Global environmental politicsaddressed’ (p. xviii). Having identified an environmental problem, groups of
scientists (usually from several countries) are sufficiently moved to intervene
in the political process to encourage international action. Their capacity
toinfluence the political process rests on their ability to persuade others
that their knowledge is valid and sufficiently important to require a pol-
icy response. Haas ( 1990 )showed how epistemic communities helped spur
theinternational co-operation that produced the Mediterranean Action Plan
(1975) dealing with sea pollution. Asked initially to investigate the problem
of oil pollution from tanker traffic in the Mediterranean, scientists were able
tobroaden the focus of policy concern to encompass a wider range of pol-
lution sources, including agricultural run-off, river flows and atmospheric
deposition (Haas 1990 ;Weale 1992 ). By showing that land-based sources were
themost important cause of pollution, epistemic communities helped per-
suade doubting nations, such as Algeria, of the benefits of co-operation.
The Ozone Trends Panel and the IPCC have played a similar role promoting
international action against ozone depletion and global warming.
The political activities of scientific organisations also offer a broader les-
son about the importance of non-state actors in environmental diplomacy,
particularly in informing, educating and shaping cognitions. International
institutions can provide astute political leadership, as illustrated by the skill
of Mustafa Tolba, UNEP’s executive director, in facilitating and guiding the
negotiations that led to the ozone protection regime. These ‘institutions for
the earth’ (Haas et al. 1993 ) can encourage co-operation by setting agendas,
winning over doubters and co-ordinating policy responses.
International environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace, WWF and FoE,
have acquired a growing role in international environmental politics,
although it is difficult to evaluate their influence (see Chapter6). There is cer-
tainly scope for NGOs to play a part at all stages of environmental diplomacy.
By whipping up public concern about a wide range of global issues, com-
municating the findings of scientists and co-ordinating campaigns against
governments and companies, they have contributed to domestic pressure
on governments to act (Litfin1998a;Haas 1999 ;Young 1999 ;Newell 2000).
They have also gained increasing access to international conferences, with
thousands of NGO representatives at both the Rio Earth Summit and the
Johannesburg WSSD, although Arts (1998) questions their influence at Rio.
However, Betsill ( 2006 :190–1) argues that the Climate Action Network – a
transnational advocacy network – played a significant role at Kyoto both by
pressing the EU to stand firm on its relatively tough reduction target and
bypersuading Al Gore to attend the negotiations and to instruct the US
delegation to be more flexible. Greenpeace and other NGOs were a powerful
voice intherejection of an Antarctic minerals treaty in favour of a further
moratorium on mineral extraction (Elliott 1994 )and in persuading sufficient
non-whaling nations to join the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to
enable a moratorium on whaling to be passed in 1985 (Stoett 1997 ;Skodvin
and Andresen 2003 ). Benedick ( 1991 )credits NGOs with a significant role in