 Wildlife NGOs: From Adversaries to CollaboratorsMargi Prideaux Global Policy, 2015, vol. 6, issue 4, 379-388 Abstract: Many governments perceive a ‘contested ground’ between Non‐governmental Organisations (NGOs) and governments in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Governments have asserted a concern that increasing NGO involvement is an erosion of their sovereignty. The other side of this coin is that wildlife related MEAs including the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) are a low order political priority and government budgets for these environment issues are stretched. Many governments lack even basic implementation budgets, let alone capacity for progressive work. MEA secretariats are funded so minimally that there is insufficient facility to really progress implementation. A recent review of wildlife related NGOs associated with the work of the CMS family has found that NGOs will commit to increase implementation efforts if the right dynamic is created. Moving beyond the impression of ‘contested ground’ to a ‘collaborative governance’ future, where all participants are invested in policy, discourse, negotiation and arbitration could increase human and financial resource and in turn increase implementation for the CMS family. Date: 2015 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:glopol:v:6:y:2015:i:4:p:379-388 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article Global Policy is currently edited by David Held, Patrick Dunleavy and Eva-Maria Nag More articles in Global Policy from London School of Economics and Political Science Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.