don’t threatenstate authority, but they show hostility to advocacy groupsthat might challenge government policy (World Bank andICNL 1997:3, 5, 9). For example, when the Tanzanian NGOknown as Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team exposedirregularities in connection with a cyanide-leach gold minenear Lake Victoria, the government issued warrants for thearrest of the NGO’s leaders on sedition charges (Lissu 2002).

Some governments deny civic associations significantautonomy from the state. India restricts the amount of fundsthat domestic NGOs can receive from foreign donors. By keep-ing NGOs reliant on the state for financing, operation, andlegal standing, civic groups are constrained as a force for inde-pendent information and oversight (Petkova et al. 2002:116).Egypt and Indonesia both have a history of authoritariansystems in which the government typically creates, organizes,licenses, and funds interest groups (Diamond 1994:13). Chinaand other countries also have “government-sponsored”NGOs. While these “semi-public” or “semi-official” environ-

mental groups may not be independent, they can still be effec-tive, given their high-level connections. At the same time,such organizations are not likely to rally any large-scale activ-ity against the state or business sector, and the scope of theirwork may be limited (Ho 2001:911, 915–916).

In general, governments generally have moved away fromoutright hostility toward environmental activism or civic orga-nization. Still, they routinely use a variety of rules and regula-tions that hinder the sector’s development and discourage thework of environmental advocates. In parts of Africa, the Mid-dle East, China, and other countries, authoritarian govern-ments severely curtail civil society’s activities and influence(Mathews 1997:53). Some limit freedom of speech or the rightto associate, effectively making it impossible to form a volun-tary group (see Figure 4.4) (Anheier et al. 2001:263–266).

NGOs in Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Pakistan, and Indiahave battled to stop governments from rolling back the legalspace in which civil society operates (see Box 4.4).

Governments can also hinder the work of NGOs throughthe laws that regulate these organizations and determinetheir access to funds (World Bank and ICNL 1997:9). But taxlaws can also help NGOs. The United States and Europe pro-

80W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

P re s s Fre e d o m I s G r o w i n g

Freedom of the press and the Internet are importantdeterminants of civil society’s ability to influence envi-ronmental decisions and encourage broader public par-

ticipation. For one, the news media are frequently the funda-mental source of environmental information in a community.Greater media freedom often translates into more accurateand complete reporting and more reliable information.

In general, a free press is one of the most effective ways toexpose environmental problems linked to government policy. Ithelps environmental groups and other nongovernmental orga-nizations make their case to the public, and strengthens theiroversight of government and corporate actions. For example,in 2000, NGOs from around the world focused media attentionon a major cyanide spill from a Romanian mine into the TiszaRiver and the Danube. This media exposure brought publicscrutiny to Romania’s lax mine oversight and emergency plan-ning, and led to government collaboration with NGOs in a newprogram to address environmental safety and risk issues (REC2001:3–4, 13–15).

An active and free press can contribute to more funda-mental social changes as well, and can help to limit govern-ment abuses, be they environmental or social. For example, in2000, independent journalists publicized government corrup-tion and human rights abuses in Peru and Yugoslavia, helpingto bring down those government regimes. (Freedom House2001:5).

The good news is that, in general, press freedoms aregrowing worldwide. According to Freedom House’s annualsurvey of press freedom in 186 countries, the number ofnations in 2001 with substantial freedom of the press rose toits highest level in a decade. The survey rated the press in 75countries as “free;” 50 countries as “partly free;” and in 61countries, national restrictions on journalists and publica-tions meant the press was “not free” (Sussman and Karlekar2002:5).

The overall upswing in the number of countries with a freepress is impressive given the increased attention to statesecurity after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in theUnited States. However, the new focus on security has notbeen entirely benign. In the United States, the Freedom Housesurvey found that media access had declined somewhat inresponse to the “war on terrorism.” In other countries,progress in granting press freedoms continued—for example,Chile repealed a controversial section of its State SecurityLaw that criminalized anyone who “insulted” a state official.However, in many countries, strict libel laws and overzealousstate security laws greatly impede media reporting on officialcorruption or malfeasance (Sussman and Karlekar 2002:7, 50).

In terms of the quality and extent of media coverage ofenvironmental issues, trends are mixed. Environmental jour-nalism in Asia now benefits from several umbrella organiza-tions that provide services to journalists, including the AsiaPacific Forum of Environmental Journalists and the Environ-

B ox 4 . 4 I n a C l e a r Vo i c e : P re s s a n d I n te r n et Fre e d o m s

vide favorable tax treatment, making financial contributionsto NGOs tax-deductible and thereby encouraging donations.East Asian countries, on the other hand, typically limit taxdeductibility on donations to NGOs or other nonprofit orga-nizations (Baron 2002).

Registration laws vary, too. China’s 1998 registration regu-lations for social organizations require an NGO to have a spon-soring institution, fewer than 50 members, and a minimumlevel of financial resources. They also disallow the existence oftwo organizations in the same field or sector, in the same juris-diction. Those organizations that choose to avoid theserestrictions and remain unregistered are unable to enter intocontractual relations, such as obtaining telephone lines orleasing office space. Nor can they offer personnel benefits likepensions and medical insurance, or have their own bankaccount, making it harder to attract staff and funding (Ho2001:903–905). In contrast, Japan eased financial require-ments for the registration of NGOs in 1998 (Florini 2000:219).

Another controlling mechanism is government-imposedlimits on a civic organization’s existence. In Rwanda, an NGOcan exist for no longer than three years and, in Kenya, anNGO must re-register and pay a fee every five years (World

Bank and ICNL 1997:39). Sometimes, in the purported inter-est of accountability, governments exercise burdensome over-sight on NGO activities. Viet Nam and Thailand require non-profit organizations to file minutes of annual meetings.Japan and Korea require filed statements of proposed activi-ties and budgets for the following year. Indonesia requiresnonprofits to obtain government consent prior to receivingfunds from abroad (Silk 1999:32, 37). Worldwide, many coun-tries—particularly the countries of the South—lack an ade-quate framework of laws and regulations that would enable,rather than restrict, the operation of NGOs.

Bui ld ing the Capacity of Civ i l Society

Nurturing New NGOsMany NGOs working on environmental issues today wereborn of the democratic revolution and the economic changesof the past two decades. The challenge today is to supportthese new organizations as they develop the skills to becomeeffective, well-managed, and self-sufficient (see Box 4.5).This includes learning how to partner with other institutions(including government), how to fund-raise, how to engage

81C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

mental Communication Asia network (ADB 2001:36). This issignificant because environmental stories in the news mediahave been a key factor in the growth of the environmentalmovement in the Asia and Pacific region (ADB 2001:36). In theCentral and Eastern European countries, some newspapersand television programs have established regular reporting onthe environment. But, in most countries, newspapers and othermedia tend to cover the environment only occasionally, focus-ing mainly on accidents and controversy rather than on sub-stantive environmental issues or the policies required toaddress them (SustainAbility et al. 2002:8–14).

I n te r n et Fre e d o m I s M i xe dThough relatively new, the Internet is already a significantelement in expanding environmental democracy and empow-ering NGOs. But, like the media, Internet users can be sub-ject to government constraints on who they can contact,what websites they can visit, and what information they canpass on.

Results from one of the first international assessmentsof Internet freedom show that while government restrictionson Internet access or content are uncommon, Internet free-doms are by no means universal. Of 131 countries examined,58 provide liberal access to the web and generally do notcontrol the content of material available on-line. Another 55countries have moderate restrictions on web access andcontent. Eighteen countries, including China and Russia,significantly restrict Internet freedoms. In these countries,the state may provide the Internet service directly or inter-vene in commercial Internet service. Citizens may be fined,harassed, or imprisoned for messages deemed seditious orexpressing dissent from government policies (FreedomHouse 2001:1).

Surprisingly, the results show that a high or moderatelevel of Internet freedom can often be found in nations wherepress freedom is low. In Oman, for example, there are manypress restrictions, but Internet users are subjected to few. In12 other nations with low press freedom, the governmentapplies only moderate restrictions to the Internet. In thesecountries, the Internet may prove a critical tool for the effec-tiveness of civil society groups, and a major source of accessto environmental information (Freedom House 2001:1–4).

the media, how to deliver services efficiently, and how to com-municate results.

A recent analysis of civil society in 22 countries empha-sized the need for capacity building in most of them (Salamonet al. 1999). But capacity building itself requires financialresources, and many civic groups struggle to secure even ashoestring budget. In fact, finding funding is the root prob-lem plaguing new NGOs, and many older ones as well. TheRegional Environmental Center for Central and EasternEurope (REC) reported in 1997 that almost half the NGOs inthat region were operating with budgets of under $1,000 ayear, and three quarters reported their financial situation aseither unstable or poor (REC 1997:8). With an increase in thesize of the environmental sector and a decline in interna-tional funding to Central Europe since 1996, NGOs there nowrely on even fewer resources.

Funding problems are compounded by the fact that mostof the money from external donors goes to groups that focuson national and international issues, rather than to thoseworking on local problems (OECD 1999:85). Meanwhile, fewdonors are willing to commit their support for longer than afew years despite the fact that NGOs—particularly new ones—require long-term funding to effectively address most socialor environmental issues. Donor initiatives to establishlonger-term relationships with NGOs are thus one way to dealwith the problem of financial insecurity. Donor support can

also include direct capacity building. For example, a donoragency might host an internship where NGO personnel canundertake research and training or produce a handbook orother field materials for use in their home country.

Government Act ion Governments can facilitate civic action on environmentalissues by improving the legal and regulatory frameworks thatenable NGOs to grow and mature. Several nations in the Asia-Pacific region are making efforts in this area. For example,changes made to Thailand’s constitution in 1997 guaranteefreedom of association and specifically grant the freedom toassemble in the form of NGOs. In the Philippines, the gov-ernment has enacted generous tax deductions for charitablecontributions by individuals and corporations (Silk 1999:7,12–16). However, progress needs to spread to other regions.This includes greater attention to press and Internet free-doms, which are vital to civic debate and the ability of civilsociety groups to communicate with and organize their con-stituents. Governments can also be proactive in seeking civicinput in developing policies and pursuing projects with sig-nificant environmental impacts.

Developing Local SupportSupport from external donors such as bilateral aid agenciesor development banks often helps new civil society groups to

82W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

Fi g u re 4 . 4 Fre e d o m o f E x p re s s i o n a n d A s s o c i at i o n , 1 9 9 9

Sub-Saharan Africa

Europe Asia (excl. Middle East)

Middle East & N. Africa

Central America & Caribbean

South America

Oceania North America

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Num

ber o

f Cou

ntrie

s

Full Freedom

Partial, Restricted, or Limited Freedom

No Freedom

Source: U.S. State Department, as reported by Anheier et al. 2001: 263–266.

get off the ground and older groups to undertake special proj-ects or build capacity for effective action. But in order to sur-vive and thrive, civil society groups must eventually enlistlocal support and involvement. They must establish roots intheir communities, engaging local interest and acceptanceand securing financial support.

Establishing those local roots can be challenging. In manycountries limited public understanding of the legitimacy ofcivil society organizations makes it difficult for new groups tostimulate indigenous support and participation (Brown andKalegaonkar 2002:233). NGOs and other groups may beunaccustomed to reaching out to the public and other stake-holders, as an assessment of Russian NGOs found (see Box4.6). Similarly, an examination of the sustainability of Latin

American NGOs concluded that NGOs can’t expect to gainacceptance, legitimacy, and support by leading projects inisolation. They must learn to work effectively in a support roleby coordinating community activities, forging alliances, andintegrating themselves into the social fabric of the commu-nity (Valderrama 1999).

Building a broad base of indigenous financial support is aparticular challenge in countries where there is no history ofprivate philanthropy or nonprofit organizations, or whereper capita income is very low. Yet, access to diversifiedsources of funding—local, international, and self-generatedincome from fees—is a key to NGO sustainability and auton-omy. Analysis of environmental NGO financing in CentralEurope shows an overwhelming dependence on foreign

donors. Unless local charitable support expands, thesegroups are left vulnerable to impoverishment as a growingnumber vie for a finite or shrinking pool of international sup-port (Atkinson and Messing 2002:13). In five Latin Americancountries, researchers found a similar need to encourage thegrowth of local charitable foundations to enable furtherexpansion of the nonprofit sector (Salamon et al. 1999:35).

Transparency and Accountabi l i tyOne step toward overcoming doubts about civil society’s legit-imacy and effectiveness is for environmental NGOs and othercivic groups to measure their own impact in clear and simpleterms. More in-depth and transparent self-evaluation andpeer evaluation can help defray questions of accountability or

responsiveness to their pri-mary constituencies. Simi-larly, transparency and open-ness in the areas of fundingand work agendas can allayconcerns that NGOs aremerely agents of foreigninterests.

There are fledgling effortsto make NGOs more trans-parent and to assess theireffectiveness. These includescorecards that survey theperformance and ethics ofnonprofit organizations.Worth Magazine, for exam-ple, provides an annual list ofthe 100 best United Statescharities in several fields,

including the environment, based on criteria such as return oninvestment and effectiveness.

Many efforts to improve accountability and transparencycome from within the NGO community. Donors and somelarge conservation groups, such as the World Wide Fund forNature, and the Nature Conservancy, are trying to developaccounting standards to audit the effectiveness of environ-mental projects (Christensen 2002:D2). InterAction, amembership association of United States NGOs engaged ininternational humanitarian efforts, requires its members tocomply with set standards in such areas as governance,finance, communication with the U.S. public, and manage-ment practices. InterAction also promotes standard-setting

83C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

A v i b r a n t c i v i l s o c i e t y i n c r e a s e s t h e d e m a n d f o r t r a n s p a r e n c y

a n d a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o f d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s i n

b o t h g o v e r n m e n t a n d b u s i n e s s .

(continued on p. 86)

84W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

Africa’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) mir-ror the wide variations in governance among thecountries of the continent. Here, the best and the

worst examples of NGOs can be found. Throughout much ofAfrica, strong NGOs have been on the frontline of the battlefor civic freedom and better environmental governance, whilein other parts of the region they are weak, insecure, and vul-nerable to repression.

Yet, even in places where formal government structures arein disarray, such as in parts of the Great Lakes region, orSomalia, community organizations and NGOs have managedto address social and environmental concerns—against greatodds. During the Rwanda genocide crisis in 1994, for example,local organizations worked in the communities that hostedrefugee camps, helping people find alternative energy sourcesin order to reduce the destruction of local forests for fuelwood.

Similarly, in war-torn Somalia, local groups have beenworking with UN agencies such as the United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) andthe United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to helpbuild a culture of reconciliation and peace, and a foundationfor economic growth. In the oasis of Iskushuban in the Soma-lian desert, local groups using seed funding from UNDP haveformed a water-users committee to rebuild irrigation chan-nels, established a microcredit plan to finance new villageenterprises, started a demonstration farm to spread organicfarming techniques, and constructed retaining walls to pre-

vent erosion of the steep valley terrain. These locally led ini-tiatives have become a model for civic action in other villagesin the Iskushuban district.

Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, and Zimbabwe arehome to large numbers of NGOs, and many have played a criti-cal role in advancing policy reform at the national level. In Zim-babwe, civil society found its voice during the years when thecapital city Harare was the center of resistance to theapartheid regime in South Africa, and continues to addressZimbabwe’s current civil troubles. Over the past decade, NGOsin Ghana and Kenya have defended the public’s right of associ-ation in the face of government attempts to legislate a limit tothis basic freedom. In Kenya in particular, NGOs such as theMazingira Institute, Kenya Human Rights Commission, and theGreen Belt Movement, in partnership with churches and othergroups, have helped catalyze constitutional reform. Civil soci-ety also played a central role in the dramatic changes in SouthAfrica’s political system in the last two decades—a story thathas somewhat overshadowed the important influence of NGOsas drivers of change elsewhere on the continent.

Much of the story of NGOs in Africa revolves around therelationship between civil society and government. Govern-ments tend to look favorably on NGOs that provide servicessuch as healthcare, education, or other activities that thestate would ordinarily perform. On the other hand, politicallyactive NGOs may provoke government ire. With the slowgrowth of democratic governance across the continent, civilsociety organizations are often seen as the only acceptableand effective vehicle to work for change in society. Conse-quently, many African governments have viewed NGOs withsuspicion, if not outright contempt. But NGOs do not alwayswork in opposition to the state. Since the 1992 Earth Summit inRio, many African NGOs have worked to strengthen their gov-ernments’ positions in international policy forums. And in

B ox 4 . 5 A f r i c a n N G O s : A K a l e i d o s c o p e o f E f fo r t s

85C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

some countries, such as Senegal and Uganda, serious effortshave been made to bring civil society more meaningfully intothe national policy-formulation arena.

Nonetheless, there remain many weaknesses in Africa’sNGO sector. Despite the strength of ZERO in Zimbabwe,ENDA in Senegal, Friends of the Earth Ghana, EnvironmentalJustice Networking Forum in South Africa, and ZambiaWildlife Society, to name a few, the vast majority of NGOsface critical financial constraints and capacity gaps. AfricanNGOs argue that the high level of poverty makes it difficult toraise local funds, so they rely on international donors. Yet,charitable giving is not alien to most African cultures, and thedifficulty of soliciting local funds is often simply due to a lackof fundraising skills, or the absence of strong support amonglocal constituents.

What often is alien to Africans is the social concept of thenongovernmental association as it has developed in Europeancultures—a variety of citizens from different walks of life andoften different communities, coming together to address a

specific set of social issues. Instead, many African NGOsreflect a narrower social base. Some have arisen from theactivity of urban elites, along the lines of the European NGOmodel. Many others were created at the request of financialdonors to carry out projects at the community level. Often,these NGOs have bypassed and alienated traditional socialnorms, which are community-focused and governed by tradi-tional leadership structures, such as local chiefs. This culturalmismatch is one reason that NGOs in Africa are frequentlyaccused by governments, as well as by some donor agencies,of lacking the capacity or mandate to succeed in their mission.Other shortcomings include corruption, tribalism, and the “BigMan syndrome”—where most decision-making power isvested in one individual or leader. These problems can becomeobstacles to fostering democratic norms, transparency, andaccountability among the continent’s civil society groups.

Although these concerns are real, they are often overblownby critics. This focus frequently leads to unfair or inappropri-ate treatment of NGOs by African governments, while a greatdeal of effective work by civil society organizations goesunrecognized. The many success stories among NGOs inAfrica indicate that creative and culturally sensitiveapproaches to capacity development—such as fosteringmechanisms for accountability, or nurturing democratic andeffective leadership—have strong potential to broaden theresponse of civil society groups to Africa’s environment anddevelopment needs.

Contributed by Robert Sinclair, capacity developmentconsultant, Nairobi, Kenya.

Number of voluntary nonprofit organizations in 150,000

Kenya, 2002 (including informal organizations)

(Hakkarainen et al. 2002)

Number of government-registered NGOs 2,511

in Kenya, 2003

(Sinclair 2003)

Percentage of Kenyan hospitals run by NGOs, 1999 50.2%

(Government of Kenya Ministry of Health 2001:63)

Percentage of Kenyan health clinics and medical 87.1%

centers run by NGOs, 1999

(Government of Kenya Ministry of Health 2001:63)

Percentage of Kenyan nursing and maternity homes 100%

run by NGOs, 1999

(Government of Kenya Ministry of Health 2001:63)

Kenya’s Healthy Civil Society

processes for comparable groups in Canada, Japan, Asia,and Central and Eastern Europe (InterAction 2003).

At the same time, One World Trust, a London-based char-ity, is designing indicators to measure the accountability andtransparency of a range of global institutions, including inter-national NGOs. Using these indicators, an organization mightmeasure how accessible its meetings and formal decision-making processes are to members, or the independence andtransparency of its evaluation process. Or it might measurewhether the group has adequate stakeholder representationfrom the North and the South (Kovach et al. 2003). Althoughmany of these efforts focus on international NGOs or takeplace in developed countries, they provide approaches thatmight be adapted and used elsewhere.

Special ized Support OrganizationsSome NGOs have taken it as their mission to help other civilsociety groups become more effective. These “support orga-nizations” provide a variety of services. Some provideresearch and training to NGOs or increase the public’sawareness of their contributions. Others build alliances orbridge the differences among government, business, andcivil society groups. The work of these support organiza-tions has catalyzed fundamental changes and maturationthroughout the sector. Some notable successes include:

■ The Society for Participatory Research in Asia fosteredthe development of regional and international net-works to promote capacity building and training forgrassroots organizations. The Delhi-based organiza-tion responded to the demand for its services by devel-oping a network of regional support organizationsthroughout India. It also forged alliances with organi-zations throughout South Asia that provide training,information, and other resources to strengthen NGOsand help women and disadvantaged populations par-ticipate in local and national governance (Brown andKalegaonkar 2002:240).

■ The Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP),organized by business leaders, provides financial sup-port to NGOs working on rural development andencourages learning from past initiatives to improveeffectiveness. On a larger scale, PBSP has also gener-ated awareness that improving relations betweenNGOs and businesses is critical to improving funding(Brown and Kalegaonkar 2002:241).

■ The Council of National Indigenous Associations ofEcuador (CONAIE) shares information among mem-bers and represents them in negotiations with govern-

86W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4

C i v i l s o c i e t y g r o u p s c r e a t e c h a n n e l s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y p e o p l e

t y p i c a l l y e x c l u d e d f r o m d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

87C h a p t e r 4 : A w a k e n i n g C i v i l S o c i e t y

To successfully advance their interests, nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) need to build relation-ships and be connected—to the public, to govern-

ment officials, to the business community, and to each other.Yet, engaging the public and other stakeholders is easier saidthan done. Engagement is especially difficult in countrieswhere civic groups are a relatively new force and there isgeneral public distrust of such institutions and of govern-ment bodies.

Russia typifies this situation. Russian NGOs who work onenvironmental issues have traditionally been distant from thepublic and the communities in which they work. The leadersand members of these NGOs are often scientists, technicalexperts, and other professionals who tend to value their linksto the scientific community, but who may not be inclined toconsult “ordinary citizens.” Indeed, a 1999 survey of Russianenvironmental NGOs found that 70 percent of these groupsroutinely consult with scientists to advance their work, whileonly 30 percent routinely seek involvement from the public (seeTable) (Wernstedt 2002a:31).

The survey also found that most environmental NGOs don’twork with other Russian or international NGOs on a regularbasis. They consult even less frequently with anyone in localgovernment. Weakest of all is their relationship with the pri-vate sector. Ninety-two percent of NGOs surveyed reportedworking with business or industry only “occasionally” or“never” (see Table). The absence of close working relationswith these groups means that Russian environmental NGOsoften lack an effective entry point to decision-making (Wern-stedt 2002a:19, 31)

The problem of civic disengagement goes beyond the NGOcommunity. Many Russian citizens do not actively seek to par-ticipate in environmental NGOs or in the political process.This is not due to any legal constraint on public participation.Russians have a constitutional and statutory right to partici-pate in public decision-making and to give their input on envi-ronmental matters (Wernstedt 2002b:25). Yet, a recent poll

indicates that only 5 percent of Russians currently participatein public organizations and nearly 75 percent say they have nointerest in doing so (Wernstedt 2002b:24).

These results point to the difficulty of building coalitionsfor action around environmental problems in Russia today.But it may not always be so. Surveys show that the public isconcerned about the role of the environment in health issues.Nearly 60 percent of 3,300 Russians surveyed in 2000 reportedthat they believed the environment caused or contributed tochronic illnesses in their family (Wernstedt 2002a:3-4). If itcan be tapped, this concern may offer a viable path to publicengagement. At the same time, Russian NGOs are clearlystarting to understand the need to involve the public in theirwork. More than 40 percent of environmental NGOs now rank“increased public involvement” as a top priority for improvingenvironmental policies (Wernstedt 2002a:29).

B ox 4 . 6 R u s s i a ’s N G O s : L e a r n i n g to E n g a g e

ments and international agencies when indigenousrights and resources are threatened. The CONAIE fed-eration not only successfully revised a proposed lawthat jeopardized indigenous land-holdings, but also setthe stage for a larger role for indigenous actors infuture policy-making (Brown and Kalegaonkar2002:243, 247–248).

These “support organizations” face their own survivalchallenges. They must create a constituency for theirservices—yet civil society actors are often unaware of their

own shortcomings or reluctant to acknowledge their weak-nesses (Brown and Kalegaonkar 2002:250, 254).

Coal it ions and Al l iancesForming coalitions of environmental NGOs and other civilsociety groups can be a highly effective way to channel theirenergy and magnify their effectiveness. By adopting a com-mon stance on key issues of national or international impor-tance and by learning to work together, civil society groupscan often achieve synergies that lead to more significant out-comes. They can convene diverse constituencies that sway

Percentage of Russian environmental NGOs surveyed who workwith:

A Reluctance to Engage?

Occasionally Always Usually or Never

Scientists 70 22 8

Other Russian NGOs 42 23 35

Educators 40 28 32

International NGOs 38 19 43

Local Public 30 30 41

Local Elected Officials 15 42 43

Local Government 15 41 45

Institutions

Business/Industry 0 8 92

Source: Wernstedt 2002a:31

policy-makers far more easily than single groups. Influentialcoalitions include:

■ The Danish 92 Group, which coordinated the work ofDanish environment and development organizations inpreparation for the 1992 Rio Summit and the 2002 Johan-nesburg Summit. Twenty domestic NGOs participate inthe Group.

■ The Norwegian Forum for Environment and Develop-ment, a network of 60 groups that develops commonpositions on issues such as global access to safe drink-ing water, and sustainable agriculture, and mobilizesparticipation and action on Agenda 21 efforts in Nor-way. For example, the Forum called for debt cancella-tion for developing countries, and for a larger portionof development assistance to be channeled to waterprojects (FwF 2002).

■ The Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) brings together some 2,500 NGOs and coopera-tives from the Philippines to discuss issues facing thesector, promote professionalism, and build memberconsensus on development, NGO, and communityissues.

One example of a particularly large and effective interna-tional coalition is ECO-FORUM—an alliance of more than 200environmental organizations from all over Europe. The coali-tion enjoyed full negotiating powers in the drafting of theAarhus Convention from 1996 to 1998. This was the first timethat NGOs could sit with equal status alongside governmentsto draft an international treaty. Now that the Aarhus Conven-tion has entered into force, ECO-FORUM remains involved inthe implementation process and contributes to decisions onhow to interpret and refine the treaty. For example, ECO-FORUM has been active in negotiations on a new treaty thatwill require signatories to compile annual inventories of pol-lutants from industrial sources (called Pollutant Release andTransfer Registries, or PRTRs). (See Chapter 6.)

Ultimately, effective participation of civil society groups inenvironmental governance won’t come from simply havinglarger coalitions or more environmental groups. A greater voicein government and corporate environmental decisions willcome as much from the quality of civil society efforts as from thequantity of people participating or projects undertaken.

The legitimacy of environmental groups—old and new—will depend on their ability to develop sophisticated strate-gies, to offer substantive knowledge and organization skills,to better measure their own performance, and to better forgeconnections with each other and with other stakeholders.

88W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 4