tactics of environmental ngos in influencing public policy in malaysia

8/3/2019 Tactics of Environmental NGOs in Influencing Public Policy in Malaysia

1/7

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 7(2): 71 - 77 (1999) ISSN: 0128-7702 Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Tactics of Environmental NGOs in Influencing Public Policy in MalaysiaRUSLI MOHD and KENNY CHEH SONN LEE

Faculty of Farestry,University Putra Malaysia,Serdang, Selangar,Malaysia

Keywords: environmental NGOs, political tactics, public policyABSTRAK

Pertubuhan Alam Sekit ar Bukan Kerajaan di Malaysia boleh mempengaruhi pembuatan dasarawam melalui beberapa taktik politik. Kajian ini meninjau dan membandingkan taktik yangdigunakan oleh tiga pertubuhan, iaitu Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), Persatuan Pencinta A1amMalaysia (MNS) dan DanaAlam Semulajadi Dunia (WWF). Persatuan Otomobil Malaysia (AAM)dipilih sebagai kumpulan kawalan. Data dan maklumat dikumpul dengan menemuduga secarabersemuka ketua pegawai eksekutif pertubuhan berkenaan atau wakil mereka menggunakansoalselidik yang telah sedia terbentuk. Temuan kajian ini menunjukkan pertubuhan alam sekitartersebut adalah berbeza dari AAM dari segi taktik mempengaruhi dasar awam. Mereka lebihcenderung menggunakan taktik langsung dalam mempengaruhi keputusan dasar awam. Taktikseperti menjalan dan mengemukakan keputusan penyeldidkan, mengemukakan pandanganperibadi, melobi dan menghubungi pegawai, sering digunakan berbanding dengan taktik sepertikempen menul is surat dan telegram, melobi pihak "grassroots", merangka undang-undang ataumenganjur konferen. Diantara pertubuhan alam sekitar, MNS menggunakan lebih taktik samadataktik langsung atau tidak langsung berbanding dengan SAM atau WWF. MNS juga mepunyailebih banyak sumber kewangan dan ini mungkin menerangkan ia l ebih banyak menggunakanbanyak taktik. Kajian masa hadapan perlu menggunakan sampel yang l ebih besar disampingmengkaji keberkesanan taktik yang digunakan.

ABSTRACTEnvironmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Malaysia can influence public policymaking through several political tactics. This s tudy surveyed and compared the tactics used bythree selected NGOs, namely, the Sahabat A1am Malaysia (SAM), the Malaysian Nature Society(MNS) and the Wor ld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Malaysia. The Automobile Association ofMalaysia (AAM) was conveniently selected as the con trol group. Data and information weregathered through face-to-face interview technique with the chief executive officers of therespective organizations or their representative using a structured questionnaire. The findingsreveal that the environmental NGOs are different from the AAM in their choice of tactics ofinfluencing public policy. The former prefer to use direct tactics in influencing policy decisions.Tactics such as conducting and presenting research results, presenting personal viewpoints,lobbying and contacting officials, are often used compared to tactics like letter-writing andtelegram campaigns, grassroots lobbying, drafting legislation or organizing conferences. Amongthe NGOs, the MNS has been the most tactical in th e sense that it has used more tactics, bothdirect and indirect, more often than the SAM or th e WWF. The MNS is also the most resourcefulof the NGOs and this probably explains its capacity t o employ more political tactics. Futurestudies should use a bigger sample as well as investigate the effectiveness of the various tactics used.

INTRODUCTIONEnvironmental non-goven1mental organizations(NGOs) wo rldw id e have been recognized asinfluential actors in the decision-making arena

on policies related to th e environment. Themanner in which these NGOs influence decisionmaking vary and depends on th e strength of theNGOs themselves as well as th e institutions which


2/7

Rusli Mohd and Kenny Cheah Soon Lee

they target their activities (Mohd and Laarman1994). At one extreme, there are NGOs whichwork closely with the public in harnessing theirsupport to influence policies while at the otherextreme there are other NGOs that directlylobby the policy makers themselves. The degreeof success of environmental NGOs in influencingpolicy decisions vary among nations. In somecountries, such as th e United States ofAmerica,environmental NGOs have been responsible forbringing about th e institutionalization ofenvironmental concern. In such countries, theseNGOs have permanently dotted the politicallandscape of the nations.

Environmental NGOs have also made theirpresence felt in the decision-making arena onenvironmental policies in Malaysia. These NGOshave started to influence decision-making eitherdirectly or otherwise. The Sahabat AlamMalaysia (Friends of the Earth, Malaysia), forexample, has been organizing conferences onthe environment on a regular basis during thepast many years which put forwardrecommendations to be taken up bygovernment departments and ministries. TheMalaysian Nature Society (MNS), on the otherhand, has played an active role in organizingexpeditions to remote forest areas and has madeseveral discoveries of new flora. The outcomeof these expeditions help to educate membersof the public as well as policy makers on therichness of the count ry 's biological diversitywhich need to be conserved for futuregeneration. The World Wide Fund for ature,Malaysia (WWF) has been frequentlycommissioned by the government to undertakestudies that would form the base for policydecisions.

Although the general tactics used by someenvironmental NGOs are known, there has beenno systematic study to account for the similaritiesand differences in the specific tactics used bythe different organizations in influencing policydecisions. By analyzing these specific tacticsthe public in general, and the members of theorganizations, in particular, would be able togauge the effectiveness of these NGOs ininfluencing policy decisions.Environmental NGOs and Tactics of InfluenceEnvironmental NGOs are essentially interestgroups whose main goal is, among others, toinfluence government decisions in favour of

the common interest that is shared by themembers of the organizations. Members of thesevoluntary organizations are bonded together bythis common interest about the environmentand they will pursue it by making claims ordemands upon o ther g roups in the society,including the government. The shared interestdetermines the kind of policies that theorganizations will influence and also serve as ayardstick against which these organizations judgethe actions or inactions of other members of thesociety.

In designing tactics to influence policydecisions, environmental NGOs must giveoverriding attention to the centres of influence.The centres of influence are essentially the pointswhere decisions are made and these generallyinclude th e legislative, executive and judic ia ldivisions of the government. Various tactics areopen to the NGOs to access the centres ofinfluence and these can be broadly categorizedinto two, namely "inside" and "outside tactics"(Gais and Walker 1992).

Inside tactics, or conventional lobbying,involve close consultat ion between the NGOsand policymakers. Through these tactics, theNGOs or their representatives communicate dataor opinions to governmental decision makers inan attempt to influence policy decisions.Representatives of the NGOs usually try toconvince policymakers that some form of actionshould be taken to modify an established positionor to change it in the midst of competing groupsto change it. Hence, popular inside tactics includepersonal presentation of viewpoints, conductingand presenting research results and legislativeand administrat ive lobbying. (Table 1)

In comparison, outside t ac tics involve"constituency lobbying", or the use of electoralor constituency connections to exert pressure onpolicy decisions. Outside tactics serve as indirectefforts t o exer t influence upon policy processes.However, the main goal is to build supportwithinthe general public for a new set of values thatmay become manifest in the future policies (Gaisand Walker 1992). Frequent outside tacticsinclude letter-writing campaign, working with themedia, and organizingmeetings and conferences.

METHODSurveyThe focus of the s tudy is on national NGOsconcerned with the protection and conservation

72 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 7 No.2 1999


3/7

Environmental NGOs in Influencing Public Policy in Malaysia

of the environment. The main cri terion used inselecting the NGOs is that these NGOs mus t beknown to be active in promoting environmentalprotection and conservation as evident by theirprograms and activities reported in the literatureor by the media. Using this criterion, threeenvironmental NGOs were selected, namely, theMalaysian Nature Society, th e Sahabat AlamMalaysia and th e World Wide Fund fo r Nature,Malaysia. The Automobile Association ofMalaysia was selected as the control groupbecause it is quite a prominent nongovernmental organization focusing mainly onnon-environmental issues.

Data and information required fo r this studyinclude the history, financial sources,membership, organizational set-up, and thet ac tic s usual ly employed in attempting toinfluence policy decisions. Such data andinformation were gathe red through directinterview with the presidents of the organizationsor their representatives using a preparedquestionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed inadvance of the interviews. Telephone calls were

also made to inform t he o rgan izat ionsrepresentatives of th e study and to request fortheir cooperation. Interviews were conductedbetween 15th August 1998 to 5th January 1999.All groups participated in the survey.

In order to gather data on the tactics ofinfluence, th e representatives were presentedwith a list of tactics deemed to have been usedby the NGOs. The respondentswere also allowedto indicate other tactics that were not listed. Foreach of th e tactics, the respondents were askedto indicate its frequency of use on a four-pointscale; namely, 1 = used most of th e time; 2 =used sometimes; 3 = used rarely; and 4 = neveruse. The measure of central tendency used inthe analysis was th e median score.

RESULTSBackground Information of the NGOsInformation on date of establishment,membership size, number of full-time staffmembers, and sources of funds of the NGOs aregiven i n Table 2.

Inside tactics

TABLE 1Inside and outside tactics of influenceOutside tactics

Legislative and administrative lobbyingLitigationTestifying at hearingsConducting and presenting research resultsInformal contact with officialsDrafting legislationPersonal presentation of viewpointsSource: Schlozman and Tierney (1986)

Working with the mediaOrganizing conferencesEndorsing political candidatesProtests and demonstrationLetter-writing and telegram campaignsEntering into coalitionsGrassroots lobbying

TABLE 2Age, membership, number of staff, and sources of funds of the NGOsName of NGO Year Number of Number of full- Important sourcesestablished members time staffs of fundsMalaysian Nature Society 1951 3732 (61 are 36 Membership,organizations) pubications, donors,

contractsSahabat Alam Malaysia 1974 500 individuals 5 MembershipWorld Wide Fund for 1972 Non- 60 DonorsNature membershipAutomobile Association of 1932 100,000 270 Membershipof Malaysia (control group) (individuals and

organizations)

Pertanika.J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 7 No.2 1999 73


4/7


Among the environmental NGOs, the MNSis the oldest, has the largest membership andthe most resourceful, in the sense that it hasindicated to have more "important" sources offunds, compared with the other NGOs. In spiteof these facts, the environmental NGOs arerelatively smaller than the control group, theAAM. The membership of the AAM is about 30times more than the MNS and its staffmembersis about eight times more than the that of theWWF.

The environmental NGOs and the AAM,however, share one common characteristic whichis the ir s trong dependence on the ir membersfo r funds. Except for the WWF, which is a nonmembe rs hip o rg an iz atio n, the otherorganizations indicated tha t contr ibut ion frommembership dominate their budget.Tactics Influencing Policy DecisionsTable 3 shows the results on the frequencies ofuse of tactics by the NGOs in trying to influencepublic policy decisions. Data presented in th etable shows tha t the re are more differences thansimilarities in the use of tactics by theenvironmental NGOs and the AAM. The onlysimilarities are that both the environmentalNGOs and the AAM frequently use the med ia aswell as in providing speakers fo r purposes ofseminar and other meetings. Also, both groupsofNGOs sometimes testify at meetings and resortto letter-writing and t elegram campaigns inpromoting their interests on relevant issues.

The differences in tactics used by the NGOsare many. The environmental NGOs are morelikely to use "inside" tactics such as conductingand presenting research results, presentingviewpoints, contacting officials informally, andlobbying. The AAM, on the other hand, aremore l ikely to organize conferences, lobby theirsupporters, draft legislation as well as gettinginvolved in court cases. The AAM, therefore,frequently resort to "outside" tactics in attemptingto influence policy decisions.

Among the environmental NGOs, there areas many similarities as th er e ar e differences inthe use of various tactics. I t appears thatconducting research and presenting its result,using the media, grassroots lobbying, enteringinto coa li tions and dra fti ng l eg is la tion arecommon tactics used by the environmental NGOsin trying to influence decisions. These NGOsseem to differ on the use of the o ther tactics.

The results also show that the MNS is themost tactical of the environmental NGOs in thesense that it has been using more tactics, bothinside and outside, more frequently comparedwith th e other two organizations. The MNSseems to target their members , the public aswell as the policy makers as an overall strategy toinfluence policy decisions. Being a nonmembership organization, the WWF seldomresorts to using letter-writing and telegramcampaigns. A strong asset of the WWF seems tobe its research capability and it has made use ofthis asset in influencing public decisions through

TABLE 3Frequency in the use of tactics of influence

Tactics MNS WWF SAM Median AAMConducting and presenting research results 1 1 1 1 2Working with the media 1 1 1 1 1Providing speakers 1 1 2 1 1Personal presentation of viewpoints 1 1 2 1 2Lobbying 1 1 2 1 2Informal contacts with officials 1 1 2 1 2Letter-writing and telegram campaigns 1 2 2 2 2Organizing conferences 1 2 2 2 1Entering into coalitions 2 2 2 2 1Grassroots lobbying 2 2 2 2 1Drafting legislation 2 2 2 2 1Litigation 3 4 2 3 1TestifYing at hearings 3 4 2 3 3Protest and demonstration 3 4 4 4 1Endorsing political candidates 4 4 4 4 4Notes: 1. Used most of the time 2. Used sometimes

3. Used rarely 4. Never used74 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 7 No.2 1999


5/7


various tactics as shown in the table 3. The SAMappears to concentrate on conducting researchand using the media, probably in publicising theresearch results.

Table 4 shows the results on the threepriority tactics used by the NGOs, as indicatedby their representatives during the interviews. Itcan be seen that there is a sharp contrast betweenthe environmental NGOs and the AAM. Most ofthe priority tactics used by environmental NGOsare no t on the priority list of the AAM. Researchactivi ties dominate the tactic of theenvironmental NGOs whereas the AAM prefersto resort to campaign as its priority tactic.

TABLE 4Priority tactics of influenceRankings MNS SAM WWF AAM

1 Research Research Research Campaigns2 Presenting Media Informal Grassroots

viewpoints Contacts lobbying3 Campaigns Lobbying Media Media

DISCUSSIONThe results presented earlier provide someinsights into the questions of whether or notenvironmental NGOs are really different fromother NGOs in terms of tactics in influencingpolicy decisions and whether or notenvironmental NGOs are more likely to succeedor otherwise in influencing such decisions.

The findings of this survey reveal that thethree environmental NGOs appear to adoptdifferent political tactics than th e AAM ininfluencing public policy decisions. In terms ofoverall tactics as well as priority tactics used, theenvironmental NGOs often resort to those tacticsthat bring their leaders or thei r representativesinto close contact with policy makers. Tacticslike conducting and presenting research results,presenting viewpoints, contacting governmentofficials and lobbying are popular with theseNGOs. The AAM, on the other hand, preferto adopt indirectways to ge t to the policy makers.It often employs tactics such as public campaigns,grassroots lobbying and using the media to ge ttheir viewpoints across to policy makers.

A few factors can be highlighted to expla inthe differences in th e tactics used by th eenvironmental NGOs and the AAM. Thesefactors are the assets that are available to the

groups which include f inancial resources ,membership size, and number of staff and the irexpertise. Generally, the more assets a grouphas the more tactics are available for them tochoose to influence policy decisions. Of thevarious factors, the two most influential ones arethe size of membership and staff expertise.The size of membership, and theirgeographical dis tr ibut ion, could explain thechoice of indirect tactics by the AAM. The AAMhas more than 100,000 members comprisingindividuals and groups and they are located allover the country. These members present astrategic asset to the association because theirtime and energy can be harnessed to lobby thepublic or carry out campaign activities on behalfof the association. The leaders of the associationneed not have to lobby th e policy-makersthemselves but can do so through their members.Such tactics are relatively cheaper comparedwith those like conducting and present ingresearch results and, therefore, can be employedwith little costs to the association. Elsewhere,studies have shown that the presence ofassociation subunits or branches is related to apreference of indirect or "outside" tactics (Gaisand Walker, 1992).

Theoretically, many factors affect the choiceof tactics used by environmental groups ofwhichstaff number and their expertise are two of them(Berry, 1977). The MNS and WWF have asizeable number of staff and most of them havestrong research background. There fore , i t isnot surprising that research and presentation ofits results is the most popular tactic employed bythese two organizations. These organizationsare well known to be science-based organizationsin the sense that they rely heavily on scientificdata and evidence to recommend policies andstrategies on relevent environmental issues. TheMNS, for example, has been organizing scientificexpeditions to remote forest areas, includingBelum forests and Endau-Rompin forests. Theseexpedit ions led to many scientific discoveries aswell as created greater awareness of the publicon the importance of conserving these areas. Asa result of these exp editions, the stategovernments of lohore and Pahang agreed tose t aside 98,000 ha of the Endau-Rompin forestas a national park.

The WWF, on the other hand, is oftencommissioned by government departments andother interested parties to carry ou t studies on

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 7 No.2 1999 75


6/7


various topics related to environmental policies.Two examples of such studies are the formulationof National Ecotourism Plan and Assessment ofBiological Diversity in Malaysia. From theseexamples, i t can be seen that the expertise ofth e staffs of th e WWF is sought after bygovernment departments in recommendingenvironmental policies and strategies. The awardof such studies to the WWF acknowledges ther esearch capab il ity and strength of theorganization.

One of the philosophies of the SAM is thatit believes in present ing true and reliable factsin promoting new policies and improving thecurrent ones. Therefore , the organization iscommitted to research in whichever way possible.It is felt, however, that the involvement of SAMin research activities is not on the same extent asthe MNS or the WWF. SAM has very few staffmembers for it to ge t involved in significantresearch activities. I t is believed that SAM workstogether with the Consumer Association ofPenang or other sister organizations inconducting research on environmental issues.

Having discussed the tactics used, the nextquestion would be a re the environmental I GOseffective in inf luencing policy decisions? Theresults of the survey only provide some generalanswers to the quest ion because in reali ty a lo tof other factors influence government policydecisions.

Theoret ical ly , ins ide tactics ar e moreeffective than outside tactics in influencing policydecisions. Outside tactics are usually used toexert extr a p re ssur e on policy decisions,particularly when the inside tactics fail to do so.The rationale for inside tactics is that policymakers are overloaded with daily demands andpressures. NGOs take the opportunity to assistthese policy-makers, and in return have theirlegislative interests represented (Ornstein andElder, 1978). In all cases, NGOs or theirrepresentatives communicate data or opinionsto governmental decision-makers in an effort toinfluence policy decisions. NGOs try to convincepolicy-makers tha t some form of action shouldbe taken to modifY an established position orpreserve it in the midst of competing interests tochange it.

The fmdings presented earlier show thatthe three environmental NGOs are more likelyto use inside tactics than the outside ones ininfluencing policy decisions. Tactics like

conducting and presenting research resul ts ,presenting viewpoints and lobbying policy-makersare popular with these NGOs. Theoretically,therefore, the environmental NGOs have beenusing effective tactics in influencing policydecisions. However, further research needs tobe done to measure the impacts of these tacticson policy decision-making.

CONCLUSIONMany environmental NGOs in this country areinvolved in the struggle to influence governmentpolicy decisions on the environment byemploying various political tactics. This studygives a picture on the tactics used by threeselected NGOs. The selected environmentalNGOs, however, can be considered as therepresentatives of the big and popular ones. Thetactics that these NGOs use may no t representthe tactics used by the smaller and less popularenvironmental NGOs. The smaller NGOs,presumably being less endowed with financialand human resources, are less likely to use costlytactics such as conducting and presenting resultsand lobbying policy-makers as what being doneby the three NGOs studied. The picture paintedfor the environmental NGOs give the impressionthat they are qui te dif fe rent f rom other NGOs,like the Automobile Association of Malaysia, interms of the tactics used in influencing policydecisions. It seems like environmental NGOsprefer to use direct tactics while non-environmental NGOs prefer the indirect ones.

Future studies should focus on a biggersample of NGOs, preferably involving a crosssection of the entire environmenta l NGOpopulation. The findings of such studies willgive a better picture on how the community ofenvironmental NGOs attempt to influence policydeci sions in this country . Detail studies shouldalso be conducted to measure the impact of theNGO strategies and tactics on policy decisions.

REFERENCESBERRY, l M. 1977. LoblJyingforthePeople. Princeton:Princeton University Press.GAlS, T.L. and lL . WALKER. 1992. Pathways toinfluence in American politics. In Mobilizing

Interest Groups in America, ed. Walker, J.L. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.SCHLOZMAN, KL. and J.T. TIERNEY. 1986. Organized

Interests and American Democracy. New York:Harper and Row.

76 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 7 No.2 1999


7/7


ORNSTEIN, NJ . and S. ELDER. 1978. Interest Groups:Lobbying and Policy-making. Washington, D.C.:Congressional Quarterly Press.

MOHO, R. andJ.G.1.AARMAN, 1994. Rainforest policiesand United States NGOs: Targets and tacticsof influence. Envir. Conser. 21(4): 320-325.

(Received: 16 May 2000)

Pertanika.J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 7 No.2 1999 77

tactics of environmental ngos in influencing public policy in malaysia

Documents