Nongovernmental Organ izations 249matter analytically, whereas Greenpeace staged a drama to show the effects of envi-
ronmental degradation. But the intent of each was the same—to focus citizen action
on strengthening the Montreal Protocol and, in more recent years, to focus on pro-
moting climate change initiatives. By publicizing inadequacies, NGOs force discus-
sion both within states and among states in international forums.
Nowhere has the impact of NGOs been felt more strongly than at the 1992 UN
Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.
NGOs played key roles in both the preparatory conferences and the Rio conference
itself, adding repre sen ta tion and openness (or transparency) to the pro cess. They made
statements from the floor; they drafted informational materials; they scrutinized
working drafts of UN documents; they spoke up to support or oppose specific phras-
ing. The UNCED also provided extensive opportunities for NGO networking. Among
the more than 400 accredited environmental organ izations were not only traditional,
large, well- financed NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund, but also those working
on specific issues and those with grassroots origins in developing countries, many of
which were poorly financed and had had few previous transnational linkages.
The per sis tence of the NGOs paid off. Agenda 21, the official document produced
by the conference, recognized the unique capabilities of NGOs and recommended
their participation at all levels, from policy formulation and decision making to imple-
mentation. What began as a parallel informal pro cess of participation within the UN
system evolved into a more formal role, which was replicated in other international
conferences. But subsequent conferences have been disappointing, as illustrated by the
Rio+20 conference in 2012: Rio+20 offered “no targets, no timelines, or specific objec-
tives. It [did] not prioritize any areas or express a par tic u lar sense of urgency.”^16 Both
states and NGOs failed to generate enough consensus to move the agenda ahead.
NGOs play unique roles at the national level. In a few unusual cases, NGOs take
the place of states, either performing ser vices that an inept or corrupt government is
not providing or stepping in for a failed state. Bangladesh hosts the largest NGO sec-
tor in the world, a response in part to that government’s failure and the failure of the
private for- profit sector to provide for the poor. Thus, NGOs have assumed responsibil-
ity in education, health, agriculture, and microcredit, originally all government func-
tions. Other NGOs work to change vari ous countries’ public institutions, as illustrated
by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Dating back to 1928, the brotherhood had a
long, confrontational relationship with the Egyptian government until its po liti cal party
successfully contested in the 2011 parliamentary elections and assumed the presidency.
A year later, it was overthrown during mass protests, its leaders killed or imprisoned,
its assets seized. The once NGO, then po liti cal party, was now pronounced a terrorist
organ ization. Egypt is not the only government to crack down on NGOs. Rus sia and
other states of the former Soviet Union, including Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, have
limited the actions of international NGOs. Kenya is one of the latest.