Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations and Russian Environmental Governance: Accountability, Participation and Collaboration

Abstract

This article examines the role of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) in Russia and the impact of tightening governmental accountability measures. Drawing on 18 interviews conducted in 2012-13 with Russian and international ENGOs, the article examines three key governance issues, namely: the collaborative relationship between the state and ENGOs, the impact of accountability measures on ENGO activities, and the relationships between ENGOs themselves. The findings reveal that ENGOs maintain a legitimate and effective role within Russian environmental governance. However, their legitimacy and success is significantly limited and threatened by increasing accountability measures and state actions. The article accordingly identifies a number of recommendations for increasing the likelihood of successful ENGO action in Russian environmental governance, including improving ENGO collaboration with the state and resolving tensions between participation and accountability.

Regulatory Theory

“…In such a short chapter, much of what will be discussed will inevitably caricature the wealth of global experience and debates. For example, this chapter primarily focuses on domestic Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions (for other contexts, see, for example, Dubash and Morgan 2012;Sofronova et al 2014), but consideration is also given to related trends at the international level. It also does not consider a range of related fields and subfields, such as disaster governance (Djlante et al 2013), risk governance (Renn 2008) or rights (Kotzé and Du Plessis 2010).…”

Nonprofit Management Researchers’ Reconceptualization of Comprehensive INGO Accountability: Toward an Institutional Logics Approach

“…It is found that engaging more closely with beneficiaries allows to better identify and address their needs and creates a sense of ownership, which can lead to more effective programs and collaborations (Cavill & Sohail, 2007). Comprehensive INGO accountability therefore addresses a broader set of stakeholders and is driven by a moral obligation, the need for Andrews, 2014;Boyer & Kolpakov, 2018;Breen et al, 2018;Brown et al, 2012;Cordery & Sim, 2018;Ebrahim, 2003a;Elbers & Schulpen, 2013;Gugerty, 2008b;Jegers, 2008;Jeong & Kearns, 2015;McConville & Cordery, 2018O'Dwyer & Unerman, 2008;Pallas & Guidero, 2016;Sofronova et al, 2014;Thrandardottir & Keating, 2018;Townsend & Townsend, 2004 Tool to gain trust of donors to ensure future funding, and ensure regulatory freedom Goncharenko, 2019;Gutterman, 2014;Hielscher et al, 2017;Prakash & Gugerty, 2010;Van Puyvelde et al, 2012 Tool to demonstrate organizational performance (financial, and non-financial) Cordery et al, 2019;Crack, 2016;Liket & Maas, 2015;McConville & Cordery, 2018;Mitchell, 2013;Schmitz et al, 2012;Traxler et al, 2020 Tool to assess organizational performance (financial, and non-financial) Liket et al, 2014;Prentice, 2016;Sowa et al, 2004 Strategic tool to create organizational effectiveness Brown et al, 2012;Cavill & Sohail, 2007;…”

Environmental Law as a Transnational Ecosystem

“…Finally, before offering a few reflections on my time as Editor-in-Chief, I would like to revisit briefly the theme of diversification of environmental leadership. TEL contributions discuss law and governance in an abundance of different countries, from Chile 46 to Russia 47 and from Greenland 48 to Aotearoa New Zealand. 49 The importance to transnational environmental legal scholarship of studying a rich diversity of legal systems, and of listening to a range of different voices, cannot be overstated.…”