9
Introduction
When speaking about lobbyism the common image we have of a lobbyist is a man in suit and
tie wandering the halls of power with his briefcase in seeking to jump on politicians and
persuade them to legislate in favor of a particular interest. It is not wrong. Lobbyism is an
activity mostly based on contact and building the right network of contacts would certainly
be an advantage for interest groups. Hence, the work of a lobbyist is also that of meeting
decision makers and submit them the arguments on why is convenient to act on a precise
subjects. The important thing is that this whole process is carried out in all transparency and
full legality.
Some legislative frameworks provide specific regulations about the interest representation
activity in order to fulfill transparency: in this regard some countries set up registers for
lobbyists along with code of conducts
1
.
The common image of a lobbyist is also that of unscrupulous men defending the business
interests of big and powerful corporations. Guys like Nick Naylor
2
, to put it simply.
However, lobbying does not concern only the representation of private, let alone malicious,
interests, but also diffuse and social interests engage profoundly in lobbying and in the face-
to-face interaction with decision makers.
Therefore, the reality of social activism is no longer only that of people doing propaganda in
the streets and delivering leaflets or that of environmentalists chaining themselves to trees.
Instead, people representing social interests have acquired the instruments and the
knowledge of the institutional interest representation; they have become professionals of
advocacy, which is the activity aimed at influencing decision makers on behalf of collective
interests. Thus, many Non-Governmental Organization s ’ e m p l oy e e s ha v e no c onc e rns i n defining themselves as lobbyists
3
.
1
F o r e x a m p l e , l o bbyi s t s ’ r e g i s t e r s a r e pr o vi de d i n t h e U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n C a n a da , a n d i n t h e E ur o pe a n Uni o n . S e e Petrillo P. L., Democrazie sotto pressione, Giuffré, Milano, 2011.
2
Nick Naylor is the protagonist of the famous movie of 2005 directed by Jason Reitman, Thank you for
smoking, on the lobbying activity of the tobacco industry.
3
Faustine Defossez, the European Environmental Bureau policy officer on Agriculture defined herself a
lobbyist even though she made a distinction from other lobbyists because «we do not have an economic
interest, we fight for the general interest». Interview to Faustine Defossez, May 27, 2014.
10
In this work I analyze an important aspect of the representation of collective interests: the
lobbying activity pursued by environmental organizations. It is well established that, among
the collective interest groups, the environmental one is the best organized and the most
influential
4
. Particularly in the European Union framework, it has gained enough room and a
discrete consideration by the European institutions. In this study it will be explored precisely
the development of the environmental lobbying phenomenon within the European Union
framework.
The research starts from two main aspects: the influence and strength that Non-
Governmental Organizations have in carrying out diffuse interest, and the exam of the
particular action of environmental NGOs. Key questions of the study are the following: how
might NGOs be rated in terms of their likely efficacy as lobbyists? Are they as strong as
other lobbying groups? And, above all, how much environmental groups can compromise
with the productive sector? In other words, is it appropriate to speak about compromise when
safeguarding a diffuse interest like the environment?
The work is composed of three chapters. In the first one an overview and a comprehensive
focus on the main themes treated will be delivered: we will start from the social movement
phenomenon and we will see how these subjects have turned themselves into more
cooperative and less disruptive actors, able to take part in the decision-making process: the
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Then, a spotlight will be given to the
environment as a matter of concern in the public debate and to the activity of environmental
groups worldwide. Finally, the focus will move on the European Union and an overview on
the regulation of lobbying will be exposed along with an introduction of the environmental
lobbying in Brussels.
The second chapter is about a particular European environmental actor: the European
Environmental Bureau (EEB), a federation of numerous national environmental
organizations grouped in Brussels to give unity and strength to their claims. The creation of
European level networks is very common: practically each interest has its own network in
4
Biliouri D., Environmental Ngos in Brussels: How powerful are their lobbying activities?, in Environmental
Politics, vol. 8, n.2, 2007, pp. 173-182.
11
Brussels and the new established subjects are also known with the name of «peak» or
«umbrella» organizations.
In the second chapter, the attention on the EEB will deal with the internal structure and on
the external action of the organization, including the examination of the aspects of
accountability and coalition building.
The third chapter takes into consideration a specific case. The European environmental
lobbying will be seen in the context of the introduction of mandatory green measures into the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the so called «greening». In particular, the European
Environmental Bureau lobbying action will be examined.
But first, a preliminary introduction of the CAP will be offered, with a deep focus on its
decision-making, which will be very useful to understand who and how exerts power in the
process, and especially how much environmental groups count in it.
The conclusions will give a final assessment on the arguments treated in the whole work: the
relevance of NGOs and environmental NGOs in the contemporary public decision-making;
the unresolved conflict between public and private interests, in our case between production
needs and environmental safeguard; a more focused evaluation on the current composition of
the EU budget, which currently is clearly biased in favor of farming interests.
The purpose of the study is to show in the first place that Non-Governmental actors are
gaining greater importance in influencing decision makers, especially at the European level,
even if their instruments are relatively blunt compared to those of more powerful lobbying
groups such as big corporations. Secondly, to show that, among Non-Governmental actors,
environmental groups are those with more relevance, given the attention that is paid to
environmental issues, especially by the EU. Lastly, to demonstrate that the claim of
environment defense cannot be unconditionally carried out without considering certain
political conditions, otherwise the good purpose of the action will ultimately result futile.
12
CHAPTER I
Understanding the phenomena: NGOs, environmental lobbying and advocacy
1.1 Social Movements in the Lobbying Arena
In order to achieve a complete and comprehensive preliminary focus on the environmental
lobbying and advocacy phenomena it is necessary to start from the concept of «social
movements», the actual point of origin of modern collective interest groups
5
. Social
movements are defined in the International Encyclopedia of Political Science as «informal
networks of interaction, based on shared beliefs and solidarity, mobilized around contentious
themes, through the frequent use of various forms of protest»
6
. We can immediately identify
the four elements that characterize social movements: the informal structure, the shared
belief and solidarity, the contentious themes as cause of mobilization, and the protest as
preeminent mode of action. These features make social movements an actor completely
antithetic to governments, an actor engaged in collective challenges, which are, according to
Sidney Tarrow, «disruptive direct actions against elites, authorities, other groups, or cultural
codes»
7
.
This consideration, however, may be expressed in regards to the first social movements
appeared in the modern society back in the XIX century (specifically, working class
movements) and other, limited, current movements based on that rhetoric. The research on
social movements developed hand in hand with the thriving of disparate movements in 1960s
such as the pacifistic, feminist, and environmental. New theories have been formulated to
frame these movements.
5
Nathalie Berny, Le lobbying des ONG internationales d’environnement à Bruxelles, in Revue française de
science politique Vol. 58, no. 1, March 7, 2008, pp. 97 –122.
6
della Porta, D., Social Movements in International Encyclopedia of Political Science, Ed. Bertrand Badie,
Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2011, pp. 2432-2444.
7
Tarrow S., Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Cambridge University Press,
1998, p.9.
13
First of all, the theory of New Social Movements tried to explain the precise emergence of
social activism during the 1960s in line with a neo-marxist strand very common in Europe.
In this view, the new social movements, prospered especially in the US and claiming for civil
rights, nuclear dismantlement, environment protection and so on, are not related to
materialistic concerns but to other needs, those expressing the «noneconomic quality of
life»
8
. This occurred substantially because the leading actor of these new phenomena was not
the working-class anymore, but the middle-class that took it over, therefore raising different
new claims
9
. I de ol ogy w a s a l m os t a ba nd one d, e s s e nt i a l l y i t di dn’t c ons t i t ut e a ny m ore t he engine of the contentions, having the focus moved from the «class struggle», the utopian
pursuit aimed at overcoming existing social relations, to the defense and the amelioration of
specific spheres of life
10
.
If this theory explains the change in the issues claimed by movements, others explain the
way how a coalition is formed and how it acts to achieve its goals. In this regard, the work of
Mancur Olson is fundamental: he applied the rational choice theory to the collective
behaviors. In his main work, The Logic of Collective Action, Olson borrows arguments
directly from political economy in order to explain the problems deriving from the collective
action, one of which is the free-rider problem. This problem argues that individuals are
moved in their actions by a rational calculation of costs and benefits and the free- rider,
behaving rationally, would therefore avoid to participate to the collective action if he could
get the benefits anyway. The problem is solved with selective incentives to the members of
the group so everyone is involved in the action
11
.
The approach by Olson has paved the way to other studies on the logic of groups and
especially on their internal coordination. The resource mobilization theory, for example,
stems from there. According to this theory, movements need resources to achieve their goals
8
Inglehart R., Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton Univeristy Press, 1990, p. 373.
9
Offe, C., New social movements: challenging the boundaries of institutional politics, in Social research, 1985,
LII, pp. 817-868.
10
Calhoun, G., New social movements of the early nineteenth century, in Social science history, 1993, XVII,
pp. 385-427.
11
Olson, M., The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups, Cambridge, Mass., 1965,
p.51.
14
and they are able to acquire them as they operate like economic enterprises
12
. With this
strand of research, social movements have been associated more and more with group of
interest, even though this view generated some criticisms
13
.
It stands to reason, however, that many social movements, if not most of them, evolved into
much organized coalitions and adopted different mode of action which make them
comparable to interest groups and modern pressure groups. But before examining differences
and similarities, it is necessary to define interest groups.
The study on interest groups can be traced back to the pivotal work of Alexis de Tocqueville,
Democracy in America, in which, observing directly the American society in a journey he
made in 1830, he identified in groups and associations a central role for the functioning of
democracy in United States
14
in contrast to the characteristics of the states in Europe.
Subsequently, in the twentieth century, some major American scholars developed modern
and precise definition of interest groups. Arthur Fisher Bentley, for example,
deterministically attributes to groups and their activities the role to define the entire society
15
,
giving rise to an «epistemological radicalism» that initially did not receive many
appreciations
16
.
With David B. Truman it is possible to encounter a clearer definition of interest group:
«interest group refers to any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, make
certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance or
enhancement of forms of behaviors that are implied by shared attitudes»
17
. Still, this
definition is too much general and incomplete for our purposes as the group action is
synthesized with the word claim when in the first definition seen, the one on the social
movements, it was stated that protests are the main mode of action. On the other hand, both
the social movements and the interest groups act on the basis of a specific ground which for
12
Within the resource mobilization theory this particular idea is sustained by John McCarthy and Mayer N.
Zald. See: The Enduring Vitality of the Resource Mobilization Theory of Social Movements in Jonathan H.
Turner (ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory, 2001, p.533-565.
13
Criticisms coming especially from the neomarxist strand.
14
Matteucci Nicola, “ P l ur a li s m o , ” Treccani, l’Enciclopedia Italiana, retrieved May 1, 2014,
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/pluralismo_(Enciclopedia-delle-scienze-sociali)/.
15
It is very famous his quote: «when the groups are adequately stated, everything is stated. When I say
everything, I mean everything».. Bentley A.F, The Process of Government: a Study of Social Pressures, New
Bruswick, transaction Publishers, 1995, p.208
16
Graziano L., Lobbying Pluralismo Democrazia, Roma, Carocci, 1995.
17
Truman, D.B., The Governmental Process: Political Interest and Public Opinion, New York, 1951, p. 33
15
the former are shared beliefs, and for the latter are shared attitudes. In both cases these two
expressions can be translated with the word interest.
To better understand the aspect of group mobilization we should move to the concept of
pressure groups, which identifies groups that have the aspiration to influence the decision-
making process in order to change the distribution of resources, or to maintain the status quo
against the possible intervention of other groups; the pressure group, hence, is always an
interest group
18
.
A more structured definition, in between the interest groups and pressure groups
19
, is
provided by Liborio Mattina: «interest groups are formal organizations, usually based on
voluntary participation, that seek to influence the policy making without assuming any
responsibility of government»
20
.
Now that the close examination and the terminological questions have been dealt with it is
possible to pinpoint the aspect that differentiate the phenomenon of social movements from
the interest and the pressure groups.
First of all, the first element of both the definition of social movements and interest groups
describes the type of organization. For the social movements it is informal, while for the
interest groups is formal. Mattina also highlights that social movements do not require a
membership fee, do not census the members and usually last shorter than other groups
21
.
Definitively, participation in social movements is more flexible and structure is fluid, for this
reason they are more subjected to change or disappear contrary to interest groups that are
more capable to maintain a long-standing presence.
Furthermore, as previously mentioned, another important difference that stands out is the
way in which social demand is promoted: social movements tend to use the protest while
interest groups do not adopt dramatic and contentious actions against the institutions, but
they act inside the institutional framework, to the point that they are incorporated in the
policy-making environment by the policy-making institutions
22
. Interest groups are then
18
Petrillo P.L., Democrazie sotto pressione, Giuffrè, Milano, 2011, cit., p. 46.
19
T h e a ut h o r p r e f e r s n o t to us e t h e e x pr e s s i o n ‘ pr e s s ur e gr o ups ’ a s , h e s t a t e s , i t i s us e d w i t h a n e g a t i ve n ua n c e . Liborio Mattina, I gruppi di interesse, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2010, p. 12.
20
Ivi, [TdA].
21
Ibidem, p.89.
22
Ruzza C., Europe and Civil Society: Movement Coalitions and European Governance, Manchester
University Press , M a n c h e s t e r :Ne w Y o r k , 2004, p. 53.
16
indicated as insiders, because generally recognized as legitimate actors, while social
movements are outsiders for the disruptive approach they assume.
The point is to understand why and how contemporary social movements progressively
abandoned their initial approach in favor of a more collaborative one, making someone argue
that by now there is «no theoretical justification for distinguishing between social movement
organizations and interest groups »
23
. In effect, the plethora of social movements originated
in the 60s, flew into new formations such as Greenpeace, an environmental NGO that derives
from antinuclear movements, Green Parties, born from the environmentalist movements, and
even the World Social Forum, which is the modern organized platform of most no-global
movements, not to mention the labor parties, which are institutionalized form of the
nineteenth-century working-class struggle. In practice, social movements evolved into new
credible subjects, developed technical skills and acquired the political legitimacy to be part
of the modern policy-making
24
, to be valuable fighters in the lobbying arena. The most
typical form of nowadays expression of civil society is the Non-Governmental Organization
(NGO).
1.1.1 NGOs as new national and transnational stakeholders
Non-Governmental Organizations have developed only in the second part of the twentieth
century, therefore being a relatively new actor in politics both at national and international
level. The idea of non-governmental organizations was born in 1945 thanks to the United
Nations Charter that, at the article 71, welcomes the participation of non-governmental
organization for consultation in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
25
.
23
Burstein P., Social Movements and Public Policy, in Giugni, M., McAdam, D. & Tilly, Ch. (eds.) How Social
Movements Matter, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1999, p.19.
24
Ruzza C., Europe and Civil Society: Movement Coalitions and European Governance Manchester University
P r e s s , M a n c he s t e r ; Ne w Yo r k : Ne w Y o r k , NY , U S A , 200 4, p. 9.
25
«The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with nongovernmental
organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with
international organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after consultation with the
Member of the United Nations concerned», Article 71 of the UN Charter.