essayQUESTION 1State actors such as the government and non-state actors have transitioned throughout the years. Before the 1970’s, government and countries only used command and control methods. Where they had to be in charge of all acts towards making decisions for the environment and making interventions. However, over the years from 1980’s onwards governance, including businesses, NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and individuals have tried to work towards a common goal of helping the environment. Slowly over time, these non-state actors start to make a lot more decisions for the society and intervene with more environmental factors. State actors including Auckland Council have slowly let other non-state actors such as NZ Land Trust to help the environment in terms of managing resources, wastewater, protecting the forest.
Other organisations such as Greenpeace’s have also had major impacts on environmental decisions at a global scale. As a result, many opportunities and challenges are faced within these non-state actors. Recently co-management strategies have also become more popular in many countries. Through countries in the global north, command and control was mainly dominant in how government and society make decisions and interventions (before the 1970’s). They were one decision based (top-down) governmental approach.
These had consequences such as being hard to manage and huge costs to make developments, Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2006). Just before the 1980’s and after, non-state actors had become more and more involved in the decision making of the environment. This includes not just the government but it is governance.
Governance is not just the state, it is to do with different actors within the society, such as NGOs and businesses. Throughout the years from the 1980s, the transition of acknowledging different societal groups has increased. Their knowledge and have led to the government in understanding that non-state actors are able to make contributions, funding of resources and determine specificity, equality and equity. Examples of governmental, state-owned organisations include Auckland Council and Department of Conservation.
As a result, the non-state organisations consider approaches to the economy which influence the environmental management, Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006).
Non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace play a huge part in making environmental decisions and interventions globally. Their main goal is to protect the earth/environment from all human-made and also non-human hazards. NGOs such as NZ Land Trust also try to make improvements for land management and protection through a local farmer based community. Over the years after 1980, environmental decision making has transitioned from a more command and control method such as government acting as one to a neoliberal approach of management. The transition of decentralisation is evident as nowadays the intervention of free marketing principles and having more individual responsibilities.
Over the years of transitioning from a command and control method of government to a decentralised method. Many situations have led to opportunity and advantages for the society and local communities. Firstly, state actors provide advantages. Coming from a top-down approach, government organisations are able to provide expert knowledge to whatever is being developed. Decentralisation of one government, regional councils have also been formed over the years, making it more local yet still government. This would be decisions and interventions regarding to where they should build a new bridge or road and review locations from an environmental friendly yet expert point of view. This would be an example of the Auckland Council (state actor), building the Water view tunnel. The tunnel was built in order to make transport a lot more easier for residents within the entire city.
Connecting the west of Auckland to Manukau and also connecting North Shore to the west of Auckland. The project involved 11000 workers. This project led to many opportunities such as providing convenience to the local community, being the longest road tunnel in New Zealand (which is an attraction) and also it provided many working and labour opportunities for people (increasing their source of income and ability to provide for family), NZ Transport Agency (2017).
However, over the years non-state actors have increased hugely in connecting to society and making decisions for the environment. Opportunities such as having more local input and larger impacts on influencing the community. Examples of non-state actors include NZ Land Trust and Greenpeace, Arts, B. (2006). They are both non-state actors that are providing positive effects to the environment. Decision making of Greenpeace includes improving global warming (climate change), deforestation of countries and also fisheries related interventions. In the early 1980’s deforestation was a huge issue for many countries and became an international political problem. Ayling, J.
, & Gunningham, N. (2017). Reasons including, mining, urbanisation, large-scale burning and commercial logging resulted in Greenpeace acting upon these issues.
The consequences on deforestation and the wipeout of trees led Greenpeace to start a world campaign to stop these practices. Called the International Timber Trade Organisation, this increased the amount of local communities and people donating to Greenpeace as a lot of people also want to help make a difference for the environment. Evidently, Greenpeace and NGO’s create a much more local scale improvement. They also provide a fairer approach as opposed to government increasing tax rates because allowing individual donations for the funding of acts people get to choose their responsibility or if they want to donate/ volunteer. (willing to donate to Greenpeace for environmental benefits), Arts, B. (2006).
Non-state actors are able to communicate at all levels of communication. NZ Land Trust provides this opportunity. They are able to make decisions and help the environment from a local scale NZ Land Trust (2017). Nz Land Trust has had many projects regarding wastewater in local rivers and managing a healthy agricultural service. Nearby schools would also have a connection with their organisation. They work together to protect flora and fauna and also healthy waterways.
This interconnection and opportunity of NZ Land trust means working with either higher levels of governmental actors or community-based neighbourhood/next generation is largely beneficial. They are also flexible in adapting to the situations depending on local needs and therefore able to develop good environmental outcomes that central government may not be able to accomplish. Farmers in this NGO have connectedness, they have been there for generations, knowledge gets built upon, over time and the science. Nasiritous (2016), Environmental NGOs would normally have the strength for cognitive and social powers due to issue-specific focus, mobilization capacity and large amounts of membership.
Challenges of non-state actors would be that they may not have enough funding or resources for the things that they want to do, to be accomplished. Companies of non-state actors may be more profit and money driven or have no morality to the corporation. However, the examples of Greenpeace and NZ Land Trust are different from companies and businesses. They require more time into finding people to donate and to join the organisations. Many local people may not want to join as it requires money, Arts, B.
(2006). Often people would think that government has increased their tax, even if they want to make a difference to the environment they do not want to spend two separate expenses of donation/money. NZ Land Trust (2017), NZ Land Trust, however, often do not have enough amounts of resources and money to make the interventions for the environment, therefore they need to ask for grants from the government or large businesses. This is due to them being a more local non-state actors with local farmers.
Other challenges that non-state actors may have is that it is hard for them to gain trust from people, Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2006). This is because they may not seem as professional or do exactly what they say due to the lack of political power and authority, Nasiritous (2016). Another challenge is that many non-state actor services may not have as much of an impact as state actors because many people may not have heard of them at all. It is also due to not having money to advertise or promote their organisation. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A.
(2006). Many challenges that Greenpeace and NZ Land Trust may have is that they could become more hierarchy based. This is due to people who want to donate and participate are often wealthier just like the ‘NIMBYism’ (not in my backyard situation) where the wealthy people would protest they do not want to have certain things done around their property/community.
Co-management should also be considered because it would provide better solving of these issues. Many non-state actors have a challenge that they cannot provide opportunities at a larger scale, Lemos (2006). Such as they cannot contribute or have a say in the national issue of not having enough buses around Auckland.
Through these few years of environmental development, co-management has become more and more common. Government and local NGOs are able to work together to make better environmental decisions. Such as self-organising and governing them with government, community based natural resource managing and working together to make policies for the environment Lemos (2006).
Transitioning to future co-management would become very beneficial as it allows the government and resource users (NGOs, businesses) to make environmental decisions and interventions. In conclusion, many methods of governance have transitioned throughout the years of pre-1980 to now. Countries only used command and control from governmental state actors but then decentralised to a more regional actor such as The Auckland Council, then to more private actors, further on developing to the governance of non state actors such as Greenpeace and NZ Land Trust. They all provided advantages and disadvantages, opportunities and challenges in their own way, but over the years co-management has also become a lot more popular. This would bring the best of both worlds.
Creating a better system for decisions and interventions of making the environment a much better place for the country, but also for residents of the local community. ReferencesKoenig-Archibugi, M. (2006). Introduction: institutional diversity in global governance. In New Modes of Governance in the Global System (pp. 1-30).
Palgrave Macmillan, London.Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A.
(2006). Environmental governance. Annual review of environment and resources, 31.Ayling, J.
, & Gunningham, N. (2017). Non-state governance and climate policy: the fossil fuel divestment movement. Climate Policy, 17(2), 131-149.Arts, B.
(2006). Non-state actors in global environmental governance: New arrangements beyond the state. In New modes of governance in the global system (pp.
177-200). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., & Linnér, B. O.
(2016). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(1), 109-126.NZ Land Trust (2017)http://www.landcare.org.nz/About-UsNZ Transport Agency (2017)https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/the-western-ring-route/waterview-tunnel/