Another version of this study has been published in Global Environmental Politics, vol 4, no 4 (2004), 54-75.

Exceptions to this observation include Corell and Betsill (2001), Newell (2000), Arts (1998) and Skodvin and Andresen (2003). While Corell and Betsill focus exclusively on the international level, Skodvin and Andresen argue that the domestic level should also be included.

For an overview of the role of the petroleum industry in this context, see Skjarseth, this volume, Chapter 9.

Interviews have been conducted with WWF, Greenpeace, CIEL, FIELD and ED. Therefore, most emphasis will be placed on these organizations.

See the discussion in Chapter 9 by Skjarseth of strategies pursued by transnsational petroleum companies.

It is the rather rare alliance between powerful states and powerful NGOs that can explain the seemingly very strong influence of green NGOs in the international whaling regime. How strong this influence would have been in the absence of this alliance is more uncertain (Andresen, 2001).

It appears the lobby is not the only place for lobbying. It has been claimed that the toilets are used as well. So the concept of 'restrooms' may not apply to key delegates... Many of the respondents pointed to this informal network.

According to Arts (1998), it is well known that FIELD made the proposed AOSIS Protocol in 1995.

Smaller partnerships between environmental NGOs are also commonplace, be they joint actions, policy proposals or initiatives.

The US submission is dated July 30 1999 (FCCC/SB/1999/MISC.12).

The CIEL/WWF working paper also suggested a 'screening committee' (Morgan and

Porter, 1999), but this idea was not accepted.

The US position follows logically from its reputation of keeping agreements due to the requirement to pass implementation legislation.

It appears that the new US negotiation team wanted to uphold the position on this issue, as it was an important principle in US policy, but they were given direct orders from the White House to change position.

The EU also supported this approach, but with less vigour.

Some G-77 countries supported Russia, and it has been claimed that the EU gave in too easily to Russian pressure.

The EU later made a U-turn on this issue and has become a firm supporter of the flexibility mechanisms (Christiansen and Wettestad, 2003).

The Nature Conservancy as well as NRDC also supported the use of sinks.

20 The 'additional activity sinks' have also been called the 'do nothing' sinks (Begg, 2002, p334).

21 There do not seem to be any clear-cut rules as to who can be a member of CAN. However, the general rule is that national members must support the organization applying for membership, and the applicant must be accepted by all CAN members (interview with Bradley, 2002).

22 In practice, it seems that NGO attendance at Executive Board CDM meetings is limited to observering a live webcast on the UNFCCC website.

23 This kind of computer analysis was actively used by Greenpeace during the climate negotiations to show delegates the consequences of different proposals on the table (interview with Raquet, 2002).

24 Pleune (1997) found evidence confirming this proposition in a study of Dutch environmental NGOs' strategies in relation to climate change.

25 WWF has drawn up a hit list of 25 states that must ratify to turn the Protocol into international law (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2002).

26 The campaign was given high priority by NGOs in the preparations for the WSSD.

0 0

Post a comment