Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:06:28.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Stockholm to Rio and beyond: the impact of the environmental movement on the United Nations consultative arrangements for NGOs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1996

Peter Willetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No account of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and popularly known as the Earth Summit, would be complete without coverage of the activity of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They generated debate with the government and in the media in many, perhaps most, countries. They took part in the preparatory work, wrote special reports, joined governmental delegations to Rio and ran a large forum in parallel to the official conference. UN officials have described the role of NGOs as having been ‘unprecedented‘, and that is the general view. It is less widely known that NGOs have been influential at UN conferences for decades and that they were in danger of having less access than normal to the Earth Summit. Far from the situation being ‘unprecedented’, the NGOs made such an impact at Rio because the weight of precedents made it impossible to restrict their numbers and their activities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 57 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Princen, T. and Finger, M. (eds.), Environmental NGOs in World Politics (London, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 7; or Rowlands, I. H., ‘The International Politics of Environment and Development: The Post-UNCED Agenda’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 no. 2 (1992), pp. 209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For an authoritative source using the term, ‘unprecedented’, see General Review of Arrangements for Consultations with Non-Governmental Organisations. Report of the Secretary-General, UN document E/AC.70/1994/5 of 26 May 1994, para. 101. It is unclear how such strong language can be justified. One possible reason is that some 650 NGOs participated in the Earth Summit. While this was the most ever registered for a UN conference, it was not an exceptional order of magnitude. Attendance has often been measured in hundreds of NGOs.

3 For a work that gives full empirical acknowledgement of the role of NGOs but minimal theoretical acknowledgement, see Hurrell, A. and Kingsbury, B., The International Politics of the Environment (Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar.

4 For example, NGOs are not indexed and are barely mentioned in the following three works: Luard, E., A History of the United Nations. Volume 1: The Years of Western Domination, 1945–1955 (London, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berridge, G. R. and Jennings, A. (eds.), Diplomacy at the UN (London, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Roberts, A. and Kingsbury, B. (eds.), United Nations, Divided World. The UN's Roles in International Relations (Oxford, 2nd edn, 1993)Google Scholar. The last of these clearly illustrates the different approach for analysis of environmental politics accepted by editors who are state-centric theorists. The chapter by P. Birnie on ‘The UN and the Environment’ does include some mention of NGOs, but those by T. J. Farer and F. Gaer on human rights and by K. Dadzie on economic development do not cover NGOs, let alone analyze their impact on the UN.

5 NGOs are covered in the main analytical textbooks, such as Jacobson, H. K., Networks of Interdependence. International Organisations and the Global Political System (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Feld, W. J. and Jordan, R. S., International Organisations. A Comparative Approach (New York, 1983)Google Scholar; and Archer, C., International Organizations (London, 1983)Google Scholar. Specialist studies include Pei-heng, Chiang, Non-Governmental Organisations at the United Nations. Identity, Role and Function (New York, 1981)Google Scholar, and Willetts, P. (ed.), ‘The Conscience of the World’. The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations in the UN System (London, 1995).Google Scholar

6 Clark, J., Democratizing Development. The Role of Voluntary Organizations (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Princen and Finger (eds.), Environmental NGOs; Porter, G. and Brown, J. W., Global Environmental Politics (Boulder, 1991)Google Scholar; Hurrell and Kingsbury, International Politics; Willetts, P., Pressure Groups in the Global System. The Transnational Relations of Issue-Orientated Non-Governmental Organisations (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Suter, K., An International Law of Guerrilla Warfare. The Global Politics of Law-Making (London, 1984)Google Scholar; and Chetley, A., The Politics of Baby Foods. Successful Challenges to an International Marketing Strategy (London, 1986).Google Scholar

7 See for example Rosenau, J. N. (ed.), Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar; and Rosenau, J. N., The Study of Global Interdependence: Essays on the Transnationalisation of World Affairs (London, 1980)Google Scholar. Keohane and Nye explicitly argue that transnational activity for ‘political’ rather than ‘economic’ purposes is unlikely (p. 378).

8 For a recent comprehensive work on social movements, see Tarrow, S., Power in Movement. Social Movements. Collective Action and Politics (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar. For examples of the use of the concept in International Relations, see Amin, S., Frank, A. G. and Wallerstein, I., Transforming the Revolution (New York, 1990)Google Scholar; Falk, R. A., Kim, S. S. and Mendlovitz, S. H. (eds.), The United Nations and a Just World Order (Boulder, 1991)Google Scholar: and Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23 no. 3 (Winter 1994)Google Scholar, special issue on ‘Social Movements and World Polities’, ed. M. Johnson and B. Maiguashca.

9 For a discussion of the meaning of ‘non-governmental organization’ and the text of the UN statute on NGOs, ECOSOC Resolution 1296(XLIV) of 23 May 1968, see Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’, ‘Introduction’ and appendix B.

10 For example, Human Life International was not accepted, because they campaigned against US children raising money for UNICEF.

11 Practice on the acceptance of ethnic minorities has been varied. Inuits, Romanis and other indigenous peoples’ NGOs have Category II status, but on the insistence of the Indian government the Sikh Commonwealth was rejected in 1987.

12 Discussions of the author with Robert Cox and Richard Falk at a conference, ‘The Changing Global Structure and the United Nations System’, sponsored by the Peace Research Institute Meigaku and the United Nations University, Yokohama, March 1992.

13 See Clark, Democratizing Development, pp. 8–9, 45, 53, 64, 79 and 89–91.

14 See Africa World Review (May-September 1994), issue on ‘NGOs and the Recolonisation Process’.

15 It is interesting to note that Mrs Thatcher was able to alienate most of the professions and many industrialists, yet chose to accept defeat at the hands of the football clubs when they objected to a government scheme to control entry to football grounds.

16 For a more detailed positivist argument for the value-free study of values, and the theoretical importance of NGOs as agents of change, see Willetts, P., ‘Who cares about the environment?’, in Vogler, J. and Imber, M. (eds.), International Relations and Global Environmental Change: Theories and Processes (London, 1995).Google Scholar

17 J. D. Singer, ‘The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’, World Politics, XIV (October 1961), pp. 77–92.

18 Luard, on p. 57 of A History, loosely attributes the addition of human rights to ‘the Five’. In reality, coverage of human rights and provision for the Commission on Human Rights was the result of an initiative by the ABLE working group (US NGOs from agriculture, business, labour and education). They persuaded the US delegation to table the necessary amendments, with support from China, the UK and the USSR: see Chiang, Non-Governmental Organisations, pp. 39–42.

19 Chiang Non-Governmental Organisations, pp. 45–9.

20 For the history of the UN consultative system for NGOs, see Chiang, Non-Governmental Organisations, and Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’, ch. 2.

21 ECOSOC Resolution 288B(X) of 27 February 1950.

22 Chiang, Non-Governmental Organisations, pp. 120–1, where the New York Times articles and the NGOs involved are listed.

23 In other respects Resolution 1296 (XLIV) made no more than minor amendments to the previous statute.

24 ECOSOC Resolution 288B(X), para. 16.

25 UN document E/1994/INF/5 of 13 Ma y 1994. These lists of NGOs with consultative status have been published every two years.

26 For examples of case-studies of NGO influence in the UN or its agencies, see Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’; Chetley, Politics of Baby Foods; and Suter, An International Law.

27 The term ‘operational partners’ is used by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; see UNHCR, UNHCRINGO Partnership. Reference Document on Relationship between VNHCR and NGOs (Geneva, February 1992)Google Scholar.

28 For the concept of a hybrid international organization, also called an iquango, see Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’, ‘Introduction’, and Willetts, P., ‘Transactions, Networks and Systems’, in Groom, A. J. R. and Taylor, P. (eds.), Frameworks for International Co-operation (London, 1990).Google Scholar

29 United Nations Charter, Article 62(4).

30 ECOSOC Resolution 288B(X), para. 33, and Resolution 1296(XLIV), para. 34.

31 The Secretary-General did produce Draft Standard Rules of Procedure for United Nations Conferences (UN documents A/37/163 of 28 April 1982 and A/38/298 of 8 August 1983), but the Assembly was not willing to endorse them and limit its future freedom of action. For five successive years, at the 36th to 40th Sessions, the General Assembly deferred consideration of the question to the next Session. By Decision 41/419 of 3 December 1986, the question was then deferred indefinitely.

32 For a survey of all 576 UN conferences from 1946 to 1985, from which this data was taken, see Willetts, P., ‘The Pattern of Conferences’, in Taylor, P. and Groom, A. J. R. (eds.), Global Issues in the United Nations Framework (London, 1989)Google Scholar. It was only possible to obtain attendance data from the UN documents for two-thirds of the 147 global conferences from 1961 to 1985. Less than 10 per cent of these, that is nine out of ninety-six, did not officially have NGO delegations as observers (p. 52).

33 For examples of open formulae for NGO participation, see UN General Assembly Resolution 31/179 of 21 December 1976 on the UN Conference on Technical Co-operation among Developing Countries; and Resolution 33/189 of 29 January 1979 on the World Conference of the UN Decade for Women. (In the latter case, limitations were suggested on the right of NGOs to address the conference.)

34 As examples of a restricted formula, see UN General Assembly Resolution 35/15 of 3 November 1980, on the Second United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which in para. 3(g) requests the Secretary-General to invite ‘Directly concerned non-governmental organisations in consultative status’; or Resolution 37/41 of 3 December 1982, on the Second World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, which in para. 5(k) requests the Secretary-General to invite ‘Non-governmental organisations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council which have contributed to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and to the implementation of the Programme of Action … taking into account their record in the field of struggle’. In the first case the restriction appears to be aiming at a scientific and technical bias, whereas in the second case there is a clear ideological bias.

35 The quotation is from the decision on participation of NGOs in the Fourth World Conference on Women, annexed to General Assembly Resolution 48/108 of 20 December 1993. The whole of the text of this decision is virtually identical to the decision on participation of NGOs in the International Conference on Population and Development annexed to ECOSOC Resolution 1993/4 of 12 February 1993.

36 The quotation may be found in General Assembly Resolution 3438(XXX) of 9 December 1975 on the UN Conference on Human Settlements and in ECOSOC Resolution 1982(LX) of 19 April 1976 on the UN Water Conference.

37 Report of the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, Vienna 17–26 June 1987, UN document A/CON F.I 33/12, pp. 136–9, compared to List of Non-Governmental Organisations in Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council in 1987, UN document E/1987/INF/8.

38 UN, General Review, para. 101.

39 UN document A/CONF.48/PC.11, Report of the Secretary-General, dated 30 July 1971, for the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee in September 1971. The practice of differentiating among NGOs at the conference had been used before. For example, at UNCTADI in 1964 slightly different provisions were made for ECOSOC NGOs in Categories A and B and for those on the Roster.

40 Report of the Preparatory Committee on its Third Session, UN document A/CONF.48/PC/13 of 30 September 1971, pp. 46–7.

41 Report, UN document A/CONF.48/PC.13, pp. 44, 47, an d Annex IV, p. 14, Rule 59. These decisions were endorsed by General Assembly Resolution 2850(XXVI), para. 5, on 20 December 1971.

42 S. Morphet, ‘NGOs and the Environment’, ch. 5 of Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World1. Neither ICSU nor IUCN is a ‘pure’ NGO: they are iquangos (see n. 28 above).

43 A Committee of Corresponding Consultants with 152 members from 58 countries contributed to the unofficial report for the Stockholm conference, Only One Earth. The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, by Ward, B. and Dubos, R. (London, 1972)Google Scholar.

44 Caldwell, L. K., International Environmental Policy. Emergence and Dimensions (Durham and London, 1990), p. 52Google Scholar.

45 Report of the Secretary-General, to the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee, UN document A/CONF.48/PC.8 of 9 December 1970.

46 A/CONF.48/PC/13, p. 44 (see n. 40 above).

47 See Aaronson, T., ‘World Priorities’, Environment, 14, no. 6 (July-August 1972) pp. 4–13Google Scholar; Feraru, A. T., ‘Transnational Political Interests and the Global Environment’, International Organization, 28, no. 1 (1974), pp. 31–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; UNEP Annual Report 1992, p. 127; and Willetts, ‘Pattern of Conferences’. There are various different figures for the number of NGOs officially represented at Stockholm. Aaronson refers to ‘more than 300 NGOs attending the UN Conference’ (p. 12), and Willetts gives a comparable figure of 298 (p. 52), whereas Feraru has a rather lower figure of 255, and says ‘of these, 161 were "status" organisations’ (p. 48). Neither Aaronson nor Willetts says how many had consultative status. There are also several figures quoted for the number of NGOs officially represented at Rio. The estimate of ‘about 650’ used by UNEP must be regarded as authoritative.

48 Willetts, ‘Pattern of Conferences’, p. 54.

49 For a relatively detailed account of the Environment Forum, see Aaronson, ‘World Priorities’. See also, Feraru, ‘Transnational Political Interests’.

50 For an outline of the campaign against whaling, see T. Burke, ‘Friends of the Earth and the Conservation of Resources’, ch. 6 of Willetts, Pressure Groups, pp. 120–3.

51 Brundtland, G. H. et al., Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford, 1987), p. 343Google Scholar.

52 UN General Assembly Resolution 42/187 of 11 December 1987.

53 UN General Assembly Resolution 44/228 (Part II) of 22 December 1989, paras. 1–2.

54 Resolution 44/228 (Part II), para. 1.

55 Resolution 44/288 (Part II), para. 11.

56 Resolution 44/288 (Part II), para. 12.

57 The quotation is from Rule 16 para. 2(0 of UN document A/37/163 (see n. 31 above). Although this document was not endorsed by the Assembly, it does represent the Secretariat's view of what had become standard practice.

58 UN document A/44/48 of 14 January 1991, the report of the Preparatory Committee's Organizational Session in New York, 5–16 March 1990, p. 3. Four of the eleven INGOs were from Category I and seven from Category II. None were obviously primarily concerned with either the environment or development.

59 UN document A/44/48, pp. 9–16.

60 Report of the Secretary-General on the preparatory process…, UN document A/CONF.151/PC/2, para. 33.

61 Note by the Secretarial on suggested guidelines on how relevant non-governmental organisations can make their contribution to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN document A/CONF.151/PC/CRP.5 of 13 March 1990.

62 UN document, A/44/48, ‘Decision IV, pp. 13–14 (see n. 58 above).

63 Final documents of the Ninth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Belgrade, from 4 to 7 September 1989, in UN document A/44/55l-S/20870 of 29 September 1989, ‘Environment’ section, pp. 107–9.

64 For more detailed discussion of attitudes of developing-country governments, see Williams, M., ‘Re-articulating the Third World Coalition: The Role of the Environmental Agenda’, Third World Quarterly, 14, no. 1 (1993), pp. 7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Brundtland et al., Our Common Future, ‘Foreword’, p. xiii.

66 Princen and Finger (eds.), Environmental NGOs, ch. 7.

67 The Centre for Our Common Future published a newsletter, Independent Sector Network ‘92, with three editions in 1990 and nine editions in 1991 and 1992. Since the Rio conference it has continued publication and it is now simply called The Network. It is an invaluable source on NGO activity.

68 Independent Sector Network ‘92, no. 1 (August 1990), p. 8Google Scholar.

69 Suggested arrangements for involving non-governmental organisations in the preparatory process, UN document A/CONF.151/PC/9 of 22 June 1990, quotes from pp. 4–5.

70 Chairman's compromise proposal, UN document A/CONF.151/PC/CRP.7 of 10 August 1990.

71 Memo to NGO Development Committees, New York and Geneva, from Stephen Collett, in Nairobi for the Quaker UN Office, mimeographed and dated 15 August 1990.

72 General Assembly Resolution 44/228, para. 12, solely referred to NGOs with consultative status.

73 This account of the open-ended meeting was taken from notes made at the time by a government delegate at the meeting. No mention of this meeting is made in the official report of PrepCom I, UN document A/45/46 of 25 January 1991.

74 Draft decision submitted by the Chairman, UN document A/CONF.151/PC/L.8 of 13 August 1990, adopted on 14 August to become Decision 1/1, given in A/45/46, pp. 22–3 (see previous note) and reprinted in Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’, appendix B.

75 General Assembly Resolution 45/211 of 21 December 1990, para. 13.

76 In previous conferences NGOs had also issued statements at their own expense, but these had usually been issued with a UN document symbol. In ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies the UN bears the cost of printing and distribution of NGO documents.

77 Decision 2/1 of the UNCED Preparatory Committee, in UN document A/46/48 of 21 June 1991, pp. 21–2, and reprinted in Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’, appendix B.

78 UN General Assembly Resolution 46/168 of 19 December 1991, para. 9(0-

79 Agenda 21 is in Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN document A/CONF.151/26 of 14 August 1992, with the section on ‘major groups’ being in vol. III.

80 The remaining three ‘major groups’ were non-governmental organisations, ‘business and industry’ and the ‘scientific and technological community’.

81 Agenda 21, vol. Ill, p. 4.

82 Ibid., p. 99, para. 38.44.

83 World Wide Fund for Nature International prepared a briefing paper, UNCED-The Way Forward, aimed at the delegations to the General Assembly, in late 1992. While it does urge that the CSD should start work as soon as possible, it makes no mention of the role of NGOs.

84 UN document A/47/598 of 29 October 1992, p. 11, para. 31.

85 UN General Assembly Resolution 47/191 of 22 December 1992, paras. 7–8.

86 UN document E/1993/12 of 29 January 1993, p. 5, para. 15. Presumably, as only some 650 NGOs were present at Rio (see n. 47 above), less than half those eligible to attend did so.

87 Given that the established NGOs were not all active, the number using participation rights might have increased by a much greater factor.

88 UN document E/1993/12 of 29 January 1993, p. 6, para. 17, and a draft decision in para. 20, pp. 7–8.

89 ECOSOC Decision 1993/215, Procedural arrangements for the Commission on Sustainable Development, of 12 February 1993, reprinted in Willetts, ‘Conscience of the World’, appendix B.

90 The documents being compared are ECOSOC Resolution 1296(XLIV) of 23 May 1968 and ECOSOC Decision 1993/215 of 12 February 1993.

91 ECOSOC Decision 1993/215, para. (d).

92 ECOSOC Decision 1993/215, para. (c).

93 ECOSOC Decision 1993/220 of 26 May 1993, approving the NGOs listed in UN document E/1993/65 of 21 May 1993.

94 The Network (The Centre for Our Common Future), no. 27 (June 1993), p. 1, for the attendance figure, and no. 28 (July 1993), p. 6, for the details on NGO contact points.

95 List of Non-Governmental Organisations in Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council as at 31 December 1993, UN document E/1994/INF/5 of 13 May 1994, contained 969 NGOs. With 481 new UNCED NGOs and 71 completely new NGOs on the ‘CSD Roster’ (see n. 93 above), this gives a total of 1,521.

96 Unfortunately there are no lists of NGOs attending CSD sessions. It is not even clear whether the figure of 280 covers NGOs or NGO representatives. If the latter were the case, the number of NGOs could be as few as 100.

97 See General Discussion on Progress in the Implementation of Agenda 2 1 … Report of the Secretary-General, UN document E/CN. 17/1994/2 of 27 April 1994, section V.

98 List of NGOs, UN document E/1994/INF/5.

99 ECOSOC Decision 1994/300 of 29 July 1994, endorsing the recommendation in the Report of the Commission on Sustainable Development on its Second Session, UN document E/1994/33-E/CN.17/1994/20 of 12 July 1994, pp. 7–8, para. 24. The endorsement was subject to any future decisions arising from the review of the consultative arrangements.

100 It still remains unclear when their rights will be defined by Resolution 1296(XLIV) and when by Decision 1993/215. Presumably this will be resolved by the overall review of the NGO arrangements currently under way and due to be completed by mid-1996.

101 The data is derived from the list of NGOs in UN document E/1993/65 (see n. 93 above), but is not very reliable, as the classification is primarily based on the name of the organization.

102 The situation is still fluid, because in February 1993 a review of the consultative arrangements was established, and the final decisions on the future of the system have not yet been taken. It is possible that the extension of the Roster to local NGOs will be confirmed.

103 It is beyond the scope of this paper to cover the debates about international/global civil society as well, but it is clear that this conclusion does place NGOs within a global civil society framework. See particularly M. J. Peterson, ‘Transnational Activity, International Society and World Polities’, and R. D. Lipschutz, ‘Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society’, in Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 no. 3 (1992), pp. 371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pp. 389–420 respectively.