The role of NGOs in negotiating the use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction
Introduction
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become a ubiquitous presence in policy-making and action from the local to the international level on issues as diverse as promoting human rights, banning land mines and fostering nature conservation. The origin of the term itself can be traced back to the formation of the United Nations, and its founding charter, which specifies that “the Economic and Social Council may take suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations” [33]. While the definition of what constitutes an NGO differs depending on context and setting, in its most fundamental sense, an NGO must be free of direct government control [37].
Pinpointing when environmental NGOs became significant players within the international community is challenging, but some have pointed to the run-up to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 [3], [11]. An informal group of NGOs, experts and policy-makers joined together in mid-1971 to draft what became known as the Founex Report on Environment and Development, which subsequently contributed to the framing of the conference and its outcomes, and to this meeting now being considered the first instance of regional cooperation on environmental issues [11], [27]. The intervening years have seen a huge growth not only in the number of NGOs participating and having access to international negotiations and policy processes [4], [25] but that also have the capacities to contribute to the steering of such political processes [5]. The number of NGOs that have successfully obtained consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), for instance, has increased by more than 500% over the past 30 years (from 712 in 1984 to 4045 in 2014) [37].
NGOs are active in a multitude of policy landscapes, and employ a diverse range of strategies to contribute to international processes, albeit with varying levels of success. For instance, a crucial role has been attributed to NGOs in building political consensus enabling an international ban on the use of land mines [28] and a global framework for forest management and the trading of timber [19], but decades of NGO efforts to reshape the World Bank's approach to development were considered unsuccessful [26]. The multitude of strategies used by NGOs to contribute to international policy processes includes directly participating in international forums and meetings, providing information and expertise, advocating their views through coalitions or direct and indirect lobbying as well as using the media to mobilize public opinion [15], [21], [32]. All of these strategies have the potential to contribute to the direction and content of international negotiations, and great scholarly interest therefore exists in identifying how and when such strategies are successful [8], [31], [32]. In recent years, NGOs have been heavily involved in shaping the global development agenda, perhaps most notably in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [20]. Nevertheless, conceptualizing NGO influence, or drawing one-to-one correlations between NGO actions and negotiation outcomes, remains notoriously difficult [10].
This paper explores perceptions of how NGOs are contributing to the outcomes of the working group mandated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to look into issues related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Working Group). After detailing the history and context of the BBNJ negotiations, a two-part methodology is introduced, which draws on a set of semi-structured interviews with individuals who participated in the BBNJ Working Group as representatives of governments or NGOs, and an assessment of participant lists from the nine meetings of the BBNJ Working Group between 2006 and 2015. Only NGOs with consultative status approved by ECOSOC were eligible to independently register their participation in the BBNJ Working Group, so use of the term “NGOs” throughout the remainder of this paper specifically refers to such organizations with at least one representative attending at least one of the BBNJ Working Group meetings.1
Section snippets
Identifying gaps in the legal framework for managing marine areas beyond national jurisdiction
A crucial element within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982 was the formalization of maritime zones for the seabed and water column. Under UNCLOS, the seabed beyond national jurisdiction is known as ‘the Area’. Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) form a 200-nautical mile swath extending from coastlines, within which each respective country has sovereign rights and obligations, including on the management and use of natural resources. Marine areas beyond national
Selecting interview partners
To gather firsthand accounts and reflections on the BBNJ Working Group process, interviews were conducted with 19 individuals, who attended meetings of the BBNJ Working Group as members of government delegations, representatives of NGOs, or academic experts. The availability of interview participants varied considerably for two primary reasons. First, the contact information of most academics and NGO representatives was available on public websites, while the opposite was true for government
Results and discussion
Some distinct differences exist among NGOs and governments with regard to the contribution of NGOs to the BBNJ Working Group process. Even prior to conducting the interviews, a review of previous literature pointed to three observations: (1) it would be challenging to track how the specific efforts of NGOs have contributed to this process [10], [31]; (2) NGOs would likely tend to see their role in a favorable and constructive light [1]; (3) governments would be unlikely to attribute the shaping
Conclusion
“I think you’ve always got the end goal, but you get kicked about by reality. As governments decide where they are going to go, you have to adapt.” (NGO representative 3)
The interviews suggest that the fostering of personal relations and the building of coalitions were among the most successful strategies for NGOs to contribute to the BBNJ Working Group process. However, the contribution of NGOs with regard to the provisioning of information – through side events, publications, and expert input
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their deep appreciation to all of the interview respondents who made this research possible by sharing their time and reflections on the BBNJ Working Group process. Advice and guidance by Henrik Österblom, Sebastian Unger and other colleagues was very valuable in shaping this research. We are also grateful for the particularly swift and constructive peer review process. This research was supported, in part, by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI
References (39)
- et al.
The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ: What can be achieved using existing international agreements?
Mar. Policy
(2014) - et al.
Shaping an international agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction: lessons from high seas fisheries
Mar. Policy
(2016) - et al.
Sustaining marine life beyond boundaries: options for an implementing agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Mar. Policy
(2014) - et al.
Introduction: advancing governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction
(2014) - et al.
An ocean of surprises – Trends in human use, unexpected dynamics and governance challenges in areas beyond national jurisdiction
Glob. Environ. Change
(2014) - et al.
The influence of environmental NGOs in the global society
Butl. J. Undergrad. Res.
(2016)- et al.
Negotiating the use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction
Front. Mar. Sci.
(2016)
The impact of environmental interest groups in international negotiations: Do ENGOs induce stronger environmental commitments?
Int. Environ. Agreem.
Progressive development of international law and the package deal
Am. J. Int. Law
Analytical framework: assessing the influence of NGO diplomats
Foreword
The climate action network: Global civil society at work?
Reciel
NGO Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms, and Sinks
Glob. Environ. Polit.
Open the door to more of the same: the development of interest group representation at the WTO
World Trade Rev.
Ethical components of research-researched relationships in qualitative interviewing
Qual. Health Res.
Cited by (33)
International advocacy and China's distant water fisheries policies
2023, Marine PolicyHow transparent are RFMOs? Achievements and challenges
2022, Marine PolicyCitation Excerpt :An open setting can lead to quite formal discussions conducted in a guarded and strategic manner, especially during complex negotiations or when considering sensitive or controversial matters. If delegates have the impression that their interventions will be publicly scrutinized, they are more likely to deliver pre-formulated statements and less likely to abandon their initial positions and explore new avenues [39,40]. Thus, under certain circumstances, exclusion of the public can enable a more sincere and transparent dialogue, increase the sharing of relevant but classified information and provide a better chance for discussing and agreeing on possible compromises [41].
Protecting the ‘blue heart of the planet’: Strengthening the governance framework for marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction
2021, Marine PolicyCitation Excerpt :While high seas ecosystems appear to be “the epitome of out of sight, out of mind”, several interviewees felt we have recently seen what one described as a “communications success story” for the oceans, with a number highlighting specifically the roles of David Attenborough and marine plastics in increasing awareness of, and feelings of connection to, distant or deep-sea ecosystems. The role of NGOs has also been of key importance in terms of public engagement, as well as in participating in the negotiations themselves (see [52]). For example, Greenpeace’s pole-to-pole voyage was highlighted by one interviewee as having succeeded in raising broader public awareness of the need to protect high seas ecosystems.
Considering Indigenous Peoples and local communities in governance of the global ocean commons
2020, Marine PolicyCitation Excerpt :All humans will be impacted by the future of the global ocean commons, however, this diversity is seldom reflected in corresponding UN processes and negotiations. Government representatives participate in discussions in accordance with established procedures, with UN agencies, non-governmental organizations and, occasionally, academia, actively providing input [30]. Yet, Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) have generally been underrepresented in the debate about governance of ABNJ, as evidenced by lists of participants in the intergovernmental meetings on this topic [215–217], with some regional exceptions within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).