Environmental Politics

ISSN: 0964-4016 (Print) 1743-8934 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20

Environmental Ngos in Brussels: How powerful are

their lobbying activities?
Daphne Biliouri
To cite this article: Daphne Biliouri (1999) Environmental Ngos in Brussels: How
powerful are their lobbying activities?, Environmental Politics, 8:2, 173-182, DOI:
10.1080/09644019908414472
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644019908414472

Published online: 08 Nov 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 647

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fenp20
Download by: [Bibliotheque Nationale de France]

Date: 04 November 2016, At: 02:49

Environmental NGOs in Brussels:

How Powerful are Their
Lobbying Activities?
While Brussels may not be considered the centre of the world, it is the
centre for European lobbying. The European Union(EU)'s increasingly
larger role in the international political system, makes it the target of
numerous professional and voluntary lobby groups. There has been a vast
number of articles and books written on EU lobbying, its role and its
expansion over the years.' Without ignoring the presence of the various
lobby groups, this note will focus on the role of environmental nongovernmental organisations(NGOs) in Brussels and their efforts to promote
an effective environmental policy within the EU.
Defining Lobbying
Before we examine the role of environmental NGOs in Brussels it is
essential to define lobbying as the pressure groups' medium- and long-term
strategic perspective of creating a favourable legislative framework for their
activities. The continuous appearance of new lobby groups derives from the
need for more specialised scientific, technical and legal information
supplied to political decision-makers so that they fully understand the
significance and scope of their proposals. It is the quality of the groups'
arguments that should define their success and their future, not their
pressure methods.
It is also essential to differentiate between two types of lobbying: social
lobbying and commercial lobbying. This work concentrates on the first type
of lobbying, which is developed by pressure groups, trade unions and
concerned individuals based on non-commercial motives which are usually
ideological or political. The environmental lobby falls into this category
with environmental NGOs seeking to promote the intrinsic and priceless
value of the environment. Whatever the type of lobbying there is a great
need for regulation as not all groups are well organised, well represented or
show an intrusive behaviour towards the EU institutions. Hence, the
Commission proposed the creation of a directory of interest groups and a
code of conduct that they had to follow for better access to the work of the
EU [Mitchell, 1993:15].
Another factor that must be understood when talking about lobbying is
the use of the term power. It is a paradox to believe that environmental
Environmental Politics, Vol.8, No.2, Summer 1999, pp.173-182
PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

174

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS

groups have lobbying power. The term power has a very strong presence in
political science and shouldn't be used lightly. Power clearly means the
ability to set legislation and implement directives, a fact that doesn't
characterise any lobby group. Lobby groups have a degree of influence and
authority and it is based on these terms that we can perceive a more realistic
description of the lobby groups.
The Existing Climate in Brussels
The environment has become a popular subject within the politics of the EU
over the past two decades although it was not always implemented in the
policies and proposals of the EU. Therefore, as a reaction to this increasing
activity, many environmental organisations established offices in Brussels
hoping to keep an eye on the work of the Commission and influence the
proposals that were formulated in the European Parliament (EP). Although
each environmental NGO has its own agenda, they all demonstrate the
necessity to ensure that the Commission is aware of their views at an early
stage in the process of formulating proposals, therefore, giving them a good
chance of change. The appropriate time to influence the Commission is
when they are setting the agenda, so when a new proposal for legislation is
drafted, the NGOs have the opportunity to present their views. In other
instances though, some of these groups were left to fight a defensive battle
against the Commission's already formulated view.2 The advantage for
these groups is the support from other already established groups that also
opposed these proposals. Besides, as Mr Briggs of Birdlife International
indicated, NGOs through their independent research hope to illustrate the
gap between what the EU says in public and what takes place behind the
scenes.
At the end of the 1980s, environmental lobby groups were obtaining an
active role but their weakness was their heterogeneity and the fact that many
of their political perspectives were outside party politics. The diversity of
ideology that exists in the green lobby allows them to approach different
political parties and use their fundamentally different views on how to
confront the environmental crisis. Environmental NGOs provide
information and expertise that is valued by the EU institutions and used in
order to legitimise their position. Nowadays, environmental NGOs are well
organised and most of them have established offices in Brussels and are
members of the European Environmental Bureau, or other umbrella groups.
They are also in direct contact with each other allowing for a more coordinated and effective presence in the EU. There is also evidence of
collective action in the EU in the form of the Group of Eight (G8) that coordinates their activities and engages in collective lobbying.

RESEARCH NOTES

'

175

The 'Umbrella' Organisations

There are two major 'umbrella' organisations that act as co-ordinators of the
work of all the involved environmental groups. They are both based on the
same idea: to be successful a movement must be a network of networks
where political diversity can be a source of strength [Dalton, 1994:145-8).
First there is the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).3 The EEB is an
international association of national environmental groups formed in 1974
and serves as a consultative body on environmental issues. The limitations
that are set regarding membership is the exclusion of small, politically
assertive and unconventional environmental groups and groups that are
explicitly linked to a political party. The EEB has a consultative status with
the Council of Europe and it represents 130 member organisations in 24
countries. The EEB does not have a hierarchical structure but it is based on
a top down-down up relationship amongst all its members. It is the EEB
along with the international offices of the largest environmental NGOs that
comprise the following 'umbrella' organisation.
Secondly, there is the Group of 8. The G8 is the largest environmental
NGO network in Brussels and is considered the centre of all environmental
activity. While Greenpeace International and WWF International are not
members of the EEB, some of their national offices are represented through
the EEB. Their international offices are part of the G8 of environmental
associations, which are: European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Climate
Network Europe(CNE), European Federation for Transport and
Environment (T&E), Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace
International-European Unit, World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF)
International-European Policy Office, The World Conservation
Union(IUCN) and Birdlife International.4 All organisations are involved in
common lobbying activities but the EEB is recognised by the DirectorateGenera for the Environment (DG XI) as the only representative
organisation. Of course, the Commission consults with the other
organisations and according to Tony Long, director of the European policy
office of the WWF in Brussels, there is a degree of competition for funds
amongst the NGOs but there is 'an unwritten and unspoken agreement to
specialise in different areas of activity'.5
That is where these organisations differ from Greenpeace, which doesn't
receive financial support from the EU institutions to establish projects, like
WWF or the EEB. Greenpeace attends the less important advisory
committees and formal meetings and favours more direct actions and public
opinion campaigns as it rejects any form of internal involvement from the
EU institutions fearing the effect on the independence of the organisation.
Regarding the division of labour, there is a rejection of the state-centric

176

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS

model of EU governance. Greenpeace indicates that the national offices

don't engage in European lobbying, unless they are instructed by the
European Unit, while WWF acts on the basis of eight subjects, therefore
adapting to the multi-level character of the EU with channels being created
at all national and trans-national levels [Bursens, 1996:15-19].
It is worth noting that environmental groups have a unique political
structure in Brussels. Although it seems to resemble the lobbying scene of
Washington with an increasing use of professional and technical assistance
to promote issues, the differences are still great. Environmental groups are
working in a rather institutional climate that constantly evolves and exist
within political structures where the mandates are not always clear.
Therefore, they need to be flexible with a great skill of co-ordination. Of all
the non-industry pressure groups, the green lobby is one of the best
organised. But the increasing interests of the industry requires more and
more effective measures, and as we have seen, the establishment of
european offices by most of the biggest environmental NGOs have only
made this fight more effective against the interests that are not compatible
with the well-being of the environment.
Europe has earned the right to be considered 'greener' than the US with
environmental activism expanding rapidly. With green parties having
representation in 11 out of the 15 EU parliaments, and the environment
being on the top ten list of public opinion, the actual reality is less
optimistic. As Alexander de Roo, from the Green Party in the EP, indicates:
'Europe is very green in its rhetoric but less so in reality'.
Environmentalism is more public in Europe but behind the scenes private
interests still reign. The auto industry has increased its sales in Europe as the
number of cars per capita in the EU is up 37 per cent between 1980 and
1990. While the most effective weapon, taxation, is not being used for the
benefit of the environment. 'Taxes are usually put on labour and profits.
They should be switched to pollution and the use of scarce resources', said
Sir Crispin Tickell, head of the British Government Panel on Sustainable
Development.6
The Basics for a Successful Lobbying Campaign
What follows are the requirements for a successful environmental lobby
group to survive in the complex and tough world of the EU. Without these
basic points, a group's presence is in danger.
First, each group needs a well-organised office. Most of the
environmental groups cannot afford to establish a large team in Brussels.
Hence, most of them have restricted personnel (three to ten staff, half of
which are part-time), all of which have technical/scientific expertise on the

RESEARCH NOTES

177

issues that justify the work of the organisation. Next it needs to show public
support. The constant support of the public is evident not only in numbers
but also financially as membership fees and donations constitute almost 50
per cent of their budget.
Thirdly, it needs co-operation and support from other NGOs that work
on the same issues. Exchange of ideas, advice and information can lead to
a successful battle against the common enemy. A recent example was the
joint effort by trade unions, consumer organisations, health professionals
and environmental NGOs to influence the EU's Auto/Oil programme for
tighter standards. They fear that the EP might accept amendments proposing
derogation to 'countries with severe socio-economic difficulties' from
measures to combat air pollution from traffic.
Fourthly, it needs to promote of a high profile issue. It is often through
the promotion of certain issues that would attract the attention of the public
and hence the government is attracted, and then minor issues are also
solved. The bad record of Shell on environmental issues (Nigeria, Brent
Spar) has attracted the attention of the public and the media for a long time
and has finally resulted in the environmental community being the winner not only was the final decision in accordance with the wishes of
Greenpeace, the main campaigner on this issue, but also led to a success for
the environmental lobby as more than ten per cent of Shell investors voted
for a radical overhaul of the oil company's stance on green issues.
Fifthly there is the presentation of well-researched and detailed briefs
that will influence the Commission's decisions. Targeting is the key
concept; knowing which MEPs have an interest on the topic that a group
seeks to promote and which ones are willing to bring this issue to the
Commission. A constant presence at the plenary sessions of the EP and
briefings can only benefit the group's activities and strategies. Targeting is
essential as the decisions are being made by individuals and small groups
that express sympathy on the issue that needs to be promoted and often a
sympathetic MEP can act as a rapporteur for the organisation to the
Commission. Each group, in any approach to MEPs, must notify the other
groups so their efforts are co-ordinated rather than duplicated and thus their
joint work can become more effective.
It needs to be remembered that lobbying the Commission and the
Council occurs via the EP. The EP is receptive to environmental groups and
generally all EU institutions are attitudinally sympathetic and structurally
open to the interests of the environmental movement. It has been noted on
several instances a remarkable degree of consensus within the Parliament on
the need for effective environmental policy, although the specific aims of
such a policy remain unclear. Moreover, the climate in Brussels is more
open and accessible for environmentalists to shift the balance of power

178

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS

rather than at a national level in each member state. .

Sixthly, there is the use of technology to promote environmental issues
and make available to the public reports and decisions taken by
governmental bodies. The EU has embraced the power of technology and
the internet as a means of putting its environmental policies into action. 'For
one thing, using electrons is better than using paper. It is faster and it stays
longer. We do believe in the internet as a basic tool for our information
strategy', says Takis Alevantis, a spokesman for DG XI. The EU's web site
posts information like the 5th environmental action programme, the LIFE
programme and all the recent reports on the state of the environment. All
major environmental organisations have their own web sites with complete
listings of their activities in conjuction with the EU.
Lastly, there is the co-ordination amongst the national, regional and the
EU-based offices of the various NGOs. Lobbying is a multilateral operation
that requires all sides to be involved. The national offices play the most
important role as they are the ones that determine the issues at a local level
and can approach national politicians, and through them, obtain important
allies within the Council of Ministers. That is why national representatives
should be in all teams. Thus, the national issues translate into cross-national
issues via the EU and it is the reconciliation between national and EU policy
objectives that is addressed through the simultaneous vertical and horizontal
linkage of issues within each NGO. According to Tony Long, WWF's
structure sets such an example. The whole organisation is based on a
vertical link defined by theeight subjects and a horizontal link between all
the national offices. Therefore, if an issue arises at the Italian office on
climate policy, the office will contact the team that represents the subject.
And to ensure full representation, there is a national representative in every
subject team.
The Industry: A Perpetual Enemy?
Once the support of the Commission is achieved, the next and most difficult
obstacle that has to be overcome is opposition from industry. The problem
that most small environmental groups have to face is logistical; coordinating pressure from other member states is not easy for a small group
with limited resources. This puts the voluntary sector at a disadvantage
compared to industrial lobbying.
Regarding the position towards industry, things are perceived differently
by various environmental NGOs. For a long time, NGOs saw the business
world as an adverse and hostile group but gradually this seems to have
changed. On the one hand, NGOs, such as WWF, see potential in the
collaboration of environmental groups and industry. Martin Hiller,

RESEARCH NOTES

179

European Communications manager with the WWF said: 'Partnerships

between NGOs and the business sector is one of the main ways forward to
solve environmental problems'.
Many businesses are recognising a new market development in
environmentally friendly products and processes. Environmental
performance is increasingly seen as a competitive and strategic issue for
companies. Hence alliances between the business industry, NGOs and
governments are a reality seeking to promote the concept of sustainable
development and offer high payoffs for all sides involved. Now that
sustainable development claims a major part in the environmental agenda a fact that has occurred because of the activities of environmental NGOs these same groups realise the key role that business can play in creating
workable solutions that will satisfy every involved party.7
These ideas, though, may not be shared by other environmental groups.
Greenpeace was and still is more critical of the role of the industry in
promoting environmental issues. The factor that can not be ignored is the
political background and theoretical basis of each and every environmental
organisation. All environmental NGOs come from different political
backgrounds which affects their structure, membership and actions. What
needs to be pointed out is that although each organisation follows a different
route they all have a single aim: the protection of the environment.
The Future of Lobbying
Compromise is a word of crucial importance for all negotiations. Practical
concessions have to be made to secure cross-party support and to get an
agreement with the Commission. This change in attitude has been noticed
the past couple of years. Even within the EU decision-making bodies there
is a more conciliatory tone towards the promotion of certain issues, such as
climate change and energy issues. The industry also made it clear: the best
way for governments and companies to deal with environmental issues is by
drawing voluntary agreements. Environmental NGOs must realise this
potential, after all, how successful was the declaration of open war with
industry? Maybe the time for change has come and the need for compromise
from all sides is a possible solution. Whether industry will comply with the
voluntary approach to meet the EU's commitments remains to be seen.
After all, the Commission has still to prove its ability to promote the
implementation of its agreements by all the member states. According to
Tony Long: 'Environmental NGOs can be optimistic if the EU realises the
competitive advantage of a cleaner technology in business and industry and
proceeds on this basis. There is reason for less optimism if there are signs
of slow moving according to the speed of the poorest and the less willing

180

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS

member state to implement these agreements'. As the EU is entering into

more international environmental commitments, the Commission needs to
put money behind those commitments.
The motivation is still very strong and although there might be
disillusionment in some areas even Thilo Bode, head of Greenpeace
International admits that: 'We have made considerable progress. Air quality
has improved, rivers have become cleaner, waste disposal is better
controlled.' All that is required is stronger action and Europe will deserve
the mantle of environmental leadership.
The biggest obstacle still remains the implementation of the decisions
and directives. The battle never stops, persuading the EU is only one step
towards the implementation of all these decisions by the governments of the
member states and moreover, the international community. The EU is only
a battle of a greater and tougher war. 'Lobbying in the EC is like attempting
a complex obstacle course at the end of which you could find yourself up
against a silent, unassailable brick wall' [Baker, 1992: 9].
But the influence exerted by pressure groups is well established,
according to the European public relations organisation Entente
International Communication. According to their report Putting the
Pressure On, 70 per cent of leading businesses are targeted directly by
pressure groups and the majority of them are directly involved in dealing
with pressure groups and operate under legislation that the groups helped
create. While the percentage is high for countries like Belgium, Germany
and Austria, the UK and the southern european countries are less inclined to
co-operate with pressure groups (The Times, 24 April 1997).
The success of lobbying should be indicated on a long-term basis. It is
fair to say that the environmental message has been heard over the past 25
years, and since its start, there have been successes: the creation of an
environmental action programme, the inclusion of the environment in the
regional policy and the continuous realisation that it is an integral part of the
EU policies. But it is still a long way from the final victory. The theory of
integration is not going to be put to flesh as easily as it is hoped for. As well
as ensuring that ministers in the areas of transport, agriculture, and energy
take account of green considerations, finance ministers should be the ones
to show that they are environmentally aware. Environmental Commissioner,
Ritt Bjerregaard wants to ensure that the EU governments are ready to put
into force the Amsterdam Treaty, which contains a specific article on
'integration'. 'The idea is to say that a lot of the genuine environmental
legislation is in place so now we need to look at environmental policy in
other areas', explained Peter Jorgensen, Bjerregaard's spokesman. In
addition, there is the need to ensure that environmental issues are given top
priority during enlargement negotiations with the central and eastern

RESEARCH NOTES

181

european countries (European Voice, 20-27 May 1998).

At a conference on pressure politics that was organised in June 1998 by
the Entente group the emergence of pressure groups as a major political
force and their impact on policy-making was the main topic of discussion.
Emma Bonino, Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, Fisheries Policy and
Consumer Affairs, indicated the vital role of the presence of NGOs and
other lobby groups in influencing Europe's democratic process. She argues
that although lawmakers make the final decision, there is no harm of
presenting to them all the different points of view on a certain issue. This
co-operation amongst the environmental groups seems sincere as they are
able to avoid the factional in-fighting that cripples other sections of the
NGO community. With the advent of the internet, this influence can only
increase. Another survey confirmed that most of the environmental groups
are heavy users of the internet as a way of appealing directly to the public
(European Voice, 11-17 June 1998). The fact remains that pressure groups
have become a political force in their own right and are here to stay.
DAPHNE BILIOURI
Visiting lecturer at the American University,
Kyrgyz Republic

NOTES
1. Some of the main contributors in the area of lobbying in the EU are Andersen and Eliassen,
Dalton, Lowe, Mazey and Richardson, amongst many others.
2. This was the case for the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection(BUAV) which
entered the European lobbying system at a time when a directive was already formulated.
3. For more information on the EEB visit their web site: www.eeb.org.
4. All the above organisations are listed in the Yearbook of International Co-operation on
Environment and there is an extensive description of their structure and objectives.
5. Personal communication with Tony Long, director of the EU Policy office of WWF in
Brussels, 6 Nov. 1998. This research also draws from other interviews.
6. According to an article by Elizabeth Gleick 'Do As We Say' that was published in the special
issue of Time magazine dedicated to the environment, Nov. 1997.
7. Section on sustainable development, International Herald Tribune, 5 Nov. 1998, pp.21-5.
REFERENCES
Andersen, Svein S. and Kjell A. Eliassen (eds.) (1993), Making Policy in Europe: the
Europeification of National Decision-making, London: Sage Publications.
Baker, Mike (1992), 'Voluntary Group Lobbying in the EC - A Case Study in Animal Testing of
Cosmetics', European Access, No.4, Aug. 1992, pp.9-10.
Bursens, Peter (1996), 'European Integration and Environmental Interest Representation in
Belgium and the EU', ECPR Joint Sessions Workshops, Oslo.
Dalton, Russell J. (1994), The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe, New

182

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hjelmear, Ulf (1996), The Political Practice of Environmental Organisations, Aldershot:
Brookfield, Avebury.
Julien, Bruno (1990), 'Euro-lobbying invades Berlaymont', European Affairs, Vol.4, No.3.
pp.28-33.
Mazey, Sonia and Jeremy Richardson (1994), 'Interest Groups and Representation in the
European Union', ECPR Joint Sessions Workshops, Madrid.
Mitchell, Duncan (1993), 'Interest Groups and the Democratic Deficit', European Access, No.2,
pp.14-17.