NGOs and Environmental Public Goods: Institutional Alternatives to Property Rights

Abstract

NGOs are linked to environmental objectives for good reason: non-profit NGOs provide a flexible, private-sector answer to the provision of international environmental public goods. The non-profit sector can link forprofit, non-profit, and public-sector objectives in complex contracts. This article examines how, for the case of the National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) in Costa Rica, such complex contracts with both domestic and international parties provide partial solutions to public goods problems in the absence of private property rights over genetic resources. INBio's 'monopoly' position, legitimized by the local government, brings in rents from genetic resources which are reinvested in the production of public goods.

Biosphere reserves and the “Yucatán” syndrome: another look at the role of NGOs

“…Although there has been a clear evolution of the movement and its key agents (Brulle, 1996), numerous authors (e.g., Clark, 1990;Isbister, 1993;Meyer, 1992aMeyer, , 1992bMeyer, , 1995Meyer, , 1996Meyer, , 1997aMeyer, , 1997bMeyer, , 1999Brulle, 1995cBrulle, , 2000Dewar, 1995;Dowie, 1995;Wedel, 1998) have explained that despite the dominant beliefs, NGOs are frequently top-down and non-participatory in function. Brulle (1995cBrulle ( , 2000 concludes that in structure and function many of the more powerful environmental NGOs are oligarchic -not democratic or even "representative."…”

“…The problems that the agent, or NGO, identifies and actions that they promote may or may not be congruous with the majority of society . Myriad studies (e.g., Clark, 1990, p. 5;Meyer, 1992aMeyer, , 1992bMeyer, , 1995Meyer, , 1996Meyer, , 1997aMeyer, , 1997bMeyer, , 1999Dewar, 1995) have described how NGOs in the Third World are normally driven by the demands of donors, not necessarily relevant to the societies in which the recipients exist and work.…”

“…;Dewar, 1995;Meyer, 1999;Markowitz, 2001). In part, this is because these organizations have several benefits over governmental agencies, particularly greater administrative flexibility and responsiveness, as well as relatively lower costs in administration, negotiation and monitoring (Meyer, 1992a(Meyer, , 1992b(Meyer, , 1995(Meyer, , 1996(Meyer, , 1997a(Meyer, , 1997b(Meyer, , 1999. There are many accounts of NGOsnotably small grassroots organizations (or "grassroots support organizations" = GSOs) -providing invaluable services to marginalized people, especially in the Third World (e.g., Breslin, 1987;Lean, 1995); NGOs have been called the "building blocks of democracy" and "incubators for alternatives for people who traditionally lack alternatives" (Richy-Vance, 1993).…”

“…As a consequence, many (if not most) NGOs are driven by their relationship with donors, past, present or potential, and this is one of the most severe criticisms. Countless studies (e.g., Wright, 1990;Meyer, 1992aMeyer, , 1992bMeyer, , 1995Meyer, , 1996Meyer, , 1997aMeyer, , 1997bMeyer, , 1999Dewar, 1995;Dowie, 1995;Struhsaker, 1998;Brulle, 2000) have provided detailed explanations on how donors direct the agendas, priorities, programs and institutional development of the recipients. In many cases, NGOs have adopted strategies of seeking and nurturing political and financial alliances with government agencies and private corporations, even when many of these (potential) donors have checkered social and environmental records (e.g., Pell, 1990;Dewar, 1995;Dowie, 1995).…”

“…However, just as in many conventional development initiatives (e.g., Cochrane, 1979;Cernea, 1991, p. 2;Metha, 2001), specialists from the social sciences 9 have often not been a significant component in conservation and environmental activities, or when they have been, it was frequently too late and simply as a social palliative -or even as a deceptive ploy (e.g., Winthrop, 1997). To a great extent these conservationdevelopment actions have been planned, supervised, executed and evaluated within an intellectual framework constructed by biologists, conservationists, naturalists, resource managers and economists from the industrialized world (Meyer, 1992a(Meyer, , 1992b(Meyer, , 1995(Meyer, , 1996(Meyer, , 1997a(Meyer, , 1997b(Meyer, , 1999Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997;Place, 1998, p. 232;Wedel, 1998;Decker et al, 2001). Admittedly, the social sciences are not invisible to -or totally depreciated by -conservation biologists.…”