Search

This article analyzes the lobbying behavior of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) during international climate change negotiations. With limited resources, these NGOs need to strategically invest their resources to maximize impact. A key decision concerns the target of lobbying efforts: Whom do ngos lobby, and why? Two possible explanations are contrasted: influence and responsiveness. Accordingly, NGOs can focus on responsive targets that are likely to bring NGO input to the table or they can focus on influential targets whose voice is heard at the negotiation table. These two explanations are tested using data from a survey of NGOs active in international climate change negotiations. I find that NGOs strategically target their lobbying efforts, approaching both responsive and, more importantly, influential delegations. However, given that ngos primarily contact their home delegation, as well as the president of the negotiation session, further information on the nature and content of contacts between NGOs and government delegations is necessary for understanding NGO-government interactions in international climate change negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there is a substantial amount of research that studies how environmental interest groups/non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) influence international environmental negotiations, both the theoretical work and the empirical evidence were not yet able to answer comprehensively if this makes it more likely that states, in turn, commit to stronger environmental agreements. This article seeks to contribute to clarifying this. First, the authors argue that a higher degree of ENGO access to official negotiations and a larger number of ENGOs actively participating during bargaining processes can facilitate outcomes of environmental negotiations. The authors then analyze quantitative data on international environmental regimes and their members' commitment levels from 1946 to 1998 and obtain robust support for their claims. However, the rationale on the introduced explanatory factors also implies that the impact of ENGO access on states' commitment levels should vary conditional on the number of ENGOs actively participating. The paper finds evidence for such an interaction, although the results go against our expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]