1

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

Michele M. Betsill and Elisabeth Corell

The modern era of international decision making on the environment

and sustainable development formally began with the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm. Representatives of more than 250 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
attended the Stockholm Conference, representing constituencies bound
by common values, knowledge, and/or interests. These NGOs served as
technical experts, helped develop the rules for NGO participation, participated in plenary sessions and committee meetings, and engaged in
several parallel forums designed to strengthen their connections with
one another. Willetts (1996b: 57) views Stockholm as a watershed event
in terms of NGO involvement in global governance, marking the beginning of a slow yet steady liberalization of the NGO system occurring
over the following two decades.
Since Stockholm, NGO involvement in international decision-making
processes related to the environment and sustainable development has
escalated, as demonstrated by their participation in the two subsequent
global conferences. More than 1,400 NGOs were accredited to the 1992
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in
Rio de Janeiro, and more than 25,000 individuals from 167 countries
participated in the parallel Global Forum, where NGOs negotiated alternative treaties and engaged in extensive networking (Chatterjee and
Finger 1994; Dodds 2001; Kakabadse and Burns 1994; Morphet 1996;
Willetts 1996b). One of the greatest achievements of the Rio Conference
was Agenda 21, the action plan for sustainable development in the
twenty-rst century, which recognized NGOs as partners in the global
struggle to promote sustainable development. In 2002, more than 3,200

Chapter 1

organizations were accredited to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, where NGOs were central to the creation of
partnerships for sustainable development (Gutman 2003; Speth 2003).
The dramatic increase in the number of NGOs over the past century
has been well documented, as has the fact that these organizations
increasingly participate in international political processes. Academic interest in the role of these actors in global environmental politics has
exploded since the early 1990s, and a growing body of evidence indicates
that NGOs inuence government decisions to develop domestic policies
to protect natural resources and to negotiate international treaties, as
well as how individuals perceive environmental problems (see Betsill
2006). Despite mounting evidence that NGOs make a difference in
global environmental politics, the question of under what conditions
NGOs matter generally remains unanswered.
This volume addresses this question in the realm of international environmental negotiations. We contend that the increased participation of
NGOs in these political processes reects broader changes in the nature
of diplomacy in world politics. In international relations scholarship, diplomacy is often viewed as something that states do; an important aspect
of statecraft and foreign policy (e.g., Magalhaes 1988). Alternatively,
Sharp (1999) argues that diplomacy is better understood in terms of representation; diplomats are actors who act on the behalf of a clearly identied constituency. We nd that Sharps denition better captures the
reality of multilateral negotiations on the environment and sustainable
development. As the contributions in this volume demonstrate, international environmental negotiations cannot be understood in terms of
inter-state diplomacy. Rather, these processes involve myriad actors
representing a diversity of interests. In multilateral negotiations on the
environment and sustainable development, NGO representatives act as
diplomats who, in contrast to government diplomats, represent constituencies that are not bound by territory but by common values, knowledge, and/or interests related to a specic issue (see Starkey, Boyer, and
Wilkenfeld 2005).
To the extent that NGO diplomacy has been considered in the past,
the emphasis has often been on unofcial acts, such as hosting foreign

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

visitors or participating in cultural exchanges or scientic meetings

(sometimes referred to as citizen or track-two diplomacy) (see
National Council for International Visitors 2006; Starkey, Boyer, and
Willkenfeld 2005). However, these discussions typically treat NGO diplomacy as something that occurs outside the realm of formal, inter-state
politics. In contrast, the contributions in this volume illuminate the ways
that NGOs engage directly in one of the most traditional diplomatic
activitiesformal international negotiations. In each of our cases, NGO
diplomats perform many of the same functions as state delegates: they
represent the interests of their constituencies, they engage in information
exchange, they negotiate, and they provide policy advice (Aviel 2005;
Jonsson 2002).
This volume presents an analytical framework for the study of NGO
diplomacy that takes into account the effects of nongovernmental organizations on both negotiation processes and outcomes and provides a
basis for conducting systematic comparative analyses. Most current research consists of individual case studies, where scholars rely on different
measures of NGO inuence, different types of data, and different methodologies. As a result it is difcult to make assessments about where
NGOs have had more or less inuence and to examine the factors that
may lead to variation in NGO inuence across cases. In this volume,
contributors use the framework to examine the role of NGO diplomats
in negotiations on climate change, biosafety, desertication, whaling,
and forests. Within these cases many different types of NGOs are consideredenvironmental, social, scientic, and business/industry organizations. These analyses demonstrate that it is possible to make qualitative
judgments about levels of NGO inuence and that comparison across the
cases allows scholars to identify factors that explain variation in NGO
inuence in different negotiating situations.
In this introductory chapter we dene what we mean by NGOs and
clarify our focus on international negotiations. We then discuss the need
for a systematic approach to the study of NGO inuence in international
environmental negotiations and outline the strategy we have used to conduct such research in this project. We conclude with an overview of the
remaining chapters in the volume.

Chapter 1

What Are NGOs?

Scholars and practitioners use the term NGO to refer to a wide range
of organizations, which are often differentiated in terms of geographic
scope, substantive issue area, and/or type of activity. Some authors specically examine international NGOs working in at least three countries,
while others focus on national or local grassroots organizations. Still
others emphasize the various networks formed by these organizations.
Studies of international environmental negotiations routinely highlight
the involvement of environmental NGOs (ENGOs) as well as scientic
organizations and NGOs representing business and industry interests. Finally, some scholars differentiate between NGOs based on the character
of their primary activities: advocacy, research, and outreach.
In this project, the term NGO refers to a broad spectrum of actors
from advocacy groups rooted in civil society to privately held multinational corporations and trade associations to research-oriented bodies
that participate in international environmental negotiation processes
using the tools of diplomacy.1 We draw on Oberthur et al.s (2002) thorough review of the legal and academic literature on NGOs, which identied three minimum criteria that are used in the accreditation process to
determine who may participate in international policy making processes
and thus to dene an NGO. According to this study, an NGO is an
organization that (1) is not formed by intergovernmental agreement, (2)
has expertise or interests relevant to the international institution, and (3)
expresses views that are independent of any national government. This
is consistent with how the term is used in the UN, which also excludes
organizations that advocate violence, are political parties, and/or do not
support UN objectives (Oberthur et al. 2002; Willetts 1996b).
For the purposes of the present study, this broad usage of the term
NGO is appropriate for at least two reasons. First, as stated above, it
reects the usage within the UN system, which covers the majority of
international institutions in which multilateral negotiations related to
the environment and sustainable development take place. Second, all
NGO representatives can be distinguished from state diplomats in that
they do not represent territorially dened interests. We recognize the di-

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

versity of actors that fall within this denition and have encouraged the
contributors to make distinctions between types of NGOs (e.g., environmental groups vs. industry associations) as they see t. However, we
did not wish to exclude a priori any type of NGO, since the purpose
of this project was to explore the signicance of NGO diplomacy,
broadly dened, on international environmental negotiations. We recognize, however, that there may be important differences between types of
NGOs that affect whether and how they exert inuence. The framework
we develop to analyze NGO inuence in international environmental
negotiations may help illuminate these differences. We address the importance of the distinctions between NGOs in the conclusions and suggest areas for future research on this important question.
Why International Negotiations?
International negotiations are one political arena in which NGOs attempt to shape policy making related to the environment and sustainable
development (see Betsill 2006). Other arenas include (this is not an
exhaustive list): domestic policy making, the formation of global civil society, and decision making of private actors (e.g., corporations). While
NGO activities in all of these political arenas may have implications for
the global governance of the environment and sustainable development,
we argue that each of these arenas is likely to involve different political
dynamics that in turn shape the ways that NGOs participate, the goals
they pursue, the strategies they use and the likelihood that they will
achieve those goals (Betsill and Corell 2001).
Unfortunately, much of the current literature tends to treat all studies
related to NGOs in the area of environment and sustainable development as a single body of research, without differentiating between these
different arenas of activity. While NGOs may be central in the development of a global civil society, it is entirely possible that they are less
successful in shaping new international institutions to address environmental issues. Scholars need to employ a multifaceted view of the role
of NGOs and the arenas in which they participate in world politics. At
the same time there is great demand for general conclusions about

Chapter 1

NGO inuence in international politics. It would be also useful to be

able to consider whether NGOs are generally more inuential in particular arenas, and if so, why.
The purpose of this project is to better understand these dynamics
within one arenainternational environmental negotiations. We examine negotiations aimed at creating a new agreement outlining general
principles, commitments, and/or decision-making procedures as well as
post-agreement negotiations that address questions of implementation
and/or new conicts that arise under an existing treaty (Spector and
Zartman 2003). International negotiations are a particularly interesting
arena in which to consider NGO inuence since they are largely the domain of states. As UN members, only states have formal decision-making
power during international negotiations. They establish rules for who
may participate and the nature of that participation (e.g., through formal
interventions or by directly engaging in oor debate), and ultimately it is
states that vote on whether to adopt a particular decision. In contrast,
NGOs often participate in these processes as observers and have no formal voting authority, making it difcult for NGO diplomats to inuence
the negotiating process. Thus ndings of NGO inuence in international
environmental negotiations present an interesting empirical puzzle.
In this volume we specically analyze NGOs who attend international
negotiations for the purpose of inuencing those negotiations. Many
NGOs attend negotiations to take advantage of the opportunities to network with other NGOs; they show very little interest in engaging in
NGO diplomacy (Friedman, Hochstetler, and Clark 2005). While the
development of such networks may have signicant implications for
global environmental politics more broadly, we are primarily interested
in the more immediate effects of NGO diplomacy on specic negotiating
situations.
We wish to clarify two points related to our understanding of multilateral negotiations. First, negotiation processes and outcomes are shaped
by more than just what happens during isolated, two-week formal negotiating sessions.2 NGO diplomats may inuence multilateral negotiations
during the pre-negotiation/agenda-setting phase, so it is important to
consider how the negotiations came about in the rst place. In addition
NGOs may inuence the negotiation process during formal interses-

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

sional meetings, through domestic channels and/or in more informal settings as well. Therefore, in assessing the inuence of NGO diplomats in
international negotiations, we have encouraged contributors to consider
all activities related to multilateral negotiations, not just those that occur
during the ofcial two-week sessions.
Second, our conception of political arenas should not be confused with
levels of analysis. The dynamics within the political arena of international negotiations are shaped by things that happen at different levels,
including the domestic level.3 To the extent that NGOs engage in activities within a domestic context that are clearly targeted at inuencing
international negotiations, these activities should be considered in the
analysis of NGO diplomacy.
A Systematic Approach
Despite mounting evidence that NGOs make a difference in global environmental politics, the question of under what conditions they matter
remains unanswered. Specically, it is difcult to draw general lessons
about the role of NGO diplomacy in international negotiations on the
environment and sustainable development because the current literature
suffers from three weaknesses.4 First, as noted above, there is a tendency
to treat all studies related to NGOs in the environmental issue area as
a single body of research without distinguishing between the different
political arenas in which they operate. It is important not to collapse
conclusions in the literature about these different spheres of activity. Students of NGOs need to employ a multifaceted view of the role of NGOs.
Second, there is a surprising lack of specication about what is meant
by inuence and how to identify NGO inuence in any given political
arena (two notable and commendable exceptions are Arts 1998 and
Newell 2000). Progress in our understanding of the conditions of NGO
inuence in international environmental negotiations depends on more
careful consideration of what we mean by NGO inuence and how inuence might be identied. While we recognize that dening inuence can
be a complicated matter, it is highly important because it forces analysts
to think carefully about the types of evidence needed to indicate NGO
inuence. Without a clear understanding of what is meant by inuence,

Chapter 1

scholars often appear to be presenting evidence on an ad hoc basis. As a

result such studies run the risk of overdetermination as scholars look for
any possible sign that NGOs made a difference in a given political process while ignoring evidence to the contrary. In other words, dening
inuence has implications for the robustness of research ndings. Moreover lack of consistency in the types of evidence used to indicate NGO
inuence in international environmental negotiations makes it difcult
to compare the role of NGO diplomats across cases, to make assessments about where NGOs have had more or less inuence, and to examine the factors that may lead to variation in NGO inuence across cases.
Another problem associated with the failure to dene inuence is that
the evidence presented may not be an appropriate proxy for NGO inuence. If NGO diplomats truly inuence international environmental
negotiations, then it should be possible to observe the effects of that inuence (King, Keohane, and Verba 1994). Scholars frequently rely on evidence regarding NGO activities (e.g., lobbying, submitting information
or draft decisions to negotiators on a particular position), their access to
negotiations (e.g., number of NGOs attending negotiations and the rules
of participation) and/or NGO resources (e.g., knowledge, nancial and
other assets, number of supporters and their particular role in negotiations). However, these types of evidence primarily tell us how NGOs
engage in international environmental negotiations but do not give us information on the subsequent effects.
Third, most studies stop short of elaborating the causal linkages
between NGO activities and outcomes. Gathering evidence of NGO inuence in a more systematic fashion is clearly an important rst step to
enhancing our understanding of how and under what conditions NGO
diplomats matter in international environmental negotiations. However,
researchers still run the risk of confusing correlation with causation. If
a particular proposal for discussion or wording in the agreement text
corresponds to views of NGOs, does that necessarily reect the success
of NGO diplomacy? It could be the case that other actors involved in
the negotiations were promoting similar views. Plausibility claims can
be strengthened by linking NGO participation and inuence in international environmental negotiations.

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

In sum, progress in understanding under what conditions NGOs matter can be achieved by more carefully recognizing the distinct political
arenas in which NGOs operate, by dening what we mean by NGO
inuence, and by elaborating the processes by which NGO diplomats
inuence multilateral environmental negotiations. In this volume we further theoretical development on the role of NGOs in global environmental politics by proposing an analytical framework for assessing their
inuence in one sphere of activityinternational environmental negotiations. The framework, which takes into account the effects of NGO diplomats on both negotiation processes and outcomes, provides a basis for
conducting systematic, comparative analyses, which in turn allow us to
make some claims about the conditions under which NGOs matter.
Research Design
This volume is the culmination of a project begun in 1999. The objectives of the project are twofold: (1) to develop methodologies for
strengthening ndings of NGO inuence in international environmental
negotiations, and (2) through comparative analysis, to identify a set of
conditioning factors that shape the ability of NGO diplomats to inuence such negotiations. At the core of the project is an analytical framework for assessing NGO inuence in international environmental
negotiations, which was originally published in 2001 (Betsill and Corell
2001; Corell and Betsill 2001). Shortly thereafter, project participants
began developing case studies to both test and rene the framework as
a tool for assessing NGO inuence and to begin discussions of the conditioning factors that shape NGO inuence.
The cases have been selected based on the availability and interest of
scholars with signicant prior knowledge of NGO diplomacy in international environmental negotiations. Three cases (climate change, biosafety, and desertication) examine single agreement negotiations over a
fairly short period of time. The other two cases (whaling and forests) analyze several negotiations on a single issue over a decade or more and
often in different institutional contexts. These latter cases provide the
opportunity to consider how NGO inuence changes over time, across

10

Chapter 1

institutional fora, and/or as negotiations pass through different phases.

The cases cover negotiations of initial agreements as well as postagreement negotiations focused on how to achieve an agreements goals
and address ongoing or new conicts that arise (Spector and Zartman
2003). The cases are heavily weighted toward natural resource issues as
opposed to pollution.
Regarding our rst objectivedeveloping methodologies for analyzing NGO inuence in international environmental negotiationsour
approach to case selection is unproblematic. The cases are appropriate
in that in each instance NGOs were actively engaged in international
negotiations, giving us the opportunity to evaluate the utility of the proposed analytical framework for assessing NGO inuence in this particular political arena. We are, however, more limited in terms of our second
objectiveto identify a set of conditioning factors that shape the ability
of NGO diplomats to inuence such negotiations. Our opportunistic
approach to case selection precluded us from engaging in a theorytesting exercise in our cross-case analysis, since we made no determination about the appropriateness of the cases at the outset (see George and
Bennett 2005). Instead, we took a more heuristic approach whereby each
of the case authors inductively identied the key conditioning factors
that enabled or constrained the ability of NGO diplomats to inuence
international negotiations in their respective issue areas. We then conducted a plausibility probe by examining eight of these factors across
the cases to identify those factors warranting further research. This
should not been seen as an exhaustive list of the factors that might shape
the ability of NGOs to inuence international environmental negotiations; the general literature on NGOs suggests many others that need to
be analyzed more systematically (see chapter 2).
We urge readers to exercise caution in generalizing our ndings beyond these case studies. The majority of our cases examine environmental NGOs; thus we are limited in what we can say about differences in
the conditions under which different types of NGOs are likely to inuence international environmental negotiations. In addition more than
half of the cases used in the cross-case analysis are related to forestry
negotiations. We strongly encourage scholars to subject the issues raised

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

11

in this volume as well as hypotheses from the broader literature to rigorous analysis based on a more careful selection of cases.
The framework and case studies have been presented at two annual
meetings of the International Studies Association where we received
many helpful comments from fellow academics. In August 2003 we held
a workshop in Stockholm, Sweden, which brought together project participants and NGO practitioners with extensive experience in the negotiation processes under analysis.5 The Stockholm Workshop provided an
excellent opportunity to ground the scholarly research on NGO inuence
in international negotiations in the actual experience of NGO diplomats.
The practitioners offered many valuable insights that might not otherwise be available to academic researchers. Prompted by the framework,
practitioners also had the rare opportunity to reect on their own efforts
and their organizations impact on international environmental negotiations. Through the dialogue that took place over the weekend, members
of both communities gained a better understanding of one another.
Overview
Chapter 2 elaborates the analytical framework at the core of the project.
The framework provides a basis for conducting systematic comparative
analysis by addressing many of the weaknesses in the current literature
noted above. It begins by identifying two dimensions of NGO inuence:
participation in international negotiations and the subsequent effects on
the behavior of other actors (e.g., states). Scholars are then encouraged
to gather data on these two dimensions from a variety of sources, including primary and secondary documents, interviews, and where possible,
participant observation. Using the analytical techniques of process tracing and counterfactual analysis, researchers should identify whether and
how NGO diplomats shaped both the negotiation process (through issue
framing, agenda setting, and/or by shaping the positions of key states) as
well as the nal outcome (procedural and substantive elements of the nal text). By considering the range of effects NGO diplomats may have on
international environmental negotiations, scholars can make a qualitative assessment of the overall inuence of NGOs. Results may range from

12

Chapter 1

low levels of inuence, where NGO diplomats participate but have little
effect on either the negotiation process or outcome, to high levels of inuence, where NGO diplomacy is linked to effects on both process and
outcome. Chapter 2 concludes with a discussion of conditioning factors
that make NGO inuence more or less likely in any given negotiating
context.
The empirical chapters apply the framework in ve case studies of
international environmental negotiations. Although the authors exhibit
different styles in using the framework, each chapter consists of a
detailed narrative in which the authors present evidence related to NGO
participation and subsequent effects, assess their overall inuence on negotiation processes and outcomes, and identify several factors seen to
have either enabled or constrained NGO diplomats in their efforts to inuence the negotiations.
In chapter 3, Michele Betsill analyzes the role of environmental NGOs
in the rst phase (19951997) of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations on
global climate change. Betsill examines negotiations on the issues of targets and timetables, emissions trading, and sinks and assesses whether
NGOs were successful in achieving their goals on each of these issues.
Overall, she concludes that the environmental community had a moderate level of inuence on the negotiations. They had little effect on the
outcome of the negotiations; NGO positions on each of these issues are
not reected in the Kyoto Protocol text. Environmental NGOs did, however, shape the negotiation process by working behind the scenes to raise
concerns about issues on the negotiation agenda and to inuence the
positions of key states. Betsill identies NGO coordination and creativity
as important enabling factors related to NGO inuence. At the same
time signicant contention over the economic aspects of controlling
greenhouse gas emissions, a focus on nding technological solutions,
and the expectation that the Protocol would include binding commitments limited the political space available to the environmental community to achieve their objectives.
Stanley Burgiel compares the inuence of environmental and industry
NGOs in the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (1995
2000) in chapter 4. Burgiel focuses his analysis on four major issues in
the negotiations: the agreements scope, trade-related concerns, decision-

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

13

making criteria, and exporter responsibilities. He concludes that both

groups had moderate inuence on the negotiations, with greater success
in shaping the negotiation process than outcome. Environmental and industry NGOs both exerted inuence by shaping the position of (different) key states and shaping the agenda. Interestingly Burgiel nds that
environmental NGOs often focused on getting or keeping issues on the
agenda, while industry NGOs worked diligently to keep issues off
the agenda. He argues that alliances with key states were a crucial factor
enabling non-state actors to exert inuence in the Cartagena Protocol
negotiations.
In chapter 5, Elisabeth Corell examines the inuence of environmental
and social NGOs in the negotiation of the United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertication (19931997). These groups worked together
to encourage the use of a bottom-up approach to implementation,
and to ensure that the Convention recognized the social and economic
consequences of land degradation for affected populations and provided
additional resources for dryland management projects. She contends that
NGOs had a high level of inuence on the Convention negotiations as
their activities had observable effects on both the negotiation process
and outcome. Corell nds several instances where NGO proposals made
their way into the treaty text and notes that NGOs were effective in
securing participation rights in the negotiations, which in turn gave them
the opportunity to shape the negotiation agenda. She attributes the high
level of NGO inuence in this case to three factors: the link between the
bottom-up approach and NGO participation in implementation, the homogeneity of NGOs participating in the negotiations, and the fact that
NGO participation was actively encouraged by the negotiators.
In chapter 6, Steinar Andresen and Tora Skodvin assess the inuence
of the scientic community and environmental NGOs in two major
negotiations within the International Whaling Commission: the adoption
of a new management procedure in 1974 and a ban on commercial
whaling in 1982. Andresen and Skodvin assess non-state actor inuence
through two channels: directly at the international level and indirectly
via the domestic channel. They contend that the scientic community had
a moderate degree of inuence on the 1974 decision to adopt a new management procedure, primarily by framing the debate at the international

14

Chapter 1

level through the provision of technical information. This inuence

was facilitated by the political demand for advanced knowledge on
whale stocks and scientic consensus on the need for more restrictive
management procedures. Moreover there were no other non-state actors
competing for inuence as the environmental community had not yet
mobilized on the whaling issue. By the 1980s, the environmental community had become an active player in whaling negotiations, and Andresen and Skodvin argue they had a high level of inuence on the 1982
moratorium decision. Factors that helped environmental NGOs achieve
their goal include heightened public concern, which opened up important
domestic channels of NGO inuence in key states, and the availability of
signicant nancial resources. Andresen and Skodvin contend that the
increased inuence of the environmental community came as the inuence of the scientic community declined, largely due to polarization
among scientists on the need for a moratorium.
Finally, David Humphreys traces attempts by environmental NGOs
to inuence international negotiations on forests from the mid-1980s
through 2001 in several different institutional contexts in chapter 7. He
examines forest negotiations at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, under the auspices of the Commission on
Sustainable Development, and the consultation process that led to the
creation of the United Nations Forum on Forests. He also considers two
negotiation processes on forest products, namely negotiations on the international trade of tropical timber in the International Tropical Timber
Organization and the discussions on forest products that took place
within the World Trade Organization in the late-1990s. Overall, Humphreys concludes that NGOs had a high level of inuence on international forest negotiations during this period, although their inuence on
negotiation processes in the different institutional contexts varied. He
argues that the prospects for inuence increased when NGOs shaped
the negotiation agenda early on. At the same time, the deep NorthSouth
division on forest issues has often limited the political space available to
NGOs during the negotiations. Humphreys concludes by arguing that
environmental NGOs most important contribution occurred over time
rather than in any specic negotiation; they have succeeded in reframing

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

15

the issue of forest conservation from a purely economic issue to an ecological and human rights one.
Chapter 8 returns to the projects two main objectives. We begin
by reecting on the analytical frameworks utility in strengthening
claims of NGO inuence in international environmental negotiations.
The empirical chapters demonstrate that the framework can be used to
strengthen claims of NGO inuence by elaborating some of the causal
links between NGO activities and observed effects on negotiating processes and outcomes. We conclude that the framework works best for
analyzing NGO inuence in discrete sets of negotiations rather than in
multiple negotiations in an issue area as assessments of NGO inuence
in such cases may be overdetermined by aggregating data over a longer
period of time. The cases also demonstrate that it is possible to make
qualitative judgments about levels of NGO inuence, differentiating
among low, moderate, and high levels of inuence. However, we found
that it was not always straightforward which category was most appropriate in any given case. International environmental negotiations cover
numerous highly technical issues simultaneously, and NGOs may inuence negotiation processes and/or outcomes on some issues but not
others. In the future we suggest that analysts may nd it more useful to
assess NGO inuence at the level of individual issues rather than on the
overall negotiations.
Next, we discuss how comparison across cases allows identication of
factors that explain variation in NGO inuence in different negotiating
situations. As mentioned above, we asked the case authors to identify
the key factors that enhanced or constrained the ability of NGO diplomats to inuence international environmental negotiations. We conducted a cross-case analysis of the eight factors that came up most
frequently, resulting in a number of ndings warranting future research:
NGO coordination has a neutral effect on inuence. In our cases, NGO
diplomats achieved all levels of inuence under conditions of coordination, and in one of our cases of relatively high inuence, NGOs had no
coordinated position or strategy.

NGO inuence does not necessarily decline as rules of access become

more restrictive because NGO diplomats are often quite innovative

16

Chapter 1

in nding alternative strategies. At the same time opportunities for

NGO inuence may be enhanced when state delegates and convention
secretariats take steps to actively facilitate NGO participation in the
negotiations.
For environmental NGOs, inuence in the early stages of negotiations
(e.g., debates over the negotiation agenda) may be necessary though by
no means sufcient for achieving inuence in later stages (e.g., debates
over the specics of the agreement text). This nding may not hold, however, for industry NGOs.

Higher levels of NGO inuence are more likely when the political
stakes of the negotiations are relatively low, as in negotiations over nonbinding principles and/or framework agreements with few demands for
behavioral change. NGO diplomats can enhance their ability to inuence
negotiations with higher political stakes by developing close personal
relationships with state diplomats and/or convincing negotiators that
NGOs are essential partners in achieving the agreements objectives.

Institutional overlap offers opportunities for NGO diplomats to inuence a given negotiation process indirectly by exerting inuence in a
related institutional setting. However, overlap with the World Trade Organization and the international trade regime may constrain the ability
of environmental NGOs to exert inuence while enhancing opportunities
for NGOs representing business/industry interests.

Competition from other NGOs is not necessarily a constraining factor

because NGO inuence in international environmental negotiations is
not a zero-sum game. Different types of NGOs often focus on different
issues within the negotiations so that each may exert inuence on particular issues without taking away from the others.

Opportunities for inuence appear to be enhanced when NGOs form

alliances with key states. However, such alliances may be less useful in
negotiations where states are highly polarized (e.g., along NorthSouth
lines).

Where there is a high level of contention over entrenched economic

interests, environmental NGOs may have greater difculty exerting inuence on the negotiations. In contrast, contention over the economic

Introduction to NGO Diplomacy

17

aspects of an environmental problem may open up opportunities for

business/industry NGOs to inuence the negotiations.
The volume concludes by discussing the broader contributions of the
project. The cases demonstrate the changing nature of diplomacy in the
international system, highlighting the ways that NGO diplomats participate in and inuence international negotiations on the environment and
sustainable development. We also consider the relationship between
the ndings of this project and current debates about restructuring the
existing system of global environmental governance, specically the role
of NGOs in the realm of international decision making, and efforts to democratize global governance.
Notes
1. This differentiates our study from the social movements literature, which analyzes networks and organizations that tend to mobilize their constituents through
protest or disruptive action and are interested in opening up opportunities for
mass participation (Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink 2002; Yearley 1994).
2. Thanks to the participants at the August 2003 Stockholm Workshop for
pushing us on this point.
3. We are particularly grateful to Tora Skodvin and Steinar Andresen for helping
us clarify this distinction.
4. These critiques are elaborated in greater detail in chapter 2 and in Betsill and
Corell (2001).
5. The workshop was held at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs and
funded by the Swedish Research Council and the US National Science Foundation (SES-0318165). The Workshop Report is available from the editors.