Different NGOs: Different Strategies, Resources and Targets
A ªrst observation is that nonstate actors in the climate process not only includeenvironmental groups, but also research and academic institutes, business andindustry associations, labor organizations, religious bodies, consumer groups,and indigenous peoples’ organizations.
Although our focus is on green NGOs,this is no homogeneous group. On the one hand we have the traditional activist groups; on the other the more research-focused groups with legal and/or techni-cal expertise to promote environmental goals.On this basis we distinguish between (1)
organizations that obtainfunding and legitimacy through offering membership and popular support, and(2)
organizations thatobtain fundingandlegitimacythrough their abil-itytogivepolicyrecommendationsandadvisedecision-makersonlegal,techni-cal and scientiªc matters. NGOs that are clearly activist in nature include Green-peace and Friends of the Earth. Important advisory organizations or “think tanks” include the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), theFoundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD),and several others. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and EnvironmentalDefense (ED) arguably belong to both categories.
Against this backdrop we differentiate between two main strategies. First,an NGO can pursue an
seeking to attain inºuence by working closely with negotiators and governments by providing policy solutions and ex-pert advice. They also engage in knowledge construction and the production of research-based reports and papers on particular topics.
There is a particularly large contingent of US-based groups who use this type of strategy.Second, NGOs can pursue an
promoting compliance withinternational agreements by putting pressure on negotiators, governments, andtarget groups through campaigning, letters of protest, rallying, direct actions,boycotts,andevencivildisobedience.Thetactichereistoinºuencepublicopin-
•NGO Inºuence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
9. The Kyoto Protocol is not yet in force and—even if it does become international law in the near future—we will not know much about the compliance record of most Parties until the end of the decade. Thus far, 122 states representing 44.2 percent of the total CO2 emissions of the An-nex I Parties in 1990 have ratiªed (or accepted, approved, or acceded to) the Protocol, while thetrigger for entry into force is set at 55 percent. Because the United States, being the worlds’ larg-estemitterofCO2(36.1percentoftheemissionsfor1990),hasrejectedthetreaty,itsentryintoforce depends solely on Russian ratiªcation (17.4 percent of the emissions for 1990). AlthoughPresident Putin on several occasions has stated that Russia will ratify the Protocol, some uncer-tainty still remains as to whether this in fact will happen.10. For an overview of the role of business in this context see, for example, Levy and Egan 1998;Kolk and Levy 2001; and Skjærseth and Skodvin 2001 and 2003.11. Interviews were conducted with WWF, Greenpeace, CIEL, FIELD and ED. Therefore, most em-phasis will be placed on these organizations.12. Gough and Shackley 2001, 338.