Every now and then, we hear comments that NGOs should maintain a distance to governmental bodies, and that they should refrain from receiving financial support from the state, as this could restrict their freedom of manoeuver and turn them into biased supporters of the establishment.
Personally, I don't think there is such a risk, as long as the majority of funding comes from other sources and the strongest view prevails.
Looking back at what happened before and after the Johannesburg summit, I am convinced that the environmental movement needs a variety of actors to achieve its goals.
Let me give you an example and explain how things evolved in the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). To put things into context, you should know that this is by far the biggest environmental NGO in Finland. Founded in 1938, it has today over 30,000 members, and a network of over 200 local associations and 15 regional associations throughout the country.
During the past decade or so, FANC has become a recognised part of the Finnish decision-making process, whereby it is consulted on a regular basis by Finnish ministries and the national Parliament on all legislative proposals, which have an environmental aspect.
In addition, FANC has nearly one hundred representatives in state and private bodies, steering committees and others, through which it tries to introduce an alternative view to the preparation and follow-up of environmental activities. It is also represented in international environmental bodies, such as the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB).
During the past twelve months, the Ministry for Environment and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs have asked FANC to participate in the preparatory work of a series of conferences, which covered a variety of themes such as climate change, water, biodiversity and sustainable development. As a result, our representatives formed part of the Finnish delegation, and participated in the preparatory meetings preceding the Johannesburg summit, as well as a number of other international conferences, including the international conference on biodiversity which was organised a year ago in the Hague, the follow-up conference on climate change in New Delhi last November, the global water forum held in Kyoto in January, as well as the Johannesburg summit and its follow-up meeting, which was held in New York earlier this month.
Of course, being there is one thing and achieving results another, so what has been the added-value of our participation? I believe our main task has been to keep certain topics on the agenda and make sure that they are not overlooked before nor after the negotiations.
Unfortunately, the main problems occurred during the negotiations. At that point, we had to accept that we could only listen to the latest updates from the negotiators and make remarks, if any. In short, we were often marginalised. Needless to say, such circumstances were far from satisfactory. I accept that there are time restraints, but still, something ought to be revised if NGO representatives are expected to act as full and equal members in the official delegations.
This does not mean that the whole system is rotten. On the contrary, NGO participation in the delegations is of mutual interest as both parties can receive first-hand information from the other, and reconcile their views before negotiations continue. Therefore, it would seem appropriate if NGOs could follow the negotiations in the same room even if there is not enough space in the round-table itself.
Now, you may ask yourselves what happened after these conferences? Take Johannesburg, for example. Based on the work plan, which was adopted at the end of the conference, our organisation produced an opinion, which was later used as a point of reference when the ministries finalized their report on activities that should be introduced at the national level.
A few months later, FANC produced two background documents, which were presented to the general public right after our parliamentary elections in March. One of the documents concerned the 10-year programme on sustainable consumption and production. The other one looked in more detail into the so-called ecological tax reform.
Before the elections, our organisation visited the national parliament and met with members of all political parties. In addition, it held discussions with the Minister for Environment, the Minister for Development, as well as officials from the Ministry for Environment, and tried to convince them to integrate some of these ideas into the work programme of the new government.
To our great satisfaction, many of our demands were accepted. For the first time, the environmental tax reform is mentioned in the government's work plan. Similarly, new measures will be introduced to achieve the objectives of sustainable production and consumption.
Did our input make a difference? I'm not sure. But what I do know is that moving forward should be easier now that we have something to refer to.
Let me stress one more thing: changing attitudes takes time. It requires long discussions and good working relations with the ones that prepare and actually take the political decisions. Our duty is to feed them with fresh, new ideas that are based on facts, and to see that once approved, promises are also kept.
Acting as a bridge builder does not always make headlines, but I am convinced that it has been one of the key elements behind our success.
This has been our approach, others may chose another. Diverging views are fine as long as they do not blur the main objective: to change our behaviour into something more sane and equal so that our world does not end in an ecological or social impass. This, I believe, should remain our common goal regardless of our political views and different approaches.
Thank you very much.
Eero Yrjö-Koskinen
Director
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation