Europeanisation as Resource Empowerment for NGOs

Abstract

This paper explores the significance of resources in determining a group's ability to respond to the European Integration process. Both domestic and supranational opportunity structures are constantly shaped and re-shaped by EU policy processes. The single country case study of France is selected on the basis of the state's longstanding traditions of civil society exclusion. The influence of the EU in transforming these Jacobin predilections is explored with reference to a comprehensive European environmental implementation programme (NATURA 2000). Resource Mobilisation theory reminds us that a group's resource base is a decisive variable in attempting to influence decision makers. It is argued, first, that the European Commission has empowered some French civil society actors with resources allowing them to mobilise on more levels for longer, while failing to influence others. Second, it is revealed that this empowerment is dependent upon the level of financial incentives offered as well as the overall favourability of the group to the EU project itself.

Key Words:

• Europeanisation
• exclusion
• France
• interest intermediation
• mobilisation
• political opportunity structure
• political science
• resources
• sociology

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the chair and participants of the UACES 2006 annual conference panel on ‘Theorising European Integration’ in Limerick. In addition, he thanks Magalie Bourblanc, Dr. Charlotte Burns, Dr. Jenny Fairbrass and Dr. Graeme Hayes for comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Notes

¹ This approach is more associated with social movement research.

² The term ‘civil society’ is explored within the policy specific arena of N2000 below. Nevertheless, this paper concentrates on the ‘mobilisation analysis’ of FRAPNA and FNC.

³ The definition of ‘empowerment’ is restricted to the allocation of resources to a NGO from an external body. In this case, the paper focuses on the European Commission through its role in the LIFE financial mechanism.

⁴ Harmsen and Wilson (2000) and Olsen (2002) reveal between five and eight separate approaches and classifications of Europeanisation.

⁵ Ideological (or so called European ‘social psychology’) approaches emerged in the late 1970s in direct competition to American-based RMT (Tourraine, 1977). We include ideology as an important resource for civil society groups.

⁶ We conceptualise ‘networks’ with other organisations as a resource for individual groups. This is explored in greater detail throughout the N2000 case study.

⁷ These two sites were included under the financial arrangements of LIFE03 NAT/F/000100 and LIFE05 NAT/F/000135.

⁸ Further details on these projects can be acquired from the Environmental Ministry.

⁹ The three projects are FR8210017 ‘Hauts Plateaux du Vercors’, FR8210058 ‘Iles du Haut Rhône’ and FR9310036 ‘Les Ecrins’.

¹⁰ FRC received a total of 4,700 Euros from involvement in these two LIFE designated sites. In terms of organisational resources, there is no evidence of any specialist N2000 posts or equipment in contrast to the FRAPNA experience.

¹¹ This conclusion resulted from a series of interviews with staff at FRC. A growing familiarity with EU information sources increased understanding with some representatives.

¹² During an interview (10 September 2005) with a representative from la Mairie: ‘Natura 2000 pose le plus grave problème d'aménagement des territoires depuis trente ans.’

¹³ ‘S’il y a une décision à prendre, c'est au parlement français de le faire, pas au parlement européen. Vous pouvez compter sur nous.’

¹⁴ ‘Sur le fond, on ne peut pas être contre la protection des espèces menacées. Sur la forme, c'est autre chose.’

¹⁵ We have not been able to ascertain precise figures for LIFE financing in the case of FRAPNA. This conclusion is based upon interviews with representatives and figures from LIFE-Nature on a project basis.

¹⁶ In particular, FRAPNA created a N2000 dedicated team (initially five strong and primarily scientists) in 1999.

¹⁷ Its involvement in a high profile case against France in 2001 was its only notable success. A coalition of environmental actors (lead by LPO) succeeded in bringing legal proceeding against the state for its ‘under-ambitious’ approach to site designation and implementation (Cour de Justice Européenne, 2003).

¹⁸ FRAPNA representatives presented these two examples as victories over agricultural associations, as the new demarcations were very close to those proposed by FRAPNA.