Shifting views of environmental NGOs in Spain and Romania

Abstract

Environmental issues are of growing importance in South and South‐Eastern Europe. Democratization has seen the emergence of non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) addressing a range of domestic and regional environmental considerations. This article compares the development of the environmental NGO sector in Spain and Romania, as this says much about state attitudes towards the environment. In spite of very different histories, there are a number of similarities in the experiences of environmental NGOs in both countries. The article argues that environmental NGOs continue to be marginalized due to non‐democratic legacies that suppressed participation and maintained closed administrative systems.

Keywords:

• environment
• non‐governmental organizations
• democratization
• administration
• Spain
• Romania

Notes

1. On democratization, see Haggard and Kaufman 1995; Linz and Stepan 1996; O’Donnell and Schmitter 1986; Rustow 1970.

2. Interest in environmental NGOs has increased with the recognition of the importance of public participation in governance and policy formation, in line with the concept of deliberative democracy. See Keck and Sikkink 1998; Wapner 1996 on environmental movements and Dryzek 2000; Elster 1998; Smith 2003 on deliberative democracy. Previous studies of environmental movements include Jiménez 2007; Koutalakis 2004 and Soromenho‐Marques 2002 on Southern Europe; and Carmin and Jehlicka 2005; Cellarius and Staddon 2002; Jancar‐Webster 1998 and Rinkevicius 2000 on Eastern Europe.

3. The interviews were conducted between February and July 2007 (six interviews were conducted for each country); they were recorded and transcribed by the author. Interviews were structured to obtain a broad picture of environmental politics in each country; they covered environmental policy, effects of democratization, public participation, environmental NGO sector, media, foreign influence, and state administration. The interviews were part of a PhD project examining the relationship between democratization and environmental capacity‐building in South and South‐Eastern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Romania, and Bulgaria). All relevant interviews were consulted in the writing of this article, and material cited is representative.

4. The Danube Circle was formed in May 1984 to oppose the Nagymáros dam project, mobilizing officials and scientific research workers, in the absence of free expression of public opinion. As the communist regime began to liberalize, the Circle became increasingly active, peaking on 12 September 1988 when 10,000 people marched to parliament. Following the regime change, the Circle lost influence as it struggled to find a role, since the dam project had been cancelled (Waller 1992, 124–6).

5. Ekoglasnost was a non‐governmental organization founded in March 1989. The organization initially protested pollution in the town of Ruse, but expanded the focus after initial repression by the regime and ‘expressed concern about the ecological situation and demanded openness, clarity and transparency, in all policies regarding the environment’ (Baumgartl 1992, 166). Following the regime change, Ekoglasnost entered the political system, but it was unable to generate influence as factions joined different political groupings undermining its position (Waller and Millard 1992, 168–9).

6. The full name of the convention being the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) Convention on Access to Information Public Participation in Decision‐making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

7. 2003/35/EC – Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.

8. 2003/4/EC – Public Access to Environmental Information Directive.

9. 96/61/EC – Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive.

10. Ley 191/1964 – Of Associations (De Asociaciones), http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Derogadas/r0-l191-1964.html.

11. Ley Orgánica 1/2002 – Regulating the Right of Association (Reguladora del Derecho Asociación), http://boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=2002/05852.

12. The LAIMMA was replaced in 2006 by Ley 27/2006 – Regulating the Right of Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in the Environment (Regulan los Derechos de Acceso a la Información, de Participación Pública y de Acceso a la Justicia en Materia de Medio Ambiente), http://boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=2006/13010. Ley 28/1995 – LAIMMA, http://boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=1995/26838.

13. The law establishing the CAMA sought to establish the rights in the 1978 Constitution to a clean environment and the ability to challenge the authorities. It also notes the importance of the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro (1992) and the Fifth Environment Action Programme of the EU (1993) in shaping the formation of the CAMA. The main NGOs (mentioned above) have representatives. Real Decreto 224/1994 – Establishment of the Advisory Council on the Environment (Crea el Consejo Asesor de Medio Ambiente).

14. http://boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=1994/05509.

15. Real Decreto 2355/2004 – Structure and Functions of the Advisory Council on the Environment (Estructura y Funciones del Consejo Asesor de Medio Ambiente), http://boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=2005/00654. The role of the CAMA has been shaped by the political orientation of the government, with the Partido Popular government of José Maria Aznar (1996–2004) scaling back its activities and the PSOE government of José Luis Rodríguez‐Zapatero reinstating it (Author interview with NGO representative, Madrid, 2 March 2007).

16. For interpretations of the democratization process in Romania, see Durán 2001; Gallagher 2005; Hall 1999, 2000; Linz and Stepan 1996; Pridham 2001; Tismaneanu 1997; Vasi 2004.

17. Opposition was also dealt with through indirect means, as illustrated by the miners’ attacks on protestors at the request of President Iliescu in 1990 (Durán 2001, 20).

18. The OAS replaced the 1924 Law for Legal Persons (Associations and Foundations). Ordonanţă 26/2000 – On Associations and Foundations (Cu privire la Asociaţii şi Fundaţii), http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=22060; Legea 21/1924 – For Legal Persons (Associations and Foundations) (Pentru Persoanele Juridice (Asociaţii şi Fundaţii)), http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=1518.

19. An experienced environmental campaigner provided the following list of environmental NGOs when asked: ALMA‐RO; Asociaţia ARIN; Clubul de Ciclotourism Napoca (CCN – Bicycle Touring Club Napoca); Eco‐Counselling Centre Galaţi; Greenpeace; Asociaţia Kogayon; Regional Environmental Center Romania; Terra Mileniul III; UNESCO Pro Natura; WWF (NGO representative, personal communication, 25 June 2007).

20. Legea 137/1995 – Environmental Protection (Protecţiei Mediului), http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/rom13258E.doc.

21. Hotărâre 195/2005 – On Access to Public Information on Environment (Privind Accesul Publicului la Informaţia privind Mediului), http://www.mmediu.ro/informatii/HG_878-2005.pdf.

22. A survey from 2003 noted that 4% of those surveyed belonged to an informal organization, while 18% engaged in some form of community activity in the previous year (Mungiu‐Pippidi 2005, 57–8).

23. Dracula Land was a theme park planned for the UNESCO heritage‐listed town of Sighişoara. The Roşia Montană project was a planned gold mine, involving the destruction of a historic village in the Apuseni Mountains (see Parau 2009).