Environmental mobilisation and organisations in post-socialist Europe and the former Soviet Union

Abstract

How have environmental movements and organisations evolved in the two decades since the end of state socialism? Focusing upon how the impact of external forces, the core debates concern how changing political opportunities and access to resources as a consequence of European Union accession have impacted on environmental NGOs, as well as the effects more generally of contentious transnational assistance and tutelage offered to local activist networks by US and west European donors. Theoretical and conceptual debates regarding dependency and co-option, versus channelling and new governance, are examined. Have environmental actors and movements in these transitional states and new democracies aligned with the trajectory predicted by scholars 20 years ago? To what extent have longstanding environmental values, modes of political engagement and submerged networks buffered and even transmuted the impact? Why, and to what extent, do the movements and organisations of the region retain a distinctive character and profile?

Keywords:

• political opportunities
• resources
• environmental mobilisation
• state socialism
• post-communism

Introduction

The fall of state-socialism across the European and Asian continents beginning in the late 1980s initiated a period of optimism about the power and potential of civil society (Szabo 1994). The rise of democratic systems of government and the loosening of state control was accompanied by visions of the ways in which nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and the general public would be able to shape decision-making and hold officials accountable for their actions. Given the high levels of environmental mobilisation that had taken place in many countries in the region, this was an arena where activists and other civil society actors were anticipated to serve as catalysts for fostering change. The expectation was that environmentalists would employ a diverse repertoire of action to remediate past degradation and promote environmental quality into the future. As actors from across the region navigated the transition from their socialist pasts to consolidated democracies, it was envisioned that their actions would be embedded in organisations that emulated Western models of professionalisation and transnational engagement.

Two decades have now passed since the fall of the socialist regimes, making it timely to reflect on the optimism of 20 years ago and assess the evolution of environmental politics and governance across post-socialist Eurasia. Some environmental organisations, institutions and patterns of mobilisation fit the model envisioned by scholars, governments and commentators of the early 1990s. In addition to adopting professional norms, there is evidence that some of the new post-socialist environmental organisations have been absorbed into pan-European networks and are benefiting from their engagement with western movements and organisations (Bomberg 2007). However, professionalised organisations exist alongside an array of groups that have socialist roots, are nationally and locally oriented, and that rely on practices that were common in the former era (Rohrschneider and Dalton 2002, Carmin 2010b). In other words, despite attempts by the international community and some domestic activists to erase the socialist past, integrate environmentalists into transnational networks and import new practices, institutions and behaviours, it appears that deeply held environmental values, views and approaches persist and continue to imprint contemporary movement actors.

In addition to providing a summary of the scholarly literature on environmental mobilisations across post-socialist-Eurasia and introducing the contributions that follow, here we shall also identify dominant themes and the fault-lines of comparative analysis. Through empirical analysis of environmental activism and organisations in post-socialist states across Europe and the former Soviet Union, the contributions to this volume explore the ways in which current political landscapes, national legacies, regional variations and external forces associated with Europeanisation 1 and transnationalism have shaped present day environmental movements, activism and organisations. This collection presents cases from post-socialist and transition states including those in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Central Asia and Russia. Whilst each contributor highlights the degree to which state and non-state actors grapple with similar issues and legacies, and face what appear to be the same dilemmas regarding the character and institutionalisation of civil society, the volume also demonstrates how the trajectories and strategic responses of actors vary. These patterns highlight how the focus on common legacies, harmonisation, Europeanisation and transnationalism that has characterised regional scholarship over the years has perhaps overshadowed the ways in which variations in history, culture, national politics and social dynamics have contributed to differentiation in environmental mobilisation and organisations across states.

The rise of environmental mobilisation and organisations

Environmental activism in state-socialist countries of Europe and Asia attracted scholarly and public attention during the second half of the 1980s. Increased deterioration of air and water quality along with notable levels of deforestation across the region compelled activists from Bulgaria to Czechoslovakia to Estonia to take action (Jancar-Webster 1993, Albrecht 1987). The deterioration of the natural environment seemed to exemplify everything that was wrong with state socialism (Fagin 1994). Unregulated state control over an economy based on heavy industry and the absence of new technology and capital investment in production, combined with censorship and mistrust of the public, compounded the environmental impacts of industrialisation. The liberal euphoria that swept across Central and Eastern Europe and beyond at the end of state socialism was accompanied by discourse about the potential role for civil society to promote and sustain democratic institutions. All the things that the new post-socialist politics had to achieve – engaging citizens and civil society, establish transparency, implement regulations and policy – were identified as critical to democratic transition. Since remediating environmental degradation and advancing an environmental agenda were regarded by many as a litmus test of democratic change, environmental issues and green activism maintained their place in the political limelight from transition through to consolidation (Baker and Jehlička 1988, Tickle 2000).

Conservation and environmentalism in socialist times

The state socialist systems of Eurasia placed an emphasis on centralisation of economic production, control of politics and policy and the synchronisation of levels of government in order to promote national interests. In these regimes, the reach of the state was not limited to the economic and political spheres, but extended to most aspects of social and cultural life (Hough 1976). This level of control was particularly notable in the domain of associations. In contrast to democratic systems, where associations can be formed and take action with relatively few constraints, under state socialism, their existence and activities were limited. In most countries in the region, civic associations and mass organisations operated under the auspices of government bodies. By linking diverse activities to state institutions, the government was able to assert a fundamental level of control over many forms of social and cultural activity (Anheier and Priller 1991, Wunker 1991, Kuti 1999, Regulska 1999, DeHoog and Racanska 2003).

One impact of state control was that environmental organisations, per se, did not exist during most of the socialist era. Rather, countries had conservation associations that typically were administered by a central body affiliated with the state. In the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, for instance, mass conservation organisations existed alongside other smaller associations that targeted youth and young adults. In the Baltics, organisations such as the Society of Nature and Monument Protection Latvia and the Tartu Student's Nature Protection Organisation in Estonia were active (Tickle and Welsh 1998). Whilst a variety of state-sponsored organisations were present in Russia (Oldfield 2005), the relative liberalisation of Yugoslav communism under Tito, as compared to the Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe, enabled a more efficacious conservation movement to develop. Not only was conservation encouraged amongst young people (as indeed it was elsewhere in socialist Europe) but also the party-organised conservation movement benefited from the fact that intellectuals and experts were able to play a more instrumental role in the political development of the conservation movements that emerged from the 1970s (Bokovoy et al. 1997). It is important to note that whilst conservation organisations were active in some countries, others such as Romania had no national or local level organisations.

Conservation associations that existed under the former regimes typically focused on outdoor and educational activities. One of the most common ways these organisations supported the state, whilst engaging the broader population, was through brigades. Conservation brigades were officially organised and approved activities. Some provided services such as managing forests, creating trails, cleaning up litter from rivers and other waterways, and maintaining inventories of plant and animal species whilst others focused on recreational activities such as hiking and caving. Although there were many common features in the ways conservation organisations in the region operated, there also was notable variability in membership recruitment and characteristics. In some countries and some organisations, membership was achieved through secondary affiliations. For instance, every school class in Poland was required to select an organisation with which they would participate, so some would elect to affiliate with a conservation organisation. In other contexts, membership was an individual decision and chapter outings provided an opportunity for friends to spend time together whilst engaging in meaningful work. Although many organisations sponsored outdoor activities, some were oriented towards engaging experts who prepared research reports and conducted background assessments for governments (Kundrata 1992, Carmin 2010a, Henry 2010).

In many countries, environmental organisations provided a foundation for advancing and addressing policy issues. Institutional opportunities existed for citizens to express their concerns, primarily by meeting with public officials, attending town meetings and writing letters. However, independent activities, particularly those with a contentious or oppositional character were not favourably regarded by the state. Individuals seeking to achieve environmental gains often used conservation organisations as a basis for achieving their goals. However, they did so in cautious ways. Rather than turn to expressive action, individuals more often than not participated in routine activities whilst using the organisation as a platform to protect nature and natural areas from the state predilection towards development. Since open critique could result in sanctions, natural scientists also used their affiliations with organisations as a means for making statements about environmental quality or for engaging officials about potentially politicised issues such as pollution and degradation (Baker and Jehlička 1998, Fagin and Jehlička 1998, Jancar-Webster 1998, Carmin and Jehlička 2010).

The transformation of socialist era practices

By the 1980s, the visible degradation of natural areas, smog, toxic accidents and declines in public health led to widespread awareness of the deterioration of environmental quality (Carter and Turnock 1996, Auer 2004, Pavlinek and Pickles 2004). Although most conservation organisations continued to pursue their routine activities, instances of open opposition began to emerge, particularly in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Action to address environmental destruction taking place started to gain greater traction and become more visible as a consequence of Gorbachov's glasnost. This policy created greater openness and opportunities for expression of views and concerns. As a result, information about environmental conditions was more freely reported and public discontent with issues such as environmental degradation was more openly expressed (Hicks 1996). The loosening of control associated with glasnost provided a foundation, but it was the nuclear accident that occurred at Chernobyl in 1986 that helped catalyse environmental activists and activism across the region (Young and Launer 1991, DeBardeleben and Hannigan 1995). Despite policies to provide freedom of information, news about the Chernobyl accident was suppressed. Countries in the West learned about the accident from monitoring stations showing high levels of radiation, with those living in the region initially receiving no information and subsequently being reassured that the situation was under control.

The official response and withholding of information from Russia created tension with allies in Central and Eastern Europe and sparked protest in these countries (Tickle and Welsh 1998), with environmental groups using the accident to elevate the visibility of their general agenda. For example, groups in Poland responded by drawing attention to the problems associated with industrial contamination, the need for alternative energy and the health effects of pollution whilst in Czechoslovakia, Charter 77 wrote to the Federal Assembly and one of the largest conservation groups, the Czech Union of Nature Protectors, published an article about the accident in their magazine that brought the issue to the public's attention (Hicks 1996, Vaněk 1996, Carmin and Hicks 2002). Activism in response to Chernobyl was not limited to countries in Central and Eastern Europe. For instance, the accident is linked to the formation of the Socio-Ecological Union in Moscow in 1987 and the Nevada-Semipalatinsk in Almaty in 1989 (Auer 2004).

With the legitimacy of ‘scientific socialism’ in question (Tickle and Welsh 1998, p. 12) and the environmental and health impacts of the prevailing approach to economic development increasingly apparent, oppositional activities with an environmental theme increased (Singleton 1987, Jancar-Webster 1993, Vari and Tamas 1993, Tickle and Welsh 1998). Many actions were initiated with a focus on a local problem or issue. In Bulgaria, for instance, environmental opposition emerged in 1987 in response to transboundary pollution stemming from a chemical factory in Romania. When the early attempts to have government officials take action to address the situation failed, the issue began to capture more widespread attention, ultimately serving as a spark for the national movement that called itself Ekoglasnost to emerge in 1989 (Bumgartl 1993). Toxic accidents in South Bohemia, the deterioration of air quality in Prague and the presence of contaminated landfills and inversions in North Bohemia all were sources of localised actions that contributed to the development of a nationwide movement (Vaněk 1996). Similarly, the proposal to build the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam on the Danube River started with responses to a specific issue that, in turn, helped build and solidify a national environmental movement in Hungary (Waller and Millard 1992, Carter and Turnock 1996).

By the late 1980s, a distinction was beginning to emerge between the semi-legal conservation unions and organisations that had emerged under the auspices of the party and were engaged in nature protection, and a small band of more radical political-ecology activists who clearly recognised the agentic value of environmental pollution as a means of lambasting the socialist elite. Whilst there was obvious overlap between the two, environmental activism began to take on a more political and radical dimension at this time (Baker and Jehlička 1998, Fagin and Jehlička 1998, Jancar-Webster 1998). Many existing conservation organisations provided a basis for mobilisation during this period and subsequently for contemporary NGOs (Fisher 1993, Vaněk 1996, Cellarius 2004). Whilst there were many similarities, there also were important country-level differences. The Polish and Czech environmental movements, for example, were both steadily expanding through the formation of new organisations and emergence of activism, but the pace was somewhat faster in Poland (Carmin and Hicks 2002).

When state socialism collapsed, the expectation was that the new democracies in the region would address existing environmental problems, be proactive in the creation and implementation of environmental policies and embrace the participation of the public and NGOs in environmental decision-making. One of the first steps in this direction taken by many countries was to pass legislation granting the right to form independent, nonprofit associations. A second step taken to promote environmental quality and participatory practices was to replace existing protocols with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures in effect at that time in the EU, including provisions for public comment and participation in public meetings (EU Directive 85/337/EEC). The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia were among the first to adopt EIA procedures and within several years they were followed by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Cherp 2001).

The adoption of new legislation was important to promoting an environmental agenda. However, one of the highpoints in this period of rapid change was the initiation of the Europe for Environment process. The first meeting was held in 1991 at Dobris Castle in the former Czechoslovakia. The meeting was attended by representatives from governments and NGOs from across Central and Eastern Europe along with those from Europe, the United Nations and the European Commission. The focus was on developing an Environmental Action Programme (EAP) that would foster environmental protection and sustainable development as these countries made the transition to a market economy. Whilst an emphasis was placed on initiating an assessment of environmental quality in the region, a conclusion that parties agreed upon was the importance of a well-informed citizenry and public participation in environmental decision-making.

The development of post-socialist environmental movements and organisations

The vision of building environmentally proactive and participatory liberal democracies contributed to the creation of civil society becoming a focal point for bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors, including the EU and various national foundations and charities from both sides of the Atlantic. Whilst a variety of other activities were also being supported at this time, the environment received particular attention due to the level of degradation in the region, the visibility of environmental movements and activists at the time the regimes fell in Central and Eastern Europe, and also because the green issue was politically prominent and a concern that transcended the divisions of domestic politics. Although support for the development of environmental institutions and initiatives was critical to advancing this agenda, the presence of international funders raised questions about how external efforts to support and build the capacity of NGOs was shaping civil society development and mobilisation (McMahon 2001, Cellarius and Staddon 2002).

As discussed in the sections that follow, the development of new democratic institutions, emergence of new political opportunities, and variable access to resources all shaped the trajectory of environmental activism and organisations in the early days of democratic transition. As EU accession came to the forefront of many national agendas, the impacts of Europeanisation began to take centre stage. Although the movements to democracy and accession did not characterise Russia and the former Soviet States, shifting political opportunities, international funders, and the emergence of transnational networks also affected environmental mobilisation and the activities and development of environmental organisations in these countries.

Changing political opportunities

Political opportunity structure refers to political institutions and other aspects of the political environment that constrain or facilitate activism (Tilly 1978, McAdam 1982, Tarrow 1998). In general, social movements frequently form and movement activists select their strategies based on the nature of political opportunities and expectations these generate for particular approaches being successful (Tarrow 1998). In repressive systems, such as was the case under state socialism, governments use the threat of sanctions to suppress and deter dissident action. In contrast, in democratic states, contentious behaviour is permitted, but often diffused through the creation of opportunities to participate in the policy process (Tilly 1978, Tarrow 1998).

Under state socialism, formal opportunities for participation in environmental decision-making were limited and it was only in the period leading up to the fall of the regimes when policies softened that environmental activism became more explicit and contentious. However, as democracy was embraced and legislation passed to facilitate the formation of nonprofit organisations, new opportunities for engagement in decision-making were created and the relationship between governmental representatives and nongovernmental actors began to change. As studies chronicling the transformation of environmentalism in the region suggest, the changes taking place contributed to a multitude of new organisations being formed and representatives from both existing and new organisations participating in environmental decision-making as well as engaging in more expressive types of action (Carmin and Hicks 2002). The expansion in the sector also established a basis for leading transnational environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature and Friends of the Earth setting up shop in select countries.

The transition from relatively closed and insular to open societies created a means for transnational interactions to take place (Evangelista 1995) and for the diffusion of knowledge and norms to affect national and sub-national activism (Carmin and Hicks 2002). Just as policy transformation had a profound impact on environmental action and activism at the domestic level, so too did the opening of national boundaries and borders. Diffusion takes place through the mass media and culture as well as through the interactions that activists have with one another through networks, participation in commissions, panels, workshops and conferences, and through professional associations (Strang and Meyer 1993, Strang and Soule 1998, della Porta and Kriesi 1999). Values, ideas and norms, ranging from organisational know-how to technical expertise are transmitted as representatives from organisations develop ties to networks and interact with their peers (Keck and Sikkink 1998, Passy 1999, Florini 2000, Frank et al. 2000).

The opening of national borders means that organisational representatives quickly forged ties with international NGOs as they began to travel to meetings and conferences and participate in panels and commissions. Many of the studies that emerged from the region during this period emphasised the ways in which these interactions were shaping the activities and agendas of domestic environmental organisations (e.g. Carmin and Hicks 2002, Hicks 2004). Despite the potential for NGOs to cultivate international ties, however, recent research suggests that the vast majority of environmental organisations in the region have limited ties to international NGOs and government agencies, focusing their efforts instead on the national and sub-national arenas by addressing national policy and supporting local communities by providing environmental education, offering outdoor opportunities to adults and youth and managing natural resources (Carmin 2010a). Further, even those NGOs that forged ties to their transnational peers continue to draw on their deeply rooted values and styles of activism, using transnationalism to strategically advance their nationally oriented goals and priorities (Carmin and Jelička 2005, Henry 2010).

Access to resources

Almost immediately after the fall of the regimes, environmental organisations began to encounter the challenges of self-administration (Wunker 1991, Jancar-Webster 1998, Green 1999, Regulska 1999, Lagerspetz et al. 2002, DeHoog and Racanska 2003). Not only did they have to respond to societal preferences and expectations (Jancar-Webster 1998) but also address issues of staffing, programme administration, fundraising and financial management (Jancar-Webster 1998, Millard 1998, Carmin and Hicks 2002). Many governments, bilateral aid agencies, development banks and foundations were committed to promote the development of civil society and provided resources accordingly. However, whilst financial support and advice were widely offered, access to such tutelage was uneven and by no means widespread.

Whilst the newer and more visible organisations were adept at gaining access to funds, often by adopting professional norms, operational strategies and administrative approaches prevalent in the West, traditional conservation and membership organisations found it much harder to do so, not least because they were too closely association with the former regimes in the eyes of many (Jancar-Webster 1998, Wedel 1998, Quigley 2000, Mendelson and Glenn 2002, Henderson 2003, Carmin and Jelička 2005). As funders left the region and countries joined the EU, professionalisation appeared to be intensifying as NGOs aligned their efforts and actions with the priorities of Brussels (Hicks 2004, Fagan 2006).

Over time, the EU has placed an emphasis on promoting participation by creating opportunities for civil society actors to engage in support functions, primarily by providing research, drafting legislation and serving as representatives for the broader public in the policy process. As professionalised organisations do the bidding of Brussels, they are compensated for their services (Börzel et al. 2007). These highly visible organisations tend to capture the gaze of scholars and therefore, dominate our understanding of NGOs in the region, leading to the conclusion that environmental organisations of all kinds are driven by the pursuit of resources and are willing to align their administrative styles and priorities with funders in order to ensure stability and survival (Wedel 1998, Quigley 2000, Cellarius and Staddon 2002, Mendelson and Glenn 2002, Henderson 2003). Despite the prevalence of these views, professionalised NGOs represent only a small percentage of the total population of active environmental organisations in the region (Carmin 2010a). Further, both professional and more informal organisations often continue to maintain deeply held values and pursue independent action that reflects their mandates and agendas, rather than the preferences of their funders (Carmin and Jelička 2010).

Membership in the European Union

Even if environmental organisations and movements take action based on their values and priorities, they still have been affected by the relationships their home countries have with Brussels. Accession negotiations began in 1998 with the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. Subsequently, negotiations were opened with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia Croatia, Bosnia and Albania (VanDeveer and Carmin 2005). There are many similarities in environmental mobilisation and organisations in post-socialist applicant, accession and new member states. However, environmentalism in these countries differs from those that are either not in negotiation with the EU (e.g. Russia) or are making very slow progress towards accession (e.g. BiH).

Membership of the EU delivered many positive benefits for the Central and East European (CEE) states in terms of organisational development and the extension of a wide range of opportunities and resources to environmental organisations and movements in particular (Jelička and Tickle 2004). This has much to do with the high approximation costs of compliance providing an incentive for post-socialist states to engage NGOs (Héretier and Lehmkuhl 2008). The incorporation into national law of EU-compliant environmental regulation and processes has proved administratively costly for all of the post-socialist states, regardless of their pre-existing capacities or legal frameworks (Guttenbrunner 2009). Approximation also has proved challenging due to incompatibilities in policy style and enforcement (Buzogány 2009). However, the costs tend to be greatest at the implementation rather than decision-making stage, thus providing an opportunity for NGOs to become more involved in the less politically glamorous aspects of service provision and monitoring. The incentive for cooperation was mutual: as ‘an area of positive, market-correcting integration’ the financial and bureaucratic costs for the state were generally deemed to be worthy, whilst at the same time significant enough to create incentives for co-operation between state actors to engage with NGOs (Börzel 2009, p. 41). For NGOs, after being politically marginalised or even ostracised during the 1990s, engagement on any terms was appealing.

Even if the post-socialist governments did not require nor seek the involvement of nascent environmental NGOs in the initial drafting of EU-compliant laws during the 1990s, once these frameworks were on the statute books they were effectively guaranteed a degree of future involvement and access. The implicit, if not explicit, requirement throughout the environmental chapters of the acquis to engage non-state actors and communities within processes such as EIA (EIAD, 85/337/EEC), or within directives such as the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCD, 96/61/EEC) and Fauna, Flora and Habitats (FFHD, 92/43/EEC), has delivered a significant dividend to environmental NGOs in terms of legitimising and augmenting their status within policy-making and implementation. This was particularly evident when, in the years immediately prior to accession the Commission exerted considerable pressure on applicant states (e.g. the Czech Republic) to tighten up and improve EIA legislation and other aspects of the environmental laws that had been hurriedly enacted in the early 1990s. Environmental NGOs were invariably recruited to help gather data or tidy-up and improve regulatory frameworks. Thus, the requirement to engage non-state actors in conjunction with the relatively high bureaucratic costs of implementation make environmental compliance one of the most likely sites of new modes of governance interaction (Börzel 2009, p. 41).

An additional benefit for local environmental NGOs across post-socialist CEE has been the availability of EU assistance as part of PHARE or CARDS/IPA funding. Whilst the sums allocated specifically for environmental projects and initiatives were modest and relatively few, environmental NGOs became quite adept at accessing EU funds for non-green projects and initiatives and exercising a degree of latitude and pragmatism in terms of the issues on which they were prepared to work. The downside of EU funding for environmental NGOs compared to assistance offered by other foreign donors was that the projects were invariably short-term and non-renewable and organisations could not easily use EU project grants to develop their internal capacities.

A further impact of Europeanisation via enlargement was the incorporation of environmental NGOs in CEE within EU-wide epistemic communities and green networks such as the Brussels-based ‘Green 10’ lobbying network of organisations. According to Bomberg (2007), membership of the Green 10 network provided local NGOs in CEE with resources and training, particularly with regard to New Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs). Indeed, prior to the start of accession negotiations and the completion of the acquis communitaire, both state and non-state actors in CEE were aided by EU programmes for dialogue and technical assistance and provided with opportunities for social and policy learning (Grabbe 2006, Bomberg 2007).

Not all analyses paint a positive picture of the accession process and outcomes. For example, Hicks (2004) finds that rather than setting agendas or engaging in innovative forms of activism, the priorities and tactical repertoires of environmental NGOs were shaped by EU priorities and elements of the acquis as countries moved towards accession. More recent analysis suggests that whilst positive change in adaptation of laws and state capacities across the new member states of CEE is evident, the interaction between state and non-state actors remains in its infancy and the ‘potential remains scarcely exploited’ (Buzogány 2009, p. 139). A particular problem in Hungary, for instance, is that the non-prescriptive nature of EU legal frameworks and regulations, plus the stipulations for the subordination of state authorities vis-à-vis private or non-state actors is somewhat alien, unpopular and not easily translated into practice. It would seem that co-operation is most effectively triggered where there is a legal requisite or obligation for new data collection, which then stimulates knowledge transfer and the emergence of new epistemic communities, 2 including NGOs, scientific institutions, private organisations and state ministries.

In other words, despite the financial assistance, the access to transnational networks, and the additional opportunities and legal stipulations for environmental NGOs to become involved in deliberative policy and regulatory processes, the anticipated shift away from command and control and state-dominated hierarchic decision-making has not occurred. Whilst environmental NGOs may well have emerged from their liaison with the EU and other donors capacity-laden and far more professional and skilled, their actual empowerment has been disappointing (Börzel 2009). Yet such a bleak assessment fails to fully acknowledge the value of Europe-wide networks and opportunity structures. It also somewhat denigrates the critical ‘behind the scenes’ roles that environmental NGOs routinely undertake. European accession may not have delivered environmental NGOs as high a profile and centrality in policy decision-making as some commentators and activists would like, but they may well be playing critical roles in pro-change networks and in the reconfiguration of state power.

Contributions to this volume

Over the past two decades, environmental movements and organisations in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, Eurasia and Russia have gone through numerous transitions and transformations. Many of the theoretical analyses seeking to explain mobilisation and the trajectory of environmental NGOs in the period leading up to and immediately following the collapse of socialist systems emphasised the presence of new opportunities, the ways in which international access and the availability or resources altered the domestic environmental landscape, and how membership in the EU both contributed to capacity as well as influenced the priorities and agendas of environmental movements and organisations (Baker and Jehlička 1998, Jehlička and Tickle 2004, VanDeveer and Carmin 2005). The contributors to this special issue explore the historical roots of, and investigate the ways in which, environmental movements and organisations have developed as their national political and social landscapes have been transformed, and as European and transnational influences have increased. Whilst these contributions draw on many themes that characterise previous studies, they extend our understanding of the dynamics of environmentalism in the region by delving more deeply into specific cases and considering emerging trends.

Using the case of biodiversity protection under Natura 2000, Börzel and Buzogány take an in-depth look at Europeanisation of environmental policy in Hungary, Poland and Romania, examining the relationship of EU accession and the adoption of EU environmental policy to the agendas and tactics of environmental NGOs. By examining how Europeanisation has shaped the political agendas and action repertoires of environmental organisation in CEE countries both before and after accession, they extend our understanding both of the factors determining the capacities of environmentalists as well as the various contingencies with regard to positive and sustainable EU impact. In addition to the external influence of the EU and the domestic pull of societal actors, the authors introduce the notion of pressure from transnational networks, which they refer to as exerting ‘a sideward nudge’ on environmental organisations and acting as an important driver of NGO capacity and efficacy. They frame much of their analysis in terms of the governance interaction between state and non-state actors and explores how complex EU initiatives contfront old socialist era command and control policy styles. Börzel and Buzogány suggest that the costs of compliance for state agencies proved so great that NGOs were brought into institutionalised policy processes somewhat in desperation rather than out of the desire to foster greater levels of participation. Whilst there has been greater interaction and engagement, they maintain that the pressure for harmonisation with EU norms and procedures fails to engage domestic environmental organisations in sustainable relationships based on less-hierarchical, new modes of governance. Further, they maintain that pressure from state actors to rely on professionalised behaviours and to limit their engagement in Natura to consultation and technical advisement has resulted in a new reliance on more radical forms of action.

Regional scholars have focused on the ways in which transnational forces and international funding contribute to the professionalisation of environmental movements and organisations (Jancar-Webster 1998, Wedel 1998, Quigley 2000, Cellarius and Staddon 2002, Mendelson and Glenn 2002, Henderson 2003). Professionalisation, in turn, often is linked to demobilisation (Staggenborg 1988, McCarthy et al. 1991). By taking an in-depth look at Czech environmental NGOs, Císař deepens our understanding of the relationships that these organisations have with international funders, and illustrates how donor assistance can empower environmental NGOs to perform a ‘behind the scenes’ role as agents of change. Whilst Císař acknowledges that external assistance and intervention for Czech environmental NGOs has largely failed to generate participation and public engagement in their campaigns and organisations, he concludes rather boldly that although international funding has resulted in representation, albeit without participation, this can make it possible for NGOs to advocate more assertively than if they had to take action based on public opinion and preferences. Our fixation on the mobilisation capacity of NGOs and the extent to which donor-dependent organisations seemed divorced from indigenous civil society served to obscure the extent to which these organisations, freed from the constraints of mass membership and public opinion, were being empowered to engage politically at both the domestic and international level.

It is easy to conclude that environmental politics in Russia and central Asia remains constrained by the limits of democratisation and transition, and the lurking authoritarianism of the successor states. However, Henry (Russia) and Weinthal and Watters (Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) provide a counterpoint to this view by offering new insights into how the limits of regime change combine with the opportunities of transnational linkage and public awareness to generate movements and campaigns that are genuinely agentic. The overriding message of Henry's analysis of the Russian environmental movement is that the country's limited transition and shift towards liberalisation has constrained green activists at the domestic level. However, she does not stop there, but delves into the dynamics of environmental organisations. Through her analysis of sustainable forestry, petroleum resources and climate change, she confirms existing studies suggesting that transnational linkage and networks often are established when domestic opportunity structures are limited and where a lack of receptivity in state institutions creates conditions that lead environmentalists to seek allies outside their borders (Keck and Sikkink 1998). She then takes this analysis a step further by showing that whilst public concerns about the environment are relatively high in Medvedev's Russia, the perception of environmentalists as part of transnational networks potentially undermines their legitimacy in the eyes of many as they are seen as being outsiders in Russian society. Henry concludes on an optimistic note, maintaining that improvements in domestic politically opportunities will depend on greens developing their capacity to provide solutions for the damaged environment and thus aligning themselves with the public and national elites.

Weinthal and Watters further extend the analysis of the relationships that environmentalists have with political elites. Using examples of petroleum development and environmental activism in Kazakhastan and Turkenistan, they trace the relationships that environmental activists had with the elite during the Soviet era through to the present, examining how alliances have changed as successor states adopted international laws and engaged with international NGOs. Through their analysis, Weinthal and Watters reveal how issues such as climate change and the development of alternative energy are not regarded as strictly environmental, but reflect local concerns about justice, equity, transparency and accountability, and how international conventions and the advancement of international best practices can be effective tools for mobilising, both locally and internationally. They find that despite the increasingly closed and authoritarian trends in national politics, environmental NGOs have displayed considerable capacity to mobilise transnational resources and networks, engage public opinion and fuse green issues with social and political agendas.

Drawing on the case of river basin management and environmental NGO activity in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina, Fagan and Sircar set out to explain why environmental NGOs and activism across the western Balkan successor states of the former Yugoslavia remain in their infancy, as compared to those in central and Eastern Europe. They suggest that this situation reflects compound legacies of conflict and socialism and the lack of environmental movements and mobilisation at the time state socialism collapsed. However, Fagan and Sircar also suggest the lack of activism and development of civil society is being further entrenched as a consequence of the ways in which ethnicity affects party politics, the weak regulatory capacity of state authorities and the lack of transparency in power dynamics. Despite these challenges, they offer a message of cautious optimism, suggesting that a surprising dividend has emerged from the socialist legacy: that there exists significant (albeit mainly technical rather than political) capacities within the region and the mobilisation of networks enmeshed locally that are rooted in the Yugoslav past.

The empirical contributions to this volume offer new insights into the development and trajectory of environmental activism and organisations in the region and the ways in which socialist legacies are blending with international influences to imprint environmental mobilisation and organisation. Each contribution examines a particular country or segment of the region and takes a distinct vantage point on movements and organisations. Collectively, they challenge our understanding of environmental movements and activism in the context of post-socialism in the east of Europe, showing how unique and often unexpected forms of activism have emerged. After two decades of political transformation and reform, these studies move us beyond many of the prevailing arguments, encouraging us to reconsider the impact of foreign donor assistance on NGOs, to re-evaluate the transformative power of Europe and to acknowledge the resilience and sometimes subtle forms of resistance that characterise environmental activists in an era of transnational networks and globalisation. The final contribution to this volume is from Michael Waller, one of the founding editors of Environmental Politics and one of the first scholars to explore the phenomenon of post-Communism from the perspective of green politics. In addition to drawing together the various themes of the volume, he revisits the significance of the environment for understanding the enormity and complexity of regime change for the former east European and ex-Soviet states. Looking forward, Waller articulates a vision of how an environmental perspective continues to offer scholars a valuable vantage point for understanding the intricacies of states with prolonged periods of Soviet-style communism followed by rapid and concurrent political, social and economic change.

Notes

1. The term Europeanisation is used here, and indeed throughout the articles in the volume to refer broadly to what Radaelli defines as ‘processes of (a) construction (b) diffusion and (c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, “ways of doing things” and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, identities, political structures and public policies' (2003, p. 30).

2. The notion of an ‘epistemic community’ draws on Haas’ definition of ‘a network of professional with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain or issue area … (sharing) a set of normative and principled beliefs, which provide a value-based rationale for the social action of community members …’ (Haas 1992, p. 3).