NGOs and Governments: Working Together

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are a strong force on the front lines of international environmentalism. NGOs are not limited by geographical, political, and economic limitations that are a common hindrance to governments attempting to implement environmental policies. However, NGOs do not carry the power and effectiveness that comes with a major government, and they require the participation and attention of these governments to make legitimate steps towards enacting strong environmental policy.

Greenpeace, one of the most prominent NGOs active today prides itself in the fact that they accomplish environmental goals without going through the motions of the bureaucratic and political process. Organizations like Greenpeace take the matters into their own hands by creating a public uproar and directly addressing the issue by attacking whalers or protesting international summits.  NGOs hope that this spur of public awareness will influence international and domestic government action. Governmental action is often not satisfactory, and NGOs only take more drastic measures.

The reason why government action is often unsatisfactory, but also the reason why NGOs must rely on governments to accomplish anything is because the public and environmental activists are impatient. As Maurice Strong, the secretary general of UNCED, said, “The environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists. Environmentalists do not hold the levers of economic power.” In order to make an effective impact on the environment, NGOs require the influence and power of national governments and regimes. Government action requires time for research, weighing options, and compromising with other nations so as to enact effective policy, rather than rash spur-of-the-moment action that is often seen from NGOs.

The tactics used by NGOs are also brought into question when frustration leads to questionable actions. When Greenpeace uses borderline-violent protests to make a point, governmental agencies question the legitimacy of these groups and the NGOs lose some credibility in the international arena. Tactics used to prevent whaling are even more extreme as some groups, such as the Sea Shepherd, may shoot flares at whaling boats or even intentionally become kidnapped as a means to gain media attention. These actions are seen as threatening by both whaling groups and governmental agencies, and they are simply not as effective as sanctions and legitimate political policy.

One of the main issues that NGOs have is the lack of consistency between different groups. The argument of conservation versus preservation reigns as a point of contention between groups. For some groups, conservation of the world’s oceans or forests is more of a priority than more specific preservation of certain species of animals being affected in those threatened ecosystems. Simple disagreements can be a substantial divide between groups that refuse to compromise or negotiate, simply due to the fact that there is no reason to negotiate. With governments, if there are disagreements, an attempt at a compromise will occur because neither nation will allow another nation to continue a malicious environmental practice.  

            A comparison of governmental action versus NGO action in the case of whaling has yielding varying opinions on which is more effective. In the case of whaling, NGOs have resorted to using tactics like the Sea Shepherd in which they take to the ocean and confront the issue. This has resulted in two things over the years: angry fishermen and media attention. Rather than opting out of whaling, whalers have only become more vigorous with their fishing techniques. In the case of governmental action, proposed ideas would be far more effective, such as trading quotas, an idea published in The Guardian in which whalers would be paid for whales that they do not catch, thus protecting whales from overfishing.

            It is important to note, however, that anyone could front the cost of these whales, including NGOs. No matter what the opinions are regarding governments and NGOs, it is obvious that the best approach is for NGOs to collaborate with government agencies, rather than creating a scenario where they simply butt heads. In the case of whaling, the government sets the quotas and regulations, and the NGOs pay to save the whales, thus creating an agreeable solution on all fronts.