protecting nature organizations and networks in europe and the usa

8/17/2019 Protecting Nature Organizations and Networks in Europe and the USA

1/312

Protecting Nature


2/312


3/312

Protecting NatureOrganizations and Networks in Europeand the USA

Edited by

C.S.A. (Kris) van KoppenWageningen University, The Netherlands

and

William T. MarkhamUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Edward ElgarCheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA


4/312

© C.S.A. van Koppen and William T. Markham 2007

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the priorpermission of the publisher.

Published byEdward Elgar Publishing LimitedGlensanda HouseMontpellier ParadeCheltenhamGlos GL50 1UAUK

Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.William Pratt House9 Dewey CourtNorthamptonMassachusetts 01060USA

A catalogue record for this bookis available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataProtecting nature : organizations and networks in Europe and the USA /edited by C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen and William T. Markham.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Nature conservation—Europe—Societies, etc.—Directories. 2. Natureconservation—United States—Societies, etc.—Directories. I. Koppen,C.S.A. van, 1953– II. Markham, William T., 1946–

QH77.E9P76 2007333.7206’04—dc22

2007029866

ISBN 978 1 84542 970 6

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall


5/312


6/312

Contributors

Magnus Boström , Stockholm University and Södertörn UniversityCollege, Sweden

Cécilia Claeys-Mekdade , Université de la Méditerranée, France

Piotr Gli´nski , Polish Academy of Science and University of Bialystok,PolandMarie Jacqué , Université de la Méditerranée, France

Malgorzata Koziarek , Polish Academy of Science, Poland

William T. Markham , University of North Carolina at Greensboro,USA

Angela G. Mertig , Middle Tennessee State University, USA

Giorgio Osti , University of Trieste, Italy

Christopher Rootes , University of Kent at Canterbury, UK

Ørnulf Seippel , Institute for Social Research, Oslo, and NorwegianUniversity for Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen , Wageningen University and Utrecht University,The Netherlands

vi


7/312

Abbreviations

CHAPTER 1

EEB European Environmental BureauEU European UnionIUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources, now World Conservation UnionNGO non-governmental organizationNSM new social movementSMO social movement organizationUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scienti c, and Cultural

OrganizationWWF World Wildlife Fund, now World Wide Fund for Nature

ENGLAND

BBC British Broadcasting CorporationBP British PetroleumBTCV British Trust for Conservation VolunteersCAFOD Catholic Agency for Overseas DevelopmentCND Campaign for Nuclear DisarmamentCoEnCo Committee (now Council) for Environmental

ConservationCPRE Council for the Preservation of Rural England, laterCouncil for the Protection of Rural England, nowCampaign to Protect Rural England

DfID Department for International DevelopmentEC European CommissionEEB European Environmental BureauEMO environmental movement organizationsEU European UnionFoE Friends of the EarthGBP pound sterlingGM genetically modi ed

vii


8/312

GMO genetically modi ed organismLWT Lincolnshire Wildlife TrustMP Member of ParliamentNC Nature ConservancyNT National TrustRSNC Royal Society for Nature ConservationRSPB Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsRSPCA Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsRSWT Royal Society of Wildlife TrustsSCC Stop Climate ChaosSSSI site of special scienti c interestUK United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland)UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and

DevelopmentWT Woodland TrustWWE Who’s Who in the EnvironmentWWF World Wildlife Fund, now World Wide Fund for

Nature

FRANCECAF Club Alpin Français (French Alpine Club)CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scienti que (National

Centre for Scienti c Research)DATAR Direction de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Action

Régionale (Regional Development and Regional ActionAgency)

FFSPN Federation Française des Sociétés de Protection de la

Nature (French Federation of Nature ConservationSocieties)FNE France Nature Environnement (Nature and

Environment Federation)FRAPNA Fédération Rhône Alpes de Protection de la Nature

(Nature Protection of Rhône Alpes Federation)INRA Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (National

Institute for Agronomic Research)LPO Ligue de Protection des Oiseaux (League for the

Protection of Birds)MEDD Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Developpement Durable

(Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development)

viii Protecting nature


9/312

SNA Société Nationale d’Acclimatation (NationalAcclimatization Society)

SNPN Société Nationale de Protection de la Nature (NationalSociety for Nature Protection)

SZA Société Zoologique d’Acclimatation (ZoologicalAcclimatization Society)

TCF Touring Club de France (Touring Club of France)WWF World Wildlife Fund, later World Wide Fund for

Nature

GERMANY

BBU Bundesverband Bürgerinitiativen (Federal Alliance of Citizens’ Initiatives for Environmental Protection)

BfV Bund für Vogelschutz (League for Bird Protection)BH Bund Heimatschutz (League for Homeland Protection)BIs Bürgerinitiativen (citizens’ initiatives)BN Bund Naturschutz in Bayern (Bavarian League for

Nature Protection)BUND Bund Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (League

for Environment and Nature Protection in Germany)DNR Deutscher Naturschutz Ring (German Nature

Protection League)GNU Gesellschaft für Natur und Umwelt (Society for Nature

and Environment)NABU Naturschutzbund Deutschland (German Nature

Protection League)SPD Social Democratic PartyWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

ITALY

LAV Lega Antivivisezione (Antivivisection League)LIPU Lega Italiana per la Protezione degli Uccelli (Italian

League for the Protection of Birds)IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, now World ConservationUnion

IUPN International Union for the Protection of NatureWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Abbreviations ix


10/312

NETHERLANDS

IFAW-NL Stichting IFAW Nederland (International Fund forAnimal Welfare Netherlands)

IVN Instituut voor Natuurbeschermingseducatie(Association for Environmental Education)

KNNV Koninklijke Nederlandse NatuurhistorischeVereniging (Royal Dutch Society for the Study of Wildlife)

NEN National Ecological NetworkNJN Nederlandse Jeugdbond voor Natuurstudie (Dutch

Youth Organization for Nature Studies)WNF Wereld Natuur Fonds (World Wide Fund for Nature)

NORWAY

DN Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (Directorate forNature Management)

FIOH Framtiden i våre hender (The Future in our Hands)FoEN Friends of the Earth, Norway

GEL Grønt hverdagsliv (Green Everyday Life)NJFF Norges jeger- og skerforbund (Norwegian Association

of Hunters and Anglers)NMT Den norske turistforening (Norwegian Mountain

Touring Association)NOAH NOAH – for dyrs rettigheter (NOAH – For Animal

Rights)NOU Norske o ff entlige utredninger (O fficial Norwegian

Report)

NSC Norges Naturvernforbund (Norwegian Society for theConservation of Nature)NY Natur og ungdom (Nature and Youth)SNM Samarbeidsgruppene for natur- og miljøvern

(Cooperation Groups for Nature and EnvironmentalProtection)

POLAND

CEE Central and Eastern EuropeEU European Union

x Protecting nature


11/312

InE Instytut na rzecz Ekorozwoju (Institute for SustainableDevelopment)

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources, now World Conservation Union

KOO Komitet Ochrony Orlów (Committee for EagleProtection)

LOP Liga Ochrony Przyrody (League for the Conservation of Nature)

OTOP Ogólnopolskie Towarzystwo Ochrony Ptaków (NationalBird Protection Society)

PTOP Pólnocnopodlaskie Towarzystwo Ochrony Ptaków(North Podlasian Bird Protection Society)

UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

SWEDEN

FoE Miljöförbundet Jordens Vänner (Friends of the Earth)FSC Forest Stewardship CouncilIUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources, now World Conservation UnionKF Kooperativa Förbundet (Cooperative Union and

Wholesale Society)KVA Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien (Royal Swedish

Academy of Sciences)KVAN KVAs Naturskyddskommitté (KVA’s committee for

nature conservation)LO Landsorganisationen i Sverige (Swedish Trade Union

Confederation)

PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certi

cationSEPA Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency)

SfH Samfundet för Hembygdsvård (Swedish HomesteadSociety)

SMO social movement organizationSOF Sveriges Ornitologiska Förening (Swedish Association

for Ornithologists)SSNC Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen (Swedish Society for

Nature Conservation)STF Svenska Turistföreningen (Swedish Tourist Club)WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Abbreviations xi


12/312

Acknowledgements

This book began as a conversation between the editors at the InternationalSociological Association’s 2002 World Congress of Sociology about theiroverlapping research interests. Several months later we decided to invite theauthors of ve of the country chapters included in this book to join us inpresenting papers about nature protection in their countries at the 2003conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA). The idea forthe book originated there. The next year, all but one of the members of thissame group had the opportunity to participate in a panel discussion onnature protection at an International Sociological Association conferencein Gorizia, Italy. The conference, which was jointly cosponsored by theInstitute for Sociology at the University of Gorizia, the Department of Human Science at the University of Trieste, and the Italian SociologicalAssociation, also a ff orded us the opportunity to critique one another’spapers from the ESA conference and set directions for the book. The 2005

meeting of the European Consortium for Political Research provided anopportunity for three of us to meet again and two of us to present much-revised papers. The 2005 ESA conference provided us a last chance to meetas a group and an opportunity to meet our Polish co-authors, who, alongwith Angela Mertig, were recruited to write their chapters after the meetingin Gorizia. This is how academic life is supposed to work, and we are grate-ful to the organizers and sponsors of all of these meetings for nurturing ourendeavour.

We are grateful too to the other members of the original ‘gang of eight’,

Magnus Boström, Cécilia Claeys-Mekdade and Marie Jacqué, GiorgioOsti, Chris Rootes and Ørnulf Seippel, who helped to shape this projectfrom the beginning, stuck with us through its extended gestation period,and patiently revised their papers time after time as we worked to create acommon framework for analysis. Equal credit belongs to Piotr Gliński andMalgorzata Koziarek and to Angela Mertig, who agreed to join us after theproject was under way, willingly shaped their chapters to t seamlessly intoan already ongoing project, and invariably responded quickly to ourrequests for quick turnaround. This book would not have been possiblewithout the dedication and cooperative spirit of these ne colleagues.

We are grateful to Wageningen University’s Environmental Policy Groupfor supporting Kris van Koppen in dedicating substantial parts of his time

xii


13/312

to this book. A much-appreciated invitation to Bill Markham from theEnvironmental Policy Group, with funding from the Wageningen Institutefor Environment and Climate Research, allowed us to work closely togetherduring the autumn of 2005, and the support of Steve Kroll-Smith and theSociology Department at UNC–Greensboro made it possible for Bill toaccept the opportunity. Both of us are grateful to the Environmental PolicyGroup for providing a pleasant and supportive working environment, andBill is indebted to the Fulbright Commission for the time away from hisregular duties provided by a 2004 Fulbright Fellowship, and to AngelikaWolf, who sponsored his visit at the University of Duisburg–Essen.

Brian Boylston, Bill’s Research Assistant, carefully and accurately proof-read almost every chapter and checked references. We also bene ted greatlyfrom the help and support of Chris Rootes, who carefully read and com-mented on several drafts of the nal chapter and coined the title of thebook. Needless to say, the work of editing and writing inevitably extendedfar beyond our usual o ffice hours. Therefore we are also much indebted tothe two people who put up with our many hours in our respective upstairsstudies in the USA and the Netherlands, Peggy and Stella.

Bill Markham and Kris van Koppen,Greensboro and Wageningen,

31 March 2007

Acknowledgements xiii


14/312


15/312

1. Nature protection in nine countries:a framework for analysisWilliam T. Markham and C.S.A. (Kris)van Koppen

This book is about organizations and networks created by citizens of Western societies to protect nature. We focus on them because the story of nature protection in these societies is largely their story. Nature protectionorganizations and networks were among therst national-level, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in these societies, and they have sur-vived over a century of wars, dictatorships, depressions and politicalturmoil. At times, they have participated in social movements that countednature protection among their goals – including most recently the environ-mental movement; however, they have also promoted nature protectionwhen it ranked far down the public agenda. Although nature protectionadvocates have often called on the state for support, and the state has occa-sionally taken the initiative in this area, nature protection has always beenpropelled, in large measure, by non-governmental organizations, networksand discourses.

Nature protection remains a vital endeavour today. The environmentalmovements of the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent institutionalizationof environmentalism did change the context in which nature protectiongroups operate, but nature protection was neither fully assimilated nor

shunted aside by environmentalism. Instead, nature protection groupsgained support, and many broadened their agendas to incorporate newthemes, while new environmental organizations typically accorded natureprotection a prominent role. Today, even as concern about pollution andresource depletion appears to be waning in many nations,nature protectionorganizations and networks continue to display remarkable vitality and, insome cases, spectacular growth. Indeed, organizations with nature protec-tion as a key goal are among the largest organizations concerned withenvironmental issues. They include groups as diverse as bird protection

organizations, organizations advocating for national parks and nature pro-tection areas, and organizations working to save ecosystems and impressivespecies in faraway lands. In many nations, they are deeply embedded in the

1


16/312

institutions of civil society, and many are linked to international NGOs,such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), that are among thelargest in the world.

Because of their long history and key roles, nature protection organiza-tions and networks in Western nations invite historical and comparativeanalysis, but this has been largely absent. Instead, social scientists (e.g. Diani1995; Oswald von Nell-Breuning-Institut 1996; Brulle 2000) have oftenviewed nature protection as an old-fashioned, limited manifestation of envir-onmentalism that has been largely supplanted by struggles against pollution,environmental injustice and nuclear power. Research on environmentalactivism is important, and some of it (e.g. Van der Heijden et al. 1992; Rootes2003) is comparative and relevant to our concerns; however, it often neglectsnature protection in favour of more dramatic movements and events. Otherrecent work on environmental NGOs (e.g. Mol 1995; Jänicke et al. 1999)emphasizes not nature protection, but reforms centred around ecologicalmodernization and new forms of governance.

Nature protection organizations and networks may also have beenneglected because they do nott standard social science taxonomies well(Lake 1998). They can be viewed as voluntary associations, interest groups,social movement organizations, or components of civil society, and theylend themselves to analysis from the standpoints of diverse theoretical per-

spectives, disciplines and national traditions (Markham 2006).This book represents a collaborative e ff ort by 11 sociologists to givenature protection organizations and networks the prominence they deserve.It addresses key questions about such organizations: Why do citizenssupport nature protection organizations? What strategies do they employ,and how do they choose among alternative goals and strategies? What rolesdo they play in society, and how e ff ectively do they play them? We addressthese questions through a comparative study of nature protection groups innine Western nations: Sweden, Norway, England, Poland, Germany, the

Netherlands, France, Italy and the USA. Although diff

erences in theconcrete circumstances in the nine societies and the information availablenecessitate some di ff erences in coverage, the authors committed themselvesto use a common approach designed to facilitate comparisons. Because weview organized e ff orts by citizens to protect nature as important in their ownright, each chapter places them at the centre of the analysis. We believe thatmuch can be learned by examining nature protection in di ff erent historicalperiods and that present-day organizations cannot be understood apartfrom their historical context, so we compare nature protection organiza-tions and networks not only across nations, but also across historicalperiods. We believe that nature protection groups must be understoodin context. Therefore each chapter examines how economic structures,

2 Protecting nature


17/312


18/312

‘cultural landscapes’ to describe this vision of nature because it emphasizesthat such ‘nature’ is a product of human activity. Parklands and countyestates purposefully maintained to conform to cultural images of naturalbeauty are also included here, but golf courses, playing elds, and otherareas created for active recreational use are not. This concept of nature isless widespread in North America than in Europe (Lange 2000), but e ff ortsby land preservation groups to preserve scenic farmland show that it exists

there as well. The speci

c types of landscapes seen as worthy of protectionvary across place and time, but once again there is a shared core of meaning.Nature protection in Western societies also frequently focuses on wild

animals and plants, that is, on species that have not been modied by breed-ing and domestication and do not live in captivity. The circle for wildanimals and plants in Figure 1.1 overlaps both wilderness and culturallandscapes, but it is not coextensive with them because such species also livein areas that are neither wilderness nor cultural landscapes. These includecities, recreational areas, and agricultural lands that would not qualify ascultural landscapes.

These core spheres of nature protection are re ected in the various types of protected areas distinguished by the IUCN (Box 1.1). Category I represents

4 Protecting nature

Figure 1.1 Core spheres of nature protection and related spheres of action

Protectionof manmademonuments

Agriculture,forestry and

fisheries

Protectionof

culturallandscapes

Protectionof wild

animals andplants

Protectionof

wilderness

Protectionof humanhealth and

survival

Avoidingnaturalresourcedepletion

Recreationalnature use

Animalwelfare Scientificstudy of

nature


19/312

wilderness strictly protected from human intervention. In category IV speciesprotection is central. In categories II, III and V, varying degrees of humanintervention are allowed, and category V matches the concept of ‘culturallandscape’ especially well (Pimbert and Pretty 1995).

Goals of Nature Protection Organizations and Networks

Some organizations or networks in each of the nations included here focusprimarily or exclusively on protecting wilderness, cultural landscapes, andwild animals or plants or some combination of the three. We reserve theterms ‘nature protection organization’ and ‘nature protection network’ forthem; however, each nation also has organizations or networks that pursuenature protection as secondary to other goals. Figure 1.1 displays the mostcommon of these other goals in the circles arrayed around the three corespheres of nature protection. We have positioned each near the nature pro-tection goals with which it is most commonly associated, although no fullyadequate representation is possible in two-dimensional space. The mostcommon combination involves organizations or networks that couplenature protection goals with an emphasis on human health and survivaland/or natural resource conservation. We refer to such groups as environ-mental organizations or networks. Organizations or networks that focus on

one or both of these goals but lack an emphasis on nature protection arealso commonly called environmental groups, but we have not includedthem in this book.

Other organizations and networks combine nature protection, usuallyprotection of cultural landscapes, with protection of historic, manmadestructures. A less common combination unites nature protection – almostalways the protection of wild animals – with protection of domestic animals.A fourth combination joins scienti c interest in nature with e ff orts to protectit. Traditionally referred to in English as ‘natural history’, it focuses on cat-

aloguing and describing species and their habitats. Professional researchershave always been involved in this work, but amateur researchers have alwaysoutnumbered them. Other groups bring together nature protection andeff orts to maintain viable or sustainable agriculture, forestry, or sheries.Finally, numerous groups unite nature protection with e ff orts to maintainconditions necessary for recreation in nature. The activities involved include shing, hunting, hiking, canoeing and country walking.

A complete treatment of nature protection groups must thus encompassnot only nature protection organizations and networks in the strictest sense,but also groups where nature protection shares the stage with other goals. Weused two criteria to determine which organizations and networks of the lattertype to emphasize: (1) the signi cance of nature protection goals for the

A framework for analysis 5


20/312

6 Protecting nature

BOX 1.1 IUCN (WORLD CONSERVATION UNION)PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENTCATEGORIES

Category Ia: Strict nature reserve/wilderness protection areamanaged mainly for science or wilderness protection – anarea of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or repre-sentative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/orspecies, available primarily for scientic research and/or environ-mental monitoring.

Category Ib : Wilderness area: protected area managed mainlyfor wilderness protection – large area of unmodied or slightlymodied land and/or sea, retaining its natural characteristics andinuence, without permanent or signicant habitation, which is pro-tected and managed to preserve its natural condition.

Category II : National park: protected area managed mainly forecosystem protection and recreation – natural area of landand/or sea designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of oneor more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b)exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of des-ignation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, sci-entic, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all ofwhich must be environmentally and culturally compatible.

Category III : Natural monument: protected area managedmainly for conservation of specic natural features – areacontaining specic natural or natural/cultural feature(s) of out-standing or unique value because of their inherent rarity, repre-sentativeness or aesthetic qualities or cultural signicance.

Category IV: Habitat/species management area: protectedarea managed mainly for conservation through managementintervention – area of land and/or sea subject to active interven-tion for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenanceof habitats to meet the requirements of specic species.

Category V: Protected landscape/seascape: protected areamanaged mainly for landscape/seascape conservation orrecreation – area of land, with coast or sea as appropriate, wherethe interaction of people and nature over time has produced anarea of distinct character with signicant aesthetic, ecological


21/312

group’s mission and (2) the group’s size and in uence. Where national organ-izations are branches of international organizations such as Greenpeace orthe WWF, we applied these criteria to the national branch, not to the inter-national organization as a whole.

Structures and Strategies of Nature Protection Organizations andNetworks

We use the term ‘nature protection organization’ to refer to groups that arerelatively formally organized; ordinarily, they have a constitution or bylawsthat formally describe their goals and structure, the duties of leaders,employees and members, and the method of leadership selection (Hall2002). Their members are individuals, not other organizations.Organizations thatt this denition vary along a wide variety of dimen-sions, including: (1) whether the highest level of organization is local,national or international, and whether there are chapters at lower levels; (2)

the extent to which policy making and leader selection are democratic; (3)the degree of reliance on paid professionals versus volunteers to accom-plish tasks; and (4) the extent to which a group’snancial support comesfrom individual supporters, donations from business or foundations, gov-ernment subsidies, contracts with government or business, revenues fromtheir publications, and sales of products or services to individuals.

By networks, we mean loosely organized groupings whose membersare independent nature protection groups or organizations. Networksare usually created to exchange information, coordinate the activities of member groups, and provide mutual assistance (Diani and McAdam 2003).Networks vary structurally in important ways, including: (1) whether theirmembers are informally organized local nature protection groups, formally


and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity.Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the

protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.Category VI: Managed resource protected area: protectedarea managed mainly for the sustainable use of naturalresources – area containing predominantly unmodied naturalsystems, managed to ensure long-term protection and mainte-nance of biological diversity, while also providing a sustainableow of natural products and services to meet community needs.

Source: IUCN (1994).


22/312

structured organizations, or both; (2) whether they are geographicallybased (i.e. national, regional or local), include only groups with a specicgoal, or both; and (3) whether individuals can also be direct members.

Organizations and networks with nature protection goals employ a widearray of specic strategies, but we can distinguish four general approaches.The rst is lobbying government to place specic areas under protection – sometimes after acquiring them – or implement other measures (e.g. con-trolling hunting or animal trade or reducing pollution) to protect nature.Lobbying often involves building alliances with specic government agen-cies and other organizations. A second strategy is protests to attract mediaattention and inuence public opinion or politics. Third, many nature pro-tection groups seek to educate citizens about nature and nature protection.Some educational activities involve simply providing information; othersuse group activities, such as excursions in nature, to build solidarity amongsupporters and attract new ones. Some educational activities are directedto a broad audience, while others are aimed at specic groups. A fourthstrategy is acquisition and/or management of nature reserves for the publicgood.

The wide variety of structures, goals and strategies means that there isno such thing as ‘the’ typical nature protection organization. In fact,exploring the causes and consequences of this variation is one of the chief

goals of this book.

THE NATIONS STUDIED

The decision to focus this book on Western nations rather than includingcountries elsewhere was a carefully considered one. There are, to be sure,major nature protection challenges throughout the world, and nature pro-tection organizations and networks in Western countries exist within the

broader context of international nature protection. Nevertheless, it is ourpremise that nature protection organizations and networks in the devel-oped nations of Europe and North America are of signal importance andinterest in their own right.

Several arguments support this premise. First, nature protection organ-izations occupy a special place in the civil societies of most Western nations.They were among the earliest signicant NGOs in these societies, and theyhave a long record of public support and accomplishment. They provideopportunities for citizens interested in nature protection to work together,inuence politics, and acquire and manage nature protection areas, andthey have sometimes functioned as components of social movements.Second, as demonstrated below, nature protection is deeply rooted in

8 Protecting nature


23/312

Western culture. Third, models and practices of nature protection fromWestern countries have a strong impact on eff orts elsewhere, and thenature protection problems of some rapidly developing societies may sooncome to approximate those of Western nations. Finally, Western nationsvary enough in the nature protection challenges they face, in their political,economic and cultural contexts, and in the structure, goals and strategiesof their nature protection groups to allow fruitful comparisons and usefulgeneralizations. At the same time, they are similar enough to keep thisrsteff ort to make comparisons and formulate generalizations from being over-whelmed by the enormous variation that exists worldwide.

We have purposefully selected eight European nations with a wide rangeof cultural traditions, population densities and geographical characteristics.Seven, stretching from Norway and Sweden in the North to Italy in theSouth, lie in Western Europe, but we extended our range into Central Europeto include Poland, a Western nation that exempli es the era of socialistcontrol and a new course today towards European integration. The chapteron Germany also brie y considers Poland’s former socialist neighbour, theGerman Democratic Republic. We included the USA as representative of North America because of its distinct history and cultural and politicaltraditions and its worldwide in uence. We further illustrate the range of vari-ation below by exploring the major contextual factors – geographic, cultural,

economic and political – that vary among our countries and may in uencethe goals, structures and strategies of nature protection groups.

Biogeographical and Demographic Contexts

Diff erences in geography and demographics may inuence the structure,goals and strategies of organizations with nature protection goals. Oursample countries vary considerably in these respects, and some nations alsohave great variation within their borders.

One salient feature is simply the kinds of ‘nature’ that are available toprotect. Some of the nations studied retain large and relatively undisturbedwilderness areas. Norwegians and Americans can thus, if they choose,focus on saving remote mountain areas where wolves still roam, while citi-zens of very densely populated areas may have to content themselves withprotecting traditional agricultural landscapes that harbour beloved birdspecies. Other diff erences involve the availability of natural resources,forests, hydropower, coal etc. While the sheer availability of these resourcesdoes not guarantee conicts over their extraction and use, their absenceprecludes such conicts.

Also potentially inuential are the extent of urbanization and ongoingdemographic changes in the countryside. In densely populated areas,



24/312

cultural landscapes and wild animals and plants come under pressure fromurban sprawl and urban pollution.Where depopulation is occurring, on theother hand, preservation of traditional cultural landscapes and opportun-ities to create new nature reserves or wild areas may become important.

Nature protection goals and activities are moulded by such variation,which itself is subject to change over time. Because this study is also his-torical, we can compare not only societies today, but also periods whenwilderness was disappearing, cultural landscapes were changing, andurbanization was occurring.

Cultural Contexts

Nature protection issues are not, however, simply ‘given’ by geography orpopulation. They are constructed by human actors who ‘frame’ them inspecic ways (Hannigan 1995). The history of Western views of nature pro-tection is thus also a cultural history of changing sensibilities towardanimals, plants, wilderness and landscapes. Understandings of nature havebeen aff ected, for example, by urbanization and industrialization, whichseparated employment from winning a living from soil, forests and domes-tic animals, and increased leisure time. Cultural trends, such as increases inthe popularity of pets, the expansion of ornamental gardening from the

upper and upper-middle classes to other strata, and the emergence of asso-ciations and laws for animal welfare have signalled changing views of nature (Thomas 1993), and views of cultural landscapes and wildernesshave been mediated by poetry, music and the works of landscape painters.Painters such as Ruisdael and Constable introduced urban elites to thebeauty of the countryside, and the romantic Rocky Mountain wildernesspaintings of Bierstadt off ered Americans and Europeans a window on wildnature (Bazarov 1981; Honour 1981; Schama 1995). As Schama expressedit, ‘Landscapes are culture before they are nature; constructs of the imagi-

nation projected onto wood and rock’ (Schama 1995, p. 61).Representations of nature in literature and art often transcend nationalboundaries, but there can also be marked di ff erences in cultural interpre-tations of nature. As pointed out above, nature protection can be centredon protection of wilderness, wild animals and plants, or cultural land-scapes, and preservation of cultural artefacts, such as traditional buildingstyles and ruins, can be seen either as part and parcel of nature conserva-tion or as a distinct activity. Tracking the in uence of cultural change andvariations in national cultures on conceptions of nature and nature pro-tection and examining how culture interacts with the underlying ‘plate tec-tonics’ of geography and demography constitutes another important focusof this book.

10 Protecting nature


25/312

Economic and Political Contexts

All the nations in our study have industrialized, capitalist economies,although they industrialized at diff erent times. Most are now undergoingprocesses of deindustrialization and service sector growth, although atdiff erent rates. Several have signicant agricultural or resource extractionsectors, and some display considerable regional variation in economicstructure. Diff erences in the economic bases of nations or regions, as wellas changes over time, might well be associated with diff ering nature pro-tection issues and diff ering amounts of conict between nature protectionand economic interests. Conicts between resource extraction industriesand nature protection, for example, typically revolve around establishingnature protection areas, instituting sustainable production practices, andreducing the damage resulting from mining, logging and similar industries.Industrial rms, by contrast, are more likely to produce emissions thatthreaten forests, rivers, or other ecosystems and may resist controls on theseemissions. Service sector industries are least likely to resist nature protec-tion proposals; however, regardless of industry, if rms become convincedthat sustainable production and ecological modernization allow them toprotect nature without harming their competitive position, conicts overregulations to protect nature should diminish (Mol 1995). Businesses may

also support nature protection eff orts in order to burnish their images orout of genuine concern, and even industrialrms sometimes contribute toeff orts to protect wild species, as these seldom threaten their interests(Dalton 1994; Bosso 1995).

Historically some of the nations in our study experienced fascist or statesocialist regimes, allowing comparisons of how groups with nature pro-tection goals functioned under these political systems. Today all are demo-cratically governed, but political systems do di ff er. Some tend towardspluralism, a system in which numerous independent interest groups work

to in

uence politics, interest groups frequently form temporary coalitionson particular issues, and political decisions are generally compromisesre ecting the relative in uence of the groups involved (Dahl 1961;Petracca 1992b). Other political systems lean towards neo-corporatism.Here major interest groups, especially business and labour, are encouragedby government to organize as large national associations. Such associa-tions enjoy privileged access to decision-making circles, where decisionsare reached through compromise and consensus, and they are invited tocooperate in policy implementation. They may also receive government nancial support; however, they are expected to accept the decisionsreached and persuade their members to follow them (Schmitter andLehmbruch 1979; Lehmbruch and Schmitter 1982; Wilson 1990). We



26/312

explore the likely implications of these di ff ering systems for nature pro-tection groups in the section on interest group theories below.

More concrete diff erences in the organization and functioning of polit-ical systems may also be consequential. For example, in federal states,where decision making is decentralized, interest groups have considerableincentive to form regional branches, while those in unitary states might bemore eff ective by focusing on the national level (van der Heijden 1997;Dryzek et al. 2003). Interest groups in nations with legal systems thatprovide many opportunities to appeal unfavourable government decisionsmay have more incentive to develop expertise and activity in this area (vander Heijden 1997; Stein 2003), and nature protection groups in societieswhere government plays the major role in acquiring and managing naturereserves face a diff erent situation than those elsewhere. The question of how the organization of the state aff ects nature protection organizationsand networks resurfaces repeatedly in the chapters that follow.

POLICY ARRANGEMENTS AND NATUREPROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS ATINTERNATIONAL LEVELS

This book’s emphasis on comparing nature protection in Western nation-states should not blind us to the crucial importance of international natureprotection e ff orts and their e ff ects on national-level nature protectionorganizations and networks. Demographic, cultural, economic and politicalfactors at the national level are increasingly in uenced by globalization andinternational cooperations, and international nature protection organiza-tions and networks are prominent players on the international stage. Here itis possible only to highlight key international structures and developments.We begin with an overview of international environmental governance, fol-

lowed by a look at the most important international environmental NGOs.All the nations in our sample are members of international politicalorganizations such as the International Whaling Commission and signato-ries of nature protection treaties and conventions, such as the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species, and the Ramsar Convention for the protection of wet-lands (van Kersbergen and van Waarden 2004). Nature protection organ-izations and networks played signicant roles in bringing about virtually allof these agreements, and the agreements, in turn, have signicant impactson national-level nature protection eff orts.

Nature protection organizations and networks also cooperate withtwo United Nations organizations involved in nature protection, UNEP



27/312

(the United Nations Environmental Programme) and UNESCO (theUnited Nations Educational, Scientic, and Cultural Organization).However, the most inuential international nature protection organizationis probably the IUCN (World Conservation Union), founded in 1948. TheIUCN has always cooperated closely with governmental agencies, but, infact, it is a hybrid organization. Its membership includes 81 states, 109 gov-ernmental agencies, and some 800 NGOs (IUCN 2006). It is best knownfor spearheading the international movement for nature parks and pro-tected areas (Swanson 1997). Along with the UNEP, it played a major rolein preparing the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity (Suplie 1995).

For eight of our nations, the most important supra-state organization isthe European Union (EU). Environmental policy has become a majordomain of EU activity, and over 200 EU directives and regulations requiremember states to pass and enforce environmental legislation, including leg-islation to protectora and fauna (Rucht 1997; Sbragia 2000; Roose 2002;Hey 2004). The two most important EU directives concerning nature pro-tection are the Bird Directive (Directive 79/409) and the Habitats Directive(Directive 92/43/EEC). They call for conservation of the natural habitats of endangered plant and animal species. Each EU member state is obliged todesignate sites for the protection of the species listed under the Directivesand provide legally binding measures for their protection. The areas desig-

nated to comply with the two Directives constitute the ‘Natura 2000’network, and the Directives call for measures, such as the protection of eco-logical corridors and stepping-stones, to combine the Natura 2000 areas ina Europe-wide network (Coff ey and Richartz 2003).

EU directives have given strong impetus to national nature protection,but their impact depends partly on pre-existing nature protection policies.For the older member states, the Directives have meant signicantmodications of existing regulations, sometimes accompanied by contro-versy. For new member states, such as Poland, EU accession has required

that regulations and Natura 2000 areas be established very quickly.The EU has also supplemented the nature protection groups’ resources inseveralways. It hasprovided substantial funds for their nature protection pro-

jects, and nature protection organizations and networks have been involvedin EU consultations, such as drafting lists of Habitat Directive areas. Finally,nature protection groups can turn to the European Court of Justice whengovernmental authorities in their country fail to ful l their obligations.

International Nature Protection Organizations

International organizations and networks constitute an increasinglyimportant contextual factor for national nature protection groups, and



28/312

some national nature protection organizations are branches of inter-national ones. Moreover, the work of international nature protection orga-nizations and networks has contributed to the internationalization of nature protection policy. Eff orts by the IUCN and WWF, for example, pre-pared the ground for several international nature protection conventions.In addition to the IUCN, the organizations described below are among themost important.

The World Wide Fund for NatureThe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), known originally – and still in theUSA – as the World Wildlife Fund, is the largest, best-known internationalnature protection organization. It was founded in the UK in 1961 by scien-tists, prominent conservationists, wealthy donors and political elites whowanted to develop a vehicle to raise money for projects to protect wildlifethroughout the world. The donors provided the working capital to fundadministrative expenses, but funding for WWF projects comes mainly frompublic and corporate donations. WWF’s national branches are independentorganizations, but they cooperate closely with the international organizationand support it nancially. In its early years, WWF devoted itself mainly toestablishing wildlife reserves and protecting impressive species in less devel-oped countries. Later, it realized that this strategy was not fully adequate and

moved toward protecting entire ecosystems and providing economicallyviable options for local citizens who might otherwise destroy wildlife. Inrecent years, WWF has also embraced the concept of sustainable develop-ment and launched campaigns against worldwide threats to wildlife such asclimate change; however, it continues its highly visible e ff orts to protect largeimpressive species (Haag 1986; Dalton 1994; Denton 1993; Wapner 1996).

With almostve million supporters and 4000 employees, WWF is thelargest international environmental organization. It has independentbranches in 30 nations and offices in over 20 more. Its total income world-

wide was almost 390000000 (WWF International 2006a, 2006b).GreenpeaceGreenpeace originated in Canadian-based protests against US nucleartesting. Branches formed almost immediately in the USA and severalEuropean countries, and Greenpeace International was organized in 1979to coordinate their eff orts. Greenpeace International quickly broadened itsagenda to include environmental and nature protection issues, such asindustrial emissions and whaling. It is, therefore, best classied as an envir-onmental organization, not a pure nature protection organization.

Greenpeace’s trademark is staging spectacular actions in which it pre-sents itself as a morally indignant David risking life and limb to point up



29/312

environmental abuses and challenge sel sh and callous Goliaths.Greenpeace activists have sailed ships into nuclear testing zones, drivenrubber rafts between whalers and whales, and climbed smokestacks of pol-luting industries to hang banners calling attention to problems. Theseactions are professionally planned and executed media events designed toraise public consciousness about environmental issues and pressure busi-nesses or government to change. They are well publicized by Greenpeace’sprofessional press o ffice. In general, its actions focus on problems that areeasy to understand and report. Greenpeace also conducts research to high-light environmental problems, commissions scienti c reports, sponsorsdemonstration projects of ecologically sound technologies, and lobbiesnational governments and international government agencies (Rucht 1995;Wapner 1996; Brand et al. 1997).

The combined income of Greenpeace International and all of its chap-ters in 2004 was over 162000000. As of 2002, it claimed about 2.8 milliondonors worldwide. Greenpeace has o ffices in 41 nations, although only 27are full edged national chapters (Greenpeace International 2006a, 2006b).National chapters of Greenpeace are bound to the international organiza-tion by a strict contract, and major protests must be cleared with theinternational headquarters, which controls the allocation of ships andequipment, and operates the international press o ffice (Rucht 1995;

Flechner 1999). Greenpeace has a small Brussels o ffice charged with keepingGreenpeace International and its European chapters informed aboutEuropean developments and representing Greenpeace positions to the EU(Rucht 1997; Webster 1998; Roose 2002).

Friends of the EarthFriends of the Earth is a federation of over 70 national environmentalorganizations. It originated in 1969 as an o ff shoot of the US Sierra Cluband was soon joined by sister organizations in Britain, Sweden and

France. It has emerged in recent years as a strong opponent of globaliza-tion and industrialized agriculture, and a strong advocate for grass-rootsdemocracy, locally based economies, biodiversity, and environmental

justice in relations between industrialized and less developed countries. Itis therefore best classi ed as an environmental network (Dowie 1995;Jordan and Maloney 1997; Friends of the Earth International 2001,2005).

Friends of the Earth International claims about 1.5 million members.It is organized as a network of autonomous organizations, many of whichexisted before joining it. Its comparatively small budget of about1200000comes primarily from government and foundation grants for specic projects (Friends of the Earth International 2005; Doherty 2006). It maintains



30/312

an office in Brussels to lobby the EU and supply its members withinformation (Roose 2002).

The European Environmental BureauThe European Environmental Bureau (EEB) is a network of environmen-tal and nature protection organizations set up in 1974 by 25 national-levelenvironmental organizations to lobby the EU and keep its member organ-izations informed of EU policy. The EU’s Environmental Directorateprefers input from multinational networks over input from national-levelorganizations, and the EEB has always received part of itsnancial supportfrom the Directorate and enjoyed substantial access to it (Hey and Brendle1994; Sbragia 2000; Rootes 2004). At present, the EEB has 143 membergroups (European Environmental Bureau 2006). It works in numerousenvironmental policy areas and has working groups comprising EEB staff and representatives from the member organizations for most of them;however, its own staff is small. The EEB’s governing board comprises onemember from each EU nation, plus Norway (Webster 1998; Roose 2002).

Other organizationsMany other international organizations and networks are active innature protection. BirdLife International, for example, is a well-funded

and -organized network, which gathers information and provides it to itsaffiliates, coordinates their eff orts, and lobbies the EU and other interna-tional bodies (Webster 1998; Roose 2002). Conservation International andthe Rainforest Alliance are US-based international organizations thatfocus on biodiversity ‘hotspots’ in developing countries. Like the majororganizations describe above, their inuence on national nature protectiongroups receives attention in the chapters that follow.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO NATUREPROTECTION

One reason for the neglect of nature protection organizations and networksin past research is the difficulty of situating them theoretically. Nature pro-tection groups have generally been inclined towards work within thesystem, and their constituencies often include persons from privilegedstrata; however, they also have numerous supporters from other classes andgrass-roots groups, and they have occasionally adopted more radical goalsand confrontational strategies. No existing theoretical approach capturesall of this diversity, so nature protection groups have been analysed vari-ously as interest groups, social movements, civil society associations, and



31/312

voluntary associations. This book privileges none of these approaches.Instead, the authors use varying theoretical frames, depending on the focusof analysis and the country under investigation. This section sets the stagefor subsequent chapters with a brief overview of the major theoreticalapproaches to nature protection. As a heuristic, we classify them accordingto whether and how they address three key questions: (1) Why do people join nature protection organizations? (2) Why do nature protection organ-izations choose the goals, structures and strategies they do? (3) What rolesdo nature protection organizations play in society?

Why People Join Nature Protection Organizations

To understand nature protection organizations and networks, we mustrstexplore why people choose to invest eff ort and energy in protecting nature.This is by no means a simple question, and answers have been proposedfrom many disciplinary perspectives.

The free-rider hypothesis and its criticsDiscussions of why people contribute funds or volunteer work to natureprotection groups often begin with the free-rider problem. According toOlson’s (1965; see also Jordan and Maloney 1997) well-known formaliza-

tion, free riding is likely when large organizations attempt to mobilize largenumbers of people to work to produce collective goods – benets that canbe enjoyed by all citizens – or to inuence government or business toproduce them. Were they purely rational actors, citizens would refrain fromcontributing to such groups because: (a) the fruits of any successful eff ortsby the organization can be enjoyed equally by those who contributednothing, and (b) no one individual’s contribution has much impact onwhether the group reaches its goals. Many people do behave as Olson pre-dicted, but hundreds of thousands do join nature protection organizations

and networks. How can this be explained?First, while some citizens seek to protect nature so that they can person-ally enjoy its use (e.g. for outdoor recreation), decisions to support natureprotection are often expressions of deeply held moral or emotional senti-ments towards nature. That is, many supporters of nature protectiongroups wish to preserve nature for future generations and for its own sake(Hargrove 1989; Takacs 1996; Felbinger 2005). For such persons therst of the two reasons for withholding support cited above is largely irrelevant.

Second, calculations of whether one’s contributions to nature protectiongroups have a signicant impact on their success may not be made oncompletely rational grounds. Supporters may assess their contributions asmore important to the groups’ success than is realistic, and fundraising



32/312

campaigns are likely to do all they can to promote this misapprehension byusing strategies such as emphasizing ‘collective bads’, the damage to naturethat will result if something is not done immediately (Jordan and Maloney1997; Felbinger 2005). More prosperous supporters may view the costs of their nancial contributions as too small to warrant elaborate cost–benetanalysis (Diekmann and Preisendörfer 1998), and supporters who aremorally committed to the cause may be disinclined to make such calcula-tions in therst place. For them, supporting nature protection groups maybe perceived as a moral or normative obligation, and doing so may alsoprovide them with the ‘warm glow’ that comes from doing the ‘right thing’.For some supporters, membership in nature protection groups may alsoserve as a way of reinforcing a valued identity as nature lovers (Mount1996; Felbinger 2005).Finally, supporters of nature protection organizations and networks maynd their participation rewarding in other ways. The nature protectiongroups themselves may off er ‘selective incentives’ (e.g. subscriptions tomember magazines or opportunities to join ‘outings’) that are availableonly to members. Joining a nature protection group may provide socialcontacts or – if the group is prestigious – social status; volunteer work mayhelp volunteers acquire skills or career qualications, and leadership insuch groups may provide political inuence. Questionnaire studies suggest

that such motivations are typically of less importance to supporters thancommitment to the group’s goals, but they may well provide additionalincentives to participate for some and be decisive for a few (Smith 1994;Jordan and Maloney 1997; Shaiko 1999; Felbinger 2005).

The biophilia hypothesisWhy so many individuals desire to protect nature in therst place has beenthe subject of much debate in literature from philosophy, sociology, psy-chology and biology. One commonly used set of approaches (e.g. Kahn and

Kellert 2002) is rooted in environmental or ecological psychology and evo-lutionary biology. Attention restoration theory, for example, argues thatmodern society puts individuals under mental strain by forcing them toconstantly pay attention to a multitude of stimuli. To recover from theresulting fatigue, restorative environments are needed (Kaplan and Kaplan2005). Nature is the restorative environment par excellence, an indispens-able way to compensate for the stresses of modern life.

Other authors relate human a ff ection for natural landscapes to theevolutionary roots of Homo sapiens as a dweller of the African savannahlandscape (e.g. Orians and Heerwagen 1992). The most widely known the-oretical claim of this type, however, is the biophilia hypothesis introducedby E.O. Wilson (1984; see also Kellert and Wilson 1993). It asserts that



33/312

positive values attached to the natural world ‘re ect affinities for nature thatpresumably have proven adaptive in human evolution’(Kellert 2002, p. 129).The expression of these values is shaped by learning, culture and experience,and varies greatly across individuals and groups, but ‘this variability and itshealthy expression are . . . biologically limited and bounded’ (ibid.).

The Arcadian traditionRegardless of whether one accepts the premise that humans are psycho-logically or biologically programmed to care about nature, it is clear thatculture plays a key role in shaping sentiments toward nature. Beginningwith this assumption, the ‘Arcadian tradition’ approach links individualmotives and values regarding nature protection in Western societies tobroad social, economic and cultural trends (Van Koppen 2000, 2002).Drawing on the cultural history research of Worster (1985), Hargrove(1989), Thomas (1993), Schama (1995) and others, it links Western viewsof nature to aesthetic, moral and other cultural values that emerged in par-allel to the modernization of Western society and were articulated in theirmodern forms by Romanticism.Landscape painting, natural history, recre-ation in nature, and care for animals and plants are typical expressions of this tradition, which, since the Industrial Revolution, has spread fromurban elites to broader categories of citizens, propelled by increasing

income and leisure opportunities, and a growing separation from nature indaily work (see section on the cultural context of nature protection above).According to this view, the key motives for citizens’ eff orts to protect

nature are to be found in this ‘profound shift in sensibilities’ towards plants,animals and landscapes (Thomas 1993, p. 15). In many ways, this shiftcomplements increased efficiency in the use of nature as a resource for pro-duction in modern society. It thus constitutes an inherent ‘undercurrent’of modernization, which was already thematized by Horkheimer and Adornoas the ‘dialectic of enlightenment’ (Horkheimer and Adorno 1971[1947]).

By placing valuation of nature for its non-use values at centre stage, theArcadian tradition hypothesis helps to explain why nature protection hasassumed such a central and persistent place in Western societies. Howvalues like these inuence motivation to support nature protection and hownature protection groups succeed in attracting supporters thus becomes akey question for exploration in this study.

Goals, Structures and Strategies of Nature Protection Organizations andNetworks

Understanding nature protection organizations and networks requiresknowing more than why people support them. We also need to know why



34/312

such groups choose the goals, strategies and structures that they do, andhow they interact with the state and other social actors. Interest grouptheories, theories of organizations, and theories of social movements alloff er important insights into these questions.

Interest group theoryAccording to interest group theory, people with shared interests fre-quently set up organized interest groups to work within the politicalsystem to in uence political decisions and their implementation. Theyaccomplish this by (1) lobbying or testifying before legislators and gov-ernment agencies, (2) mobilizing citizens to sign petitions or contact theauthorities, (3) conducting public information campaigns, (4) in uencingelection outcomes through campaign contributions and voter mobiliza-tion, and (5) staging occasional protests to in uence politicians or publicopinion (Wilson 1990; Walker 1991; Petracca 1992a). Interest group the-ories are most applicable to organizations and networks that emphasizesuch activities. They are less relevant to organizations and networks thatrely mainly on confrontation or those that focus on non-political activ-ities, such as acquisition of nature reserves or environmental education of children.

In addition to investigating how organizations recruit individual sup-

porters and donors, researchers have noted the importance of funding fromfoundations, wealthy private donors, and even government in initiatingand sustaining interest groups (Godwin 1988; Jordan and Maloney 1997;Shaiko 1999; Bosso 2005). Although some scholars decry interest groupsas undermining democracy by giving voice only to well-resourced ‘specialinterests’, others emphasize their positive contributions. These include clar-ifying and bundling needs and discontents that might otherwise remainunarticulated and ensuring that they are recognized by the political system.Nature protection organizations and networks can clearly be considered in

this light (Berry 1984; Rucht 1993).Interest group theorists have also examined how political systems incor-porate interest groups into their functioning. The most commonly usedmodels are the pluralist and neo-corporatist approaches already describedbriey above.

Pluralist theory, developed mainly in the USA, sees interest groups ascompeting with one another for political inuence, which they gain bymobilizing supporters and funds and using them skilfully. Some groupshave more such resources than others, but ordinarily no single group hasenough inuence to reach all of its objectives. Proposals advanced by onegroup frequently work to the detriment of others, and the more extreme theplan, the greater the resources other groups can mobilize to resist it.



35/312

Therefore most decisions are compromises fought out within the politicalsystem. Interest groups can increase their inuence by forming coalitionswith other groups, but groups with nothing at stake generally avoid takingsides (Dahl 1961; Petracca 1992b).

Pluralist systems make it easy for nature protection organizationsand networks to participate in politics, but they are typically relativelyuninuential organizations whose main power resource is their broad baseof public support. Accomplishing their more ambitious goals – saving largeareas or crusades against climate change or ocean pollution – may there-fore require strong allies to overcome the resistance such proposals evoke.The most likely allies are interest groups representing the various interestsshown in Figure 1.1 above. Unless they cannd powerful allies, nature pro-tection organizations and networks may have to settle for what they canaccomplish through conventional interest group strategies or turn to massmobilization or protest to gain inuence.

The neo-corporatist model bestts societies such as Sweden and theNetherlands, where broad sectors of society, especially business and labour,are organized as powerful associations. These associations are deeply inter-twined with government, which recognizes them as speaking for theirsectors and includes them in deliberations about key decisions. In return,they must be willing to compromise and to persuade the individuals and

organizations in their sector to accept decisions reached in these negoti-ations. Government may support the interest groupsnancially and allo-cate responsibility for carrying out important tasks to them (Schmitter andLehmbruch 1979; Lehmbruch and Schmitter 1982; Wilson 1990).

In comparison to business or labour, nature protection groups aretypically among the weaker actors in neo-corporatist systems. They are,therefore, at risk of being excluded altogether if their demands are tooradical. Ensuring participation is likely to require considerable willingnessto compromise. Corporatist systems might work to the advantage of nature

protection organizations if they succeeded in gaining access to decision-making circles, but they would then come under pressure to form a singleorganization or umbrella association. Where nature protection organiza-tions and networks are excluded from decision making, they might experi-ence difficulty inuencing government and have to move towards protestoutside the system or choose to emphasize other goals.

Organization theoryMany branches of organization theory focus mainly on businessrms andgovernment agencies, but two theories from this literature, open systemstheory and the neo-institutional approach, have considerable potential foranalysing organizations with nature protection goals.



36/312

Open systems models (Thompson 1967; Katz and Kahn 1978) highlightthe eff ects of organizations’ social contexts on their goals, structures andstrategies. Specically, they suggest that an organization’s behaviour isinuenced not only by its general social and cultural milieu, but also by thepreferences and behaviour of (1) individuals and organizations from whichit acquires key resources, (2) organizations with which it competes or coop-erates, (3) government agencies or other organizations authorized to regu-late it, and (4) groups that oppose it.

Organizations with nature protection goals, like other organizations,combine the resources they obtain from employees, volunteers, donors andother organizations to produce various outputs, including public educa-tion, lobbying, purchase or care of nature reserves, and protests. An organ-ization’s activities aff ect and are observed by other actors in itsenvironment. Depending on the favourableness of their evaluations, theydecide whether to provide it with ‘generalized media of exchange’ (Parsons1970): (1) money, including private donations or government grants; (2)legitimacy, i.e. its entitlement to exist and pursue its activities; (3) prestige,including especially its reputation for eff ectiveness; and (4) inuence. Themore of these resources an organization commands, the more easily it canprocure additional inputs and continue its work.

When organizations with the same objectives compete, they become

subject to comparisons by potential members, donors, sponsors and gov-ernment agencies. Unfortunately, goals and strategies that win approvalfrom some of these evaluators may reduce support or stir opposition fromothers. Selection of goals and strategies under such circumstances is nosmall challenge, and there are diverging interpretations of how organiza-tions deal with these dilemmas. The resource dependence approach (Pfeff erand Salancik 1978) sees organizations as strategically adopting goals andstrategies that allow them to obtain key resources without hopelesslyoff ending other constituencies. The population ecology model, by contrast,

suggests that organizations’ capacity to adapt and respond planfully totheir environments is quite limited; consequently, when an organization’ssocial context changes radically, it is more likely to be superseded by neworganizations than to adapt successfully (Hannan and Freeman 1977).

Viewing organizations with nature protection goals as institutions(Zucker 1983; DiMaggio and Powell 1991) provides additional insights intohow they choose goals and strategies. Organizations are institutionalizedwhen they are governed by shared assumptions and normative standardsthat prescribe specic roles, goals and activities as appropriate for them.Operating within these parameters increases their legitimacy and providesthem with agreed-upon solutions for vexing strategy problems. The goals,modes of operation, myths and rituals of organizations with nature



37/312

protection goals – like those of other organizations – can become infusedwith symbolic signicance, especially for supporters who are stronglyvested in the organization (Trice and Beyer 1993). Retaining these sup-porters’ loyalty and commitment can then require swearing allegiance tothese goals and strategies (Perrow 1993).

Because such expectations are based, in part, on organizational history,the neo-institutional approach views organizations as innately conserva-tive. Innovations are likely to diff use widely only when they come to bedened as normal practice by peer organizations, oversight agencies andprofessional associations (Zucker 1983; Dalton 1994). Consequently,organizations with similar goals often display institutional isomorphism.Particularly in uncertain environments, organizations tend to mimic oneanother (Powell and DiMaggio 1991) and to come under pressure toconform to commonly accepted models of operation (Meyer and Rowan1977). This argument contrasts with the resource dependence approach,which suggests that organizations might diff erentiate their goals and strate-gies to attract support. Examining how nature protection organizations asorganizations adapt or fail to adapt successfully to their complex andchanging environments in ways that keep needed resourcesowing is a coretheme of this book.

Social movementsSociologists and political scientists have frequently viewed environmentalorganizations and networks as components of social movements.Denitions of social movements vary widely; however, much of the litera-ture focuses on movements that mobilize their supporters for confrontationand protest to bring about major change in political or economic systems(McAdam et al. 1988; Diani 1992; Markham 2006). Nature protectionorganizations and networks have seldom mounted such movements alone;however, nature protection has fairly frequently emerged as one goal

among others in broader social movements. At least three social movementtheories can be brought to bear on nature protection movements: resourcemobilization; social constructionism and framing; and theories of newsocial movements. Subsequent chapters explore the conditions under whichnature protection advocates have mounted independent nature protectionmovements or allied themselves with other movements and the factors thatdetermine the success of such movements.

Resource mobilization theory (Klandermans 1986; McAdam et al. 1988;Jenkins 1983), developed in the USA during the 1970s and 1980s, focusesattention on social movement organizations (SMOs), the relatively formal-ized, permanent organizations that emerge as key actors in most long-livedsocial movements. According to the theory, grievances and desires for



38/312

change, such as the desire to protect nature, are ubiquitous in society.Therefore the rise of movements is best explained not by popular discontentor desire for change, but by the activities of ‘social movement entrepre-neurs’, who assemble the necessary nancial resources and public supportto build SMOs, including nature protection organizations and networks.Although nancial support from individual donors and volunteers can beimportant for SMOs, the resource mobilization approach emphasizes theimportance of obtaining nancial support from other sources, includingfoundations, wealthy individuals and government, and it sees SMOs as incompetition for needed resources.

According to resource mobilization theory, social movements are mostlikely to succeed when they explicate the problem to be solved and strate-gies for solving it in ways that attract broad support without hopelesslyalienating powerful opponents. In this respect, they resemble ‘social con-structionist’ accounts of environmentalism (e.g. Hannigan 1995) andrelated theories of ‘framing’ from the social movements literature (Snow1986; Gamson 1992). These theories argue that people do not automat-ically consider conditions such as destruction of nature to be problems.Consequently, social movements must develop ideologies and ways of ‘framing’ problems that persuade media and the general public to denespecic situations as ‘problems’ in need of solution. Arguments for nature

protection, for example, can be ‘framed’ in terms of the need to preservenature as a basis for human life, to preserve ecosystems for their own sake,or to protect beloved species or landscapes. Successful frames resonate withthe public and attract supporters because theyt well into existing cogni-tive frameworks, portray problems in graphic and understandable ways, orevoke emotions.

New social movement theory was developed, primarily in Europe, as aneff ort to account for the rise of new social movements (NSMs), includingthe student, peace, feminist and environmental movements, during the

1960s and 1970s (Klandermans 1986; Brand et al. 1986; Beuchler 1995).These movements were ‘new’ in several respects: (1) they were not as directlyfocused as older movements on gaining economic advantage or politicalpower; indeed some eschewed success and progress as de ned by the domi-nant culture in favour of pursuing new post-material or ecological values;(2) NSMs typically sought to bring about social change not only throughpolitical action, but also by lifestyle changes; and (3) active participation inNSMs became the basis for important personal and group identities, suchas ‘feminist’ or ‘environmentalist’. The applicability of NSM theory tonature protection is less clear than its applicability to environmentalismbecause nature protection e ff orts began long before the 1960s and becausenature protection also appeals to segments of the population that were little



39/312

aff ected by the value changes cited by NSM theory. Nature protection advo-cates did, of course, have to adapt to the rise of the environmental move-ment, and there is some emerging evidence that they may now have to copewith its decline (Blühdorn 2000).

The Role of Nature Protection Organizations and Networks in Society

Nature protection organizations and networks deserve attention not onlyfor their own sake, but also because of their roles in the larger society. Theyplay an important role in the civil societies of Western nations, and they arepart and parcel of ongoing changes in the economic and political organ-ization of these societies.

Civil societyCivil society comprises ‘areas of social life . . . which are organized byprivate or voluntary arrangements between individuals and groups outsideof the direct control of the state’ (Held 1995, p. 181). Theorists of civilsociety (e.g. Putnam 2000; Salamon and Anheier 1997) typically argue thatneo-liberal democracies with market economies function best when theyhave well-developed civil societies. Especially important for the success of civil society are civic associations, ‘the array of institutions and organiza-

tions in and through which individuals or groups can pursue their own projects independently of the direct organization of the state or of economiccollectivities’ (Held 1995, p. 181). These include groups as diverse asamateur sports leagues, hobby clubs, self-help groups, neighbourhoodassociations, charitable associations and public interest lobby groups.

According to theories of civil society, civic associations serve at leastveimportant functions for society. First, they build social capital, the networkof overlapping memberships that binds citizens to one another and society(Putnam 2000). Second, they meet needs not met by the market economy

or the state, and they may deliver services on behalf of the state (Weisbrod1986; Zimmer 1996; Deakin 2001). Third, civil society supplementsmarkets and the formal democratic structures of the state in societal goalsetting, self-regulation and correction by providing additional mechanismsfor public participation and checking government and business power(Held 1995; Skocpol 2003; Habermas 1992). Fourth, civil society organiza-tions help to educate citizens about social problems and political issues.Finally, organizations of civil society contribute to the development of skills in self-government and democratic citizenship (Fung 2003; Skocpol2003; Habermas 1992).

Nature protection organizations and networkst well under the rubricof civil society associations. They have worked for over a century to limit



40/312

the destruction of nature, preserve wilderness and cultural landscapes,educate the public, and inuence government and business. They work inan area where market institutions often produce undesired risks and exter-nalities, fail to produce socially valued amenities, and fail to preservevalued resources (Beck, 1986; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). They mediateamong citizens, government and business, and impact legislation andpublic policy, both through protests and through partnerships with gov-ernment and business. Finally, they have responsibility for managing sub-stantial amounts of public space, some of which they have procured withtheir own resources. It is less clear that nature protection organizations haveeff ectively fullled the role of facilitating civil participation and stimulatingpolitical dialogue, as many have elitist tendencies, and some provide forlittle democratic input. On the other hand, many do have strong pro-grammes of public education (Dowie 1995; Brulle 2000; Dekker 2002).

Ecological modernization and risk societyAlso potentially relevant to understanding the place of nature protectionorganizations and networks in society is a group of recent theories, almostexclusively of Northern European origin, that focus on ecological andpolitical modernization. These theories consider environmental risks to beone of the driving factors in a further ‘modernization of modernity’ (Mol

1995, p. 37), which is engendering transformations in political and eco-nomic structures that make it possible to achieve environmental sustain-ability without abandoning modern, industrialized society.

There are two major variants of this approach. Ecological modernizationtheory describes an ongoing shift in social structure involving the emergenceof a new sphere of ecological rationality in society, which will stand along-side and in uence the economic and political spheres. The emergence of thissphere is associated with the emergence of new technologies, monitoringsystems, policy arrangements and management procedures that allow

major improvements in the effi

ciency of production and drastic reductionsin environmental damage (Spaargaren and Mol 1992; Mol 1995). Beck’stheory of the risk society, on the other hand, stresses how threats fromnew technologies and environmental risks have undermined public trust inthe state and science. He argues that coping with such problems requiresdeliberative arrangements that go beyond the nation-state. These newpolitical arrangements, called ‘subpolitics’, include consumer action andNGO–company alliances to minimize environmental damage (Beck 1986).

Both ecological modernization and risk society theory foresee a somewhatreduced role for the nation-state in the future, coupled with increasinglyimportant roles for NGOs, civil society, and supranational and sub-nationalgovernmental bodies. These changes are summarized by the term ‘multilevel



41/312

governance’ (Van Tatenhove et al. 2000). ‘Hybrid arrangements’, combiningstate, market and civil society actors, are also expected to expand their rolein managing environmental problems (Spaargaren et al. 2006). Furthermore,against the backdrop of the globalization of production, consumption andenvironmental issues, global civil society organizations and networks are des-tined to be of crucial importance in environmental governance (Lipschutzand Mayer 1996; Wapner 1996; Vig and Axelrod 1999; Held 2004).

Clearly, such expectationst well with the roles that international natureprotection organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF aspire to full(Wapner 1996), and IUCN is an apt illustration of a hybrid organizationbringing together states and NGOs. It is less clear that nature protectionorganizations in the narrower sense contribute to the type of structuralpolitical changes that Beck and ecological modernization theory hypothe-size, for nature protection organizations have typically been very cautiousabout interfering with political structures (Van Koppen 2003); however,this may vary from nation to nation.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided a conceptual framework for analysing nature

protection organizations and networks, as well as an overview of theoriesthat help explain the motivational bases for nature protection activism,the goals, structures and strategies of nature protection organizations andnetworks, and the contributions of nature protection organizations tosocieties at large. While this chapter provides an orienting framework forthe chapters that follow, it does not, and indeed could not, encompasstheir full empirical and theoretical diversity. Although all the authorsagreed to write chapters that t within the parameters described above,our aim in planning the book and in this introduction has been to set the

stage for the chapters that follow, not to dictate their details. Variationsacross nations in the histories and present-day contexts of nature protec-tion, the amount and kinds of information available, and national socio-logical traditions, as well as the di ff ering theoretical orientations of theauthors, thus make for both uniformity and diversity across chapters. Weview this as a strength, not a weakness, for the resulting chapters providenot only a plethora of useful substantive comparisons, but also a wealthof hunches and insights for further exploration. In the nal chapter wemake a number of comparisons that seem to us especially signi cantamong the country chapters, but individual readers will no doubt want tomake their own, and the following chapters suggest numerous avenues forfurther enquiry.



42/312

REFERENCES

Bazarov, Konstantin (1981),Landscape Painting , London: Octopus Books.Beck, Ulrich (1986),Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne,Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Berry, Jeff rey M. (1984),The Interest Group Society, Boston, MA: Little Brown.Beuchler, Steven M. (1995), ‘New Social Movement Theories’,The Sociologic

protecting nature organizations and networks in europe and the usa

Documents