Conserving the Commons: The United States’ and NGOs’ Roles in Environmental Protection

          Since this past Thursday, marine conservationists have been celebrating the United States’ decision to create the largest marine reserve in the world. According to a recent National Geographic article, this reserve will be an expansion of a current United States monument in the pacific, and will cover 490,000 square miles, roughly three times the size of California (Howard, 2014). Environmentalists have called this decision a “historic victory,” which prohibits commercial fishing, dumping, and mining throughout the protected waters (Howard, 2014).

This United States-driven decision results in the interminable protection of 3% of the world’s oceans (Howard, 2014). Through this action, the United States took a major stride in combating two significant global environmental problems—shared natural resources and global commons. The oceans are often plagued by the tragedy that occurs when numerous parties attempt to seize their share of desired resources. By restricting damaging commercial influence on this region of the oceans, the United States is protecting a subset of the world’s commons.

This powerful decision raises the question of the role that the United States plays internationally in protecting the environment. Specifically, could a country other than the United States have accomplished the same enormous conservation measure?

In Chasek, Downie, and Brown’s Global Environmental Politics (2010), the success of several environmental regimes is analyzed, including those that have focused on ozone, climate, whaling, and hazardous waste. The trend that was highlighted is that typically when the United States served as a pusher, or supporter, in the regime, it was successful; however, when they were a dragger, or an opponent, the regime failed. For example, in both the climate and hazardous waste regimes, even though the entire European Union was on-board with environmental regulation, the regime failed as the United States remained in the dragger position. This occurrence can be attributed to the high status and level of influence of the United States in international affairs.

If the United States had opposed this massive conservation of the world’s oceans, I believe that the measure would not have been successful. Instead, the United States led the decision and made significant progress in the protection of the oceans. So, how did the United States decide to take a stance in protecting the oceans? Specifically, why did the nation choose to protect the oceans surrounding the pacific islands?

States’ decisions to protect the environment are often heavily influenced by environmental NGOs and similar organizations. National Geographic highlighted their principal role in this decision to expand the pacific marine reserve. Sala and National Geographic's Pristine Seas project, which has been a long-term venture existing throughout the past several years, “aim[ing] to explore, survey, and protect several of the last wild places in the world's oceans” has played a central role in excursions to the pacific region (Howard, 2014). These expeditions assisted in highlighting the region’s unique biodiversity that was worth saving. In addition, representatives from Sala met with White House officials to argue for the reserve’s expansion on scientific grounds. Their argument rested on evidence related to the protection of the deep coral reefs, marine ecosystems, and several endangered species, in addition to the region’s severe vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.

I would argue that the tactics of NGOs heavily influences the impact they are capable of producing for their issues of focus. The respectful reputations of National Geographic and Sala most likely enabled them to attract the attention of government officials towards their research and work in the pacific. Their focus on scholastic improvement and public education has allowed them to maintain close relationships with government officials, and serve as their trustworthy, information sources on environmental issues.

Crowded with issues and information, government officials often rely on the information provided to them by external sources on global issues. The methods of National Geographic and Sala have made them sources that politicians look to for updates on current issues. Their methods have equated to their success in producing public awareness while also stimulating positive environmental change, such as in the pacific marine reserve expansion.

However, other environmental NGOs have taken very different approaches to supporting their issues of concern. For instance, “Sea Shepherd,” a group of anti-whaling activists featured on the Animal Planet series Whale Wars, has become popular for their extreme tactics. Members of the group became notorious for illegally boarding of a Japanese Whaling Ship and then claiming to have been kidnapped, in order to draw attention to the issue of whaling. Their actions have become controversial in the media, as they have been praised for their impressive commitment to the issue, yet criticized for their radical direct-action methods.

Sea Shepherd’s extreme tactics have presented them with results that vary from those of National Geographic and Sala. Although Sea Shepherd has raised a praise-worthy amount of attention towards whaling, they have not made significant legal strides for the issue. I would attribute this lack of legal success to their extremist nature. Governmental officials are less likely to work with a radical, controversial group on an issue because they don’t want to risk their reputations through the collaboration.  

Imposing regulations that protect the environment and shared resources is difficult, considering the opposition of parties involved. It is often challenging to find a compromise between environmental and economic interests, which makes working with extreme parties problematic. In any issue, finding middle ground between parties is typically the best way to gain resolution. Radical environmental groups are more likely to not be satisfied with a regulation that only partially solves an issue, which is why government officials will always prefer to work with more moderate organizations.

In conclusion, to succeed in environmental conservation, an issue needs the United States and reasonable NGOs. The best way to protect the environment is to achieve the support of the United States. Similarly, the most effective way of persuading the United States is with the influence of respectable NGOs’ factual findings.

Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown. J. W. (2010). Global Environmental Politics. Boulder:

         Westview Press.

Howard, B. C. (2014, September 24). U.S. Creates Largest Protected Area in the World, 3X Larger

          Than California. National Geographic. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140924-pacific-remote-islands-marine-monument-expansion-conservation/