Security, trade and environmental diplomacy

Environmental diplomacy, having arrived at the centre stage of international attention much later than security and trade, has seen a much wider involvement of NGOs in the agenda formation and negotiation process. Environmental diplomacy, not unlike trade and security, deals with very complex issues, but there seems to be a much wider degree of recognition on the part of states and other institutions that NGOs have something to offer to environmental diplomacy. States, having to deal with a broad range of issues, and therefore do not have the capacity to build expert capacities in every field, have thus become dependent on NGOs and their knowledge, research and expertise in the field of the environment and climate change.
Whereas it is hard to evaluate precisely the effect of NGOs on the outcome of environmental diplomacy, it can be argued that NGOs have played a role in changing the popular view of the environment. Large NGOs gain much of their influence through the use of technology and various forms of communications, and by their ability to get to the media to spread their message. Paul Wapner shows how, what he calls TEAGs; transnational environmental activist groups, through highlighting various environmental problems, contribute to changes in perception, behaviour and action towards the environment amongst people. He argues that TEAGs, by creating awareness of problems by staging spectacular and sometimes dangerous events, has helped foster what he calls ‘ecological sensibility’.
Environmental diplomacy seems to be the area where civil society has been allowed the greatest presence and most influence in decision makings compared to security and trade diplomacy. Although trade negotiations have seen an opening up towards the participation of civil society, it is business groups who have most influence. Security diplomacy, by contrast, remains a much more closed area of operation and where various unofficial channels of communication contribute to the secrecy of negotiations. Yet, there seems to be a growing call for change in the structure and culture of the practice of foreign ministries in order to be able to effectively deal with the changing security agenda. Riordan argues that, as the concept of security changes and broadens, there should be a move towards a more dialogue-based diplomacy and one that has a more open decision-making process, which will increase the ability of diplomats to make the right decisions and be more flexible and able to respond to various problems.