Southern European Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective

American Behavioral Scientist Volume 51 Number 11 July 2008 1627-1647 © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0002764208316361 http://abs.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Maria Kousis University of Crete, Rethimno, Greece

Donatella della Porta European University Institute, Florence, Italy

Manuel Jiménez Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain

Differential national responses to the European Union’s environmental policy have led to the idea that two worlds of environmentalism exist in Europe. In its harsh version, Europe is divided into North and South, with the South suffering from a Mediterranean syndrome. Southern European countries are viewed as environmental laggards, a perception attributed to, among other factors, a weak civil society intertwined with political systems characterized by patronage, clientelism, and lack of respect for public authority. This article provides new evidence documenting that civil society in Greece, Italy, and Spain appears to be much stronger on environmental matters than anticipated by the proponents of the above view. It also offers an alternative theorization of environmental politics, emphasizing aspects of organizational structures and political processes. Keywords: environmental protest; Southern Europe; environmental politics; protest event analysis; evironmental movement; European Union; Mediterranean

Civil Society and the Environment in Southern Europe The literature on social movements offers two indicators of movement mobilization capacity. One refers to the organizational strength of a movement, measured in terms Authors’ Note: This analysis is based in part on data produced by qualitative and quantitative methods designed for and carried out under the Transformation of Environmental Activism, a project funded by the European Commission, Directorate General XII (Contract No. ENV4-CT97-0514). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the European Commission. We wish to thank Chris Rootes, coordinator of Transformation of Environmental Activism, for his comments on an earlier draft, which was presented during the panel “Environmental Politics in Southern Europe,” at the pan-conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Kent, United Kingdom, September 2001. Our gratitude also goes to the rest of the Transformation of Environmental Activism team for the memorable collaborations, as well as to the Mediterranean Voices (EC, DG EuropeAid, E8 AIDCO/2000/2095-05) participants for their comments, when a more recent version was presented at the 2003 regional partners’ meeting conference at the University of Crete (www.med-voices.org/). Please address correspondence to Maria Kousis, University of Crete, Rethymno Campus 741 00, Crete, Greece; e-mail: [email protected]. 1627 Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1628 American Behavioral Scientist

of membership and other resources available for social movement organizations. This type of research focuses on the largest and most visible formal organizations, which are those that can be best observed. A second indicator refers to the movement’s amount of collective action—precisely, the amount of protest. As we demonstrate below, the two indicators follow different tendencies. Although Southern European countries usually rank lower than their Northern European counterparts in terms of their environmental organizations’ resources (number of members, resources, degree of professionalization), this is not the case for protest events, which include actions by formal and informal organizations. In fact, what we observe when looking at Southern European environmental movements from a comparative perspective is that they are more decentralized and informally structured than their northern counterparts. Social movements in the South make up for this deficiency by exploiting other, more informal or local types of social capital, analyzed in terms of norms of reciprocity and networks of solidarity. By looking at the differences between selected Southern European countries, we suggest that other variables play an important role—such as the strength of political parties and the “color” of the governmental coalitions. Finally, we suggest that contrary to the idea of a stable Mediterranean syndrome—with a pathological political culture, consolidated over the centuries and almost impossible to modify (La Spina & Sciortino, 1993)—Southern European countries are rapidly changing, leapfrogging some developmental steps on their way (Gunther, Diamandouros, & Puhle, 1995). The European Union (EU), as a sponsor of policy norms, is playing an important role in this process. This article provides new insights into environmental contentious politics in Southern Europe by focusing attention on environmental protest and environmental organizations and by placing these insights into a comparative frame vis-à-vis the Northern European (including central Western Europe) experience. The analysis is based in part on data produced by, in-depth interviews and protest event analysis) designed for and carried out under a European Commission research project— Transformation of Environmental Activism, which covers Great Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Sweden for a 10-year period (1988-1997).

Environmental Protest in Southern Europe Interest in civic and political matters has been high, albeit fluctuating over the last few decades. Civil society had already started to develop in Spain in the 1960s and early 1970s—that is, before the end of the Franco regime (Perez-Diaz, 1999), as exemplified by the case of the neighborhood movement (Castells, 1983). In the 1970s, a strong oppositional leftist culture developed more so in Spain (Perez-Diaz, 1999) and Greece (Alexandropoulos, 1990) than in Portugal (Gil Nave, 2000), and

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1629

it would go on to nourish the ranks of the political elite and contribute to the formation of new social movements, especially, the environmental ones. The emergence of Italian environmentalism from within the New Left milieu dates, above all, from the 1980s and arrives after one of the most contentious periods of contemporary Italian history (della Porta, 1996; della Porta & Rucht, 1995; Diani, 1995). By the second half of the 1980s, participation in Southern European voluntary associations was on the rise and generating a considerable capacity for contentious action (Alexandropoulos, 1990; Koopmans, 1996; Vitsilaki, 1988). This trend is clear from the increasing strength of nongovernmental organizations—consumer, solidarity, environmental, neighborhood, cultural, and others (della Porta, Valiente, & Kousis, 1996). In the cases of Spain, Greece, and Portugal, political parties had tried to control and colonize the new social movements during their respective transitions to democracy, yet their ability to do so decreased significantly in the 1980s and 1990s (Kousis, 1999b; Perez-Diaz, 1999). In Italy, the wave of distrust in politics that followed the corruption scandals in the 1990s favored a shift in collective action away from political parties and toward voluntary associations and the third sector (della Porta, 1996). Environmental movements, which date from the end of the Southern European dictatorships, have been researched only since the late 1980s. Moreover, with a few exceptions (e.g., Borzel, 2000; Koutalakis, 2004; Rootes, 2002), there is a lack of comparative studies of environmental activism covering northern and southern countries (Eder & Kousis, 2001). Recent empirical work under the Transformation of Environmental Activism project provided an opportunity to study environmental activism cross-nationally for the period of 1988 to 1997.1 The data shown in Table 1 depict reported environmental protest events in seven EU member states and the groups involved in them. Comparing countries is difficult when one factors in the different populations, types of national newspapers, and their editorial policies. When standardized for the number of inhabitants in each country, there is no clear evidence that environmental protest is any less frequent in Southern Europe (Spain, Italy, and Greece) than in Northern Europe (United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden).2 According to the data in Table 1, when population density is taken into account, Southern European countries show not fewer but more social groups initiating and participating in environmental protest. In addition, when estimating environmental protest activity per carbon dioxide load, Spain and Greece show more protest activity than do Germany and the United Kingdom. Our evidence on environmental protest suggests that environmental activism may be stronger in Southern Europe than expected and that variations among Southern European countries are at least as important as the differences between Northern and Southern European countries. Data on environmental protest indeed show a mixed picture in which it is difficult to cluster Southern Europe as a whole and as a distinct entity from its northern counterpart. Spain tops the table in terms of demonstrations, with over 500 participants

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1630 American Behavioral Scientist

Table 1 Characteristics of Environmental Protest in Seven European Union Countries, 1988-1997 UK Protest events (n) 702 Population density (persons/km2) 243 Protest events/population density 2.9 CO2 emissions (metric ton per capita, 1995) 9.3 Protest events/CO2 75.5 Population of initiating and participating 274 groups in the above Groups/population density 1.1

Germany Greece Spain Italy France Sweden 614 234 2.6 10.2 60.2 628

582 81 7.2 7.3 79.7 430

2.7

5.3

408 328 159 79 195 106 5.2 1.7 1.5 5.9 7.2 5.8 69.2 45.6 27.4 623 490 — 7.9

2.5

0.0

242 21 11.5 5.0 48.4 152 7.2

Source: Data for Tables 1-5 were produced by the European Commission project Transformations in Environmental Activism. They correspond to 50% of the issues of the following newspapers: The Guardian, Die Tageszeitung, Eleftherotypia, El País, La Repubblica, and Le Monde y Dages Nyheter. Social and environmental indicators taken from World Development Indicators (World Bank, 1998). Dash (—) indicates that data were not available.

as a percentage of all demonstrations, and it competes for first place with Germany in demonstrations as a percentage of total protest events. When the respective countries’ populations are taken into account, Greece leads, with Sweden, in terms of the number of large demonstrations. This picture is reversed when looking at the number of participants in large demonstrations per 100,000 inhabitants, with Germany taking the lead. Thus, unlike previous undocumented claims, the data suggest that the mobilization potential existing in the Southern EU countries is at least as great as that found in the countries of Northern Europe. This image of relatively high level of environmental mobilization is supported by the comparatively high percentage of Italians (7%) and Spaniards (6%) that, according to the ISSP-93 survey (as cited in Gómez et al., 1999), mobilized in favor of the environment between 1988 and 1992. Among the rest of the EU countries included in the survey, only Germany (with 9%) outstripped these two Southern countries, whereas the United Kingdom (3%) and the Netherlands (4%) ranked below them (Gomez, Noya, & Paniagua, 1999). The data referring to the scope of the demands made in environmental protest (given in Table 2) clearly illustrate that the predominance of the local in the definition of problems is a distinctive feature of protests in at least two Southern European countries: Greece and Spain. Regional demands are more important in Sweden and France, whereas Germany leads in national environmental protest. Nationally focused protests are rarest in Sweden, a country that nonetheless shows the highest level of internationally focused environmental protest.

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1631

Table 2 Features of Demonstrative Environmental Protest in Seven European Union Countries, 1988-1997 France Germany

UK

Greece

Italy

Spain

Sweden

No. of large demonstrations (≥500) 38 124 76 31 35 79 23 Total demonstrations (%) 51.4 57.7 40.4 23.8 43.2 78.2 46.9 Total protest events (%) 23.9 20.2 10.8 5.3 10.7 19.4 9.5 Average no. of participants in large 10,712 28,738 25,149 17,093 34,368 23,441 14,614 demonstrations Large demonstrations/100,000 0.6 1.5 1.3 3.0 0.6 2.0 2.6 inhabitants Participants in large demonstrations/ 4.1 35.6 19.1 5.3 12.0 18.5 3.4 100,000 inhabitants Population (millions) 59 82 59.2 10.5 57.6 39.4 8.8 Number of protest events 159 614 702 582 328 408 242 Number of demonstrations 74 215 188 130 81 101 49 Total no. of participants in large 407 3,563 1,911 529 1,202 1,851 336,113 demonstrations (thousands)

Table 3 Scope of Demand Underlying Environmental Protest in Seven European Union Countries, 1988-1997 Country

Local

Regional

National

International

Greece Spain France Italy United Kingdom Sweden Germany Total (average)

87.8 72.4 44.3 43.7 38.9 35.6 28.7 51.5

4.1 5.7 20.1 4.0 6.1 39.7 5.4 8.7

6.0 10.3 22.8 32.7 36.0 0.8 50.3 25.7

2.1 11.6 12.8 19.6 19.0 23.8 15.6 14.2

What factors might account for these findings? And why do environmental protests appear to remain local in the South more often than in the North? Table 3 presents the data on the types of demands by country, and it shows that the choice on the territorial scope of the protest target correlates with the types of issues addressed by protest groups. The examination of environmental protest issues (see Table 4) shows a number of significant differences across Southern and Northern European countries, which may partly explain the differences in the territorial scope of claims. On one hand, Spain and Greece, with more locally focused protest, show the highest focus of nature conservation and anticonstruction demands (houses, buildings), whereas

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1632 American Behavioral Scientist

Greece and Italy have high frequencies in terms of antipollution claims (air, ocean, river). On the other, Germany, with the highest level of nationally oriented protest, and France, to a much lesser extent, boast the highest frequencies of antinuclear demands. The United Kingdom, which ranks second in terms of nationally oriented protest, leads in antiroad construction protests, as well as animal welfare and antihunting protests, and it is followed by Italy and Sweden. Notably, the level of protest (i.e., the number of protests) over an issue does not always correspond to the importance of the protest at the national level. For instance, nature conservation accounts for 40% of all protests in Greece and Spain, but only 4.5% of these protests defined the problem as being national, and its relative weight among other nationally defined issues is not proportional (especially in the Spanish cases, where nature conservation represents a much lower 17.5% of protests with national demands). In contrast, nature conservation in Italy is the reason behind less than 10.0% of all protests, but such protests are more frequently defined as being national. Thus, the nationalization potential of nature conservation issues in Italy is arguably higher than it is in other countries, probably because of the nature of environmental policy making and the target of conservationist campaigns. No Southern syndrome can be observed on antinuclear protest either; that is, antinuclear protest constitutes another interesting case. In Germany, antinuclear protest accounts for 60.0% of the total; it is frequently articulated in national terms (66.2%); and it dominates the agenda of national environmental protest and media space (reducing the space for other issues). Antinuclear protest in Britain is less important than other issues (representing only 5.7% of all protest); however, such protest is frequently defined in national terms, although its quota of nationally defined issues is significantly lower (it represents only 9.0% of protest events with national demands). As for Southern European countries, in a country without nuclear energy, Greece, the rare environmental problems that motivated protests with national demands included nature conservation and animal welfare and hunting, whereas in Spain they included water (not in the example above) and, quite moderately, antinuclear and nature conservation. Italy, where the nuclear power plan was discontinued, does not show any antinuclear protest. If localism is clearly related to the nature of the issue at stake, variations across countries suggest that other variables are involved. Political variables are crucial in explaining the overall differences among countries in that protest may tend to remain at the local level where national governments appear to be less sensitive to environmentalist demands. In this case, protest at the local level is often a reaction against policy decisions or the lack of implementation and policy, whereas proactive national campaigns are more difficult to mount. Variations across issues also suggest that given the general political conditions, the nationalization of demands will depend in each case on the policy context.

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1633

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Nature conservation Number of PE Percentage of total PE Number of national PE Percentage of the issue Percentage of total national Antinuclear Number of PE Percentage of total PE Number of national PE Percentage of the issue Percentage of total national Animal welfare and hunting Number of PE Percentage of total PE Number of national PE Percentage of the issue Percentage of total national 58 9.4 9 15.5 3.1 373 60.7 247 66.2 84.9 15 2.4 8 53.3 2.7

37 23.3 10 27.0 29.4 3 1.9 1 33.3 2.9

Germany

21 13.2 4 19.0 11.7

France

185 26.4 122 65.9 48.8

40 5.7 23 57.5 9.2

151 21.5 14 9.3 5.6

UK

23 4.0 13 56.5 37.1

0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

247 42.4 11 4.5 31.5

Greece

64 19.5 32 50.0 29.9

7 2.1 0 0.0 0.0

32 9.8 13 40.6 12.2

Italy

13 3.2 2 15.4 5.0

48 11.8 7 14.6 17.5

160 39.2 7 4.4 17.5

Spain

(continued)

39 16.1 — — —

19 7.9 — — —

59 24.4 — — —

Sweden

Table 4 Environmental Claim Issues by Number of Protest Events (PE) in Seven European Union Countries, 1988-1997

1634

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Note: Dash (—) indicates that data were not available.

Opposing road construction Number of PE Percentage of total PE Number of national PE Percentage of the issue Percentage of total national Opposing house, building, and other construction Number of PE Percentage of total PE Number of national PE Percentage of the issue Percentage of total national Opposing air, ocean, and river pollution Number of PE Percentage of total PE Number of national PE Percentage of the issue Percentage of total national 25 4.1 5 20.0 1.7 4 0.7 2 50.0 0.7 52 8.5 22 42.3 7.5

7 4.4 1 14.3 2.9 7 4.3 1 14.3 2.9

Germany

24 15.1 3 12.5 8.8

France

Table 4 (continued)

57 8.1 27 47.4 10.8

29 4.1 1 3.4 0.4

151 21.5 23 15.2 9.2

UK

102 17.6 4 3.9 11.4

129 22.7 4 3.1 11.4

29 5.0 0 0.0 0.0

Greece

78 23.7 30 38.5 28.0

9 2.7 0 0.0 0.0

2 0.6 1 50.0 0.9

Italy

38 9.3 2 5.3 5.0

78 19.1 0 0.0 0.0

36 8.8 0 0.0 0.0

Spain

30 12.3 0 0.0 0.0

5 2.1 0 0.0 0.0

30 12.4 — — —

Sweden

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1635

Environmental Movement Organizations in Southern Europe Tilly (1994) defines a social movement as a sustained challenge to power holders in the name of an interested population, which in contemporary times appears to come in three basic forms: professional movements; ad hoc community-based specialized movements; and communitarian unspecialized movements, ones that give rise to a new community.3 Movement participants, whether they take direct or indirect action, generally call for power holders to take crucial measures to address their claim and redress a situation. Tilly’s definition can be usefully applied to the study of specific types of the environmental movement, which appears in three forms: formal environmental movement organizations, grassroots community-linked groups, and radical, highly committed ecological groups (Kousis, 1999b). The balance of these types of environmental challengers varies by country. Professional environmental organizations, to which millions of supporters are merely donors, may have a longer history than the other two types, but they bear little resemblance to typical social movement organizations given their highly bureaucratic organization and lobbying strategies, classically represented by conservation and preservation societies. Nevertheless, some observers (Gould, Weinberg, & Schnaiberg, 1993) would include among these groups such international organizations as Greenpeace, with its frequent use of disruptive action, as well as national organizations, such as the Italian Legambiente, with its mixed repertoire of protest (della Porta & Andretta, 2000). If the advantage of these types of organizations lies in their permanent staffs and rich material resources, then there is a growing fear that the by-product of professionalization and organizational strength has a taming effect on the repertoire and the ideological stances, to the point of cooptation into the establishment. According to van der Heijden, Koopmans, and Giugni (1992), “the increasing gap between the organizational strength of the movement and the few results that increased professionalization and institutionalization have produced has been noted, and the need for more unconventional pressure on decision makers has been stressed” (p. 36). Community-based groups (or ad hoc in terms of the issue, which often explains their emergence) have been important in certain periods within given geographical areas and seem to be increasing in number, especially since the 1980s (Gould, Schnaiberg, & Weinberg, 1996; Szasz, 1994). They may be typically represented by not in our backyards (or NIOBY) protests (Freudenberg & Steinsapir, 1992) or by environmental justice grassroots groups (Adeola, 2000; Bullard, 1993; Pellow, 2000). According to Diani (1995), such grassroots groups are difficult to identify, given that their scope of action is frequently restricted to specific locations and their number and consistency are almost impossible to estimate. Many local conflicts are mobilized by local environmentalist groups that link demands for political participation from below with an emphasis on local identities (della Porta & Andretta, 2002). In some of the various steps of policy making, community-based groups interact

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1636 American Behavioral Scientist

with professional movement organizations, although with strong internal tensions (della Porta, 2005). Finally, communitarian environmentalists are those ideologically committed green activists who seek to contribute to the construction of green collective identities by focusing on countercultural practices within a logic of testimony (della Porta & Diani, 2006). A classic example would be that of deep ecologists or political ecologists (Kousis, 1998). Tilly’s basic taxonomy (1994) is similar to that adopted by environmental sociologists such as Humphrey and Buttel (1982), Gould et al. (1993), and Dunlap and Mertig (1992). In the following analysis, we focus on the first two types, showing that although Southern European countries appear to have weaker formal environmental associations, they are strong in local community-based groups. A growing body of recent work shows that Southern European societies have witnessed the growth of a new form of popular public—or issue public (Eder, 1996)—that is involved in significant environmental protest (Close, 1999; della Porta & Andretta, 2000; Diani, 1995; Gil Nave, 2000; Jiménez, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Karamichas, 2003; Kousis, Aguilar-Fernández, & Fidelis-Nogueira, 1996; Louloudis, 1987). This issue public usually appears later, in the form of environmental associations, or earlier, in the form of informal and flexible groups making various types of claims about the protection of the environment. Local resistance against environmentally damaging, government-promoted industrial projects and urban pollution even occurred, albeit rarely, under authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe (Castells, 1983; Louloudis, 1987; Spanou, 1995)—especially in Greece and Portugal. Environmental associations have increased in number, especially since the mid-1980s (Botetzagias, 2001; Gil Nave, 2000; Holliday, 1997; Kousis, 1999b), whereas grassroots environmental groups have flourished since the 1960s in Italy and since the end of the military dictatorships in the 1970s in Greece and Spain (Kousis, 1999b). Thus, the environmental movements in Southern Europe essentially consist of environmental organizations and local environmental groups. Grassroots groups differ from environmental organizations in terms of the way that they deal with their environmental problems (Gould et al., 1996). Regarding institutionalization, whereas organizations tend to moderate their tactics in addressing powerful actors in control of sources and activities that enable them to intervene in the ecosystem (Eder, 1996), local groups remain more confrontational, directly challenging those actors (Brand, 1999). Unlike professionally organized mobilization, informal mobilizations are—given community dynamics and needs—inherently more temporary and rich (Tilly, 1994) and are not usually supported by larger environmental organizations (Szasz, 1994).

Community-Based Environmental Mobilizations Local, community-based environmental activism occurred in Southern Europe even under military dictatorships (Perez-Diaz, 1993). Such activism included

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1637

protests during the early 1970s, known as the neighborhood movement, which developed in Spanish cities and sought solutions to urbanization issues—namely, water pollution, sewage, waste, and the preservation of parks and tree-lined streets—as well as general environmental protection (Castells, 1983). Elsewhere, we find examples of local resistance against environmentally damaging governmentpromoted industrial projects (Louloudis, 1987; Spanou, 1995). After the fall of the military regimes in Spain but also in Greece and Portugal, grassroots environmental activism increased significantly (Kousis, 1999b). As in Northern Europe, Southern European environmental activism emerged from the grassroots.4 However, unlike in the north (and except in parts of Italy), this activism developed later because of subsequent industrialization as well as an unfavorable political context, especially in Greece, Portugal, and Spain.5 Furthermore, recent comparative work reveals that although the associational cultures in the three countries do not tend to be as developed as those in some industrialized countries, community-based environmental groups, another form of the environmental movement, make a strong presence (Kousis, 1999b; Kousis et al., 1996). The majority of community-based activists have remained invisible, yet their networks, actions, and commitment, as well as their levels of consciousness, are more powerful than might be expected. During the 1990s, local environmental conflicts marked the onset of a new period of environmental movement politics in Italy and Spain (including the Basque Country; Barcena & Ibarra, 2001; della Porta & Andretta, 1999). Case studies reveal their relatively quick development in the 1970s and 1980s, which increased from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, when local activists challenged the state, the manufacturers, and other actors responsible for environmental damages (Kousis, 2001; Kousis et al., 1996; Pridham, 2001). Grassroots environmental activists claim that they respond to significant challenges to the ecosystem, public health, and the economy. They usually demand an end to ecosystem-destructive activities, the creation or implementation of environmental regulations, the preservation of the local ecosystem, and the application of ecological modernization technologies. Their demands are expressed vigorously (often through a resort to radical but nonviolent action) via informal but not necessarily associational structures already available in their environment—that is, via community-based groups, such as residents groups, neighborhood associations, and a variety of local bodies. The character of their protest is usually defensive and exposure related (Kousis et al., 1996); yet, although the agencies that they approach for assistance respond positively at times, the challenged groups rarely do so (AguilarFernández, 2001; Figueiredo, Fidelis, & da Rosa Pires, 2001; Kousis, 2005). Most local environmental contentious actions are autonomous acts of resistance with no connection to political parties (Barcena, Ibarra, & Zubiaga, 1998; Kousis, 1999b). At the same time, in the majority of cases, local groups are not supported by formal environmental organizations (Kousis, 1999b; Kousis et al., 1996).

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1638 American Behavioral Scientist

As elsewhere, within and beyond the EU, grassroots environmental activism does not necessarily correlate positively with ecosystem degradation. For example, in agricultural or highly developed tourist regions, protest is limited against tourism activities as sources of ecosystem damages (Figueiredo et al., 2001; Kousis, 1999a, 2000). Such limited social demand for environmental protection is in part related to the regions’ economic dependence on these activities, as well as their lack of other resources to confront the environmental issue (Kousis, 2004).

Formal Environmental Movement Organizations After the consolidation of the new democracies (Gunther et al., 1995), the 1980s saw a significant rise in the number of environmental organizations (Gil Nave, 2000; Jiménez, 2005; Kousis & Dimopoulou, 2000), mimicking a development that had already taken place in Italy (Diani, 1995). By the second half of the 1990s, environmentrelated organizations were flourishing throughout Southern Europe (della Porta & Andretta, 2000; Karamichas, 2003). To survive, develop, and succeed, these movement organizations must create and maintain mutual ties with many different groups or actors. Valaora (1995) considers that these actors include their members or supporters; fund providers, such as individuals, businesses, and national or international bodies; state and governmental agencies with responsibility for development issues and planning the physical environment; other nonprofit groups, with whom they could share available funds, act in the same social space, or share the same topics of interest; all forms of media (printed and nonprinted means of mass communication) that play a significant role in the construction of public opinion; and allies and promoters of the organization’s cause, such as local government, schools, the church, private enterprises, and other state bodies (Valaora, 1995).6 Comparative research indicates that the organizational resources available to Southern European formal environmental organizations are more limited than those available to their Northern European counterparts. The data from the Transformation of Environmental Activism project questionnaires and interviews with representatives of national environmental organizations revealed a complex picture comprising well-endowed environmental organizations with autonomous sources of income in Great Britain, well-endowed environmental organizations with significant state sponsorship in Germany and Sweden, and poorly endowed environmental organizations in Southern Europe but with growing contact with national governments, especially those of the EU (della Porta & Diani, 2004). The British environmental movements are characterized by rich organizations. As many as eight organizations have over 100,000 members, and two of them more than a million. Eighteen organizations have a budget of more than 10,000 pounds (including one with between 0.5 million and 1.0 million pounds and two with over 1.0 million). Nine smaller organizations have a total of 443 employees; 43 organizations out of 63 received no state

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1639

sponsorship at all; and 51 have no EU sponsorship, although 34 out of 65 regularly collaborated with state institutions (Rootes & Miller, 2000). Greenpeace UK has a staff of 106, more than 200,000 donor supporters, and an income of over 7.0 million pounds (Rootes, Seel, & Adams, 2000). In Germany, out of an estimated 9,200 groups, the 56 national and 107 local organizations interviewed had a total budget of more than 164 million deutsche marks in 1997 and 365 paid members of staff, with local organizations accounting for a significant share of these totals (Rucht & Roose, 1999). The combined membership of national groups amounted to an estimated 4.4 million in the same year (Greenpeace alone has 520,000 donor members); furthermore, 18.6% of the budget of large organizations, as well as 31.2% of the local ones, comes from the state (Rucht & Roose, 1999). Environmental organizations in Southern Europe appear to be weaker than their British and German counterparts. In Italy, the paid staff of environmental organizations total no more than a couple dozen; 11 out of the 18 groups interviewed receive no state funds; and 15 out of the 18 receive no EU funds. Greenpeace has only 40,000 donor members, an annual budget of 1,150,000 Euros, and only 10 paid employees (della Porta & Andretta, 2000). The main source of income for the core Greek organizations is the EU; Greenpeace Greece has 14 employees and a budget of 200 million drachmas; only three organizations have more than 3,000 formal members (Kousis & Dimopoulou, 2000). Similarly, Spanish environmental organizations are not very strong in terms of their memberships and material resources. The number of paid staff of the 31 environmental associations interviewed amounted to just 60. Greenpeace has 72,000 members. More than half the groups receive state subsidies, which account for 36.3% of their total income (Jiménez, 2005). Most environmental organizations in Greece were founded in the mid-1980s or early 1990s (Kousis & Dimopoulou, 2000). National data show that these organizations may be categorized into three groups (Botetzagias, 2001, 2000): First, the top 12 core organizations have more than 1,000 members each and medium to high assets; they have secured LIFE programs (basically EU funded); they participate and share membership in EU environmental bodies; and they deal exclusively with wildlife protection, with no conflicts between them. These organizations include Arktouros, World Wildlife Fund, Bird-Life Greece, Nea Oikologia, EKPIZO, Helmepa, Elliniki Etairia, and HSPN. The second group consists of 10 prominent organizations, enjoying similar resources. The third group—that is, the majority of organizations (179 out of 200)—comprises peripheral organizations (Botetzagias, 2001, 2000). Relying mostly on volunteers and operating outside the metropolitan areas, with minimal or nonexistent resources, these organizations usually have no access to state resources or EU funding (Kousis & Dimopoulou, 2000). These differences between Northern and Southern European environmental organizations can be explained by the existence of different models of interest mediation (see Table 5). In the liberal model, prevailing in the United Kingdom, environmental organizations are rich in resources and are professionalized, formalized, specialized,

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1640 American Behavioral Scientist

Table 5 Typology of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations: Relevance of State Intervention Organizational Strength State Intervention Low High

Low Southern Europe (Italy, Greece, Spain) ——

High Liberal model (United Kingdom) Neocorporatist model (Sweden, Germany)

and centralized; however, they enjoy little state support. In the neocorporatist model, exemplified by Sweden, environmental organizations are also rich in resources and professionalized, formalized, structured, specialized, and centralized; however, they do enjoy a high degree of state support. In the mixed model, found in Southern Europe (viz., Italy, Greece, Spain), with a tradition of authoritarian corporatism and repression of autonomous trade unions, environmental organizations are poorer in resources and less professionalized, formalized, specialized, and centralized; however, they enjoy some state support, not least because of the contracting out of some services by the state and the recent experience of concentration (della Porta & Andretta, 2000). Notably, the various Southern European countries show pronounced differences as well. It appears that the strength of their environmental organizations is not so much related to the duration of the present period of democracy, given that the Italian environmental organizations do not appear to be stronger in terms of resources when compared with their Greek and Spanish counterparts. The analysis of the women’s movement in four Southern European countries (della Porta, Valiente, & Kousis, forthcoming) shows that the long presence of socialist governments in Greece and Spain opened windows of opportunities for the women’s movements more so in those countries than in Italy, where the Left entered the national government in 1996—and remained there for only 4 years. The same, however, does not hold true for the environmental movements in Spain and Greece, because in contrast to the cooptation process seen in the case of the feminist movement, the relationship between these movements and the socialist governments has been one of confrontation. Socialists in power adopted a strategy of movement marginalization, just as the previous and subsequent conservative governments had done and would do. This explains, for instance, why the Spanish Women’s Institute distributed around 7.8 million Euros in grants to NGOs during the mid-1990s, whereas the Ministry for the Environment subsidized NGOs that were working in this field to the tune of just 0.6 million Euros. In Spain and Greece, institutional “sponsorship” (either from state or from political parties) is of lesser importance, and formal organizations depend more on voluntary work and the activation of conflict at the community level. With the exception of the international organizations and some national ones (e.g., Kousis & Psarikidou, forthcoming), the origins of organizations are found in the experience of

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1641

local conflicts and the limited patronage of the political parties. This explains the limited number of formal organizations existing at the state level and the successful establishment of branches of international organizations, such as Greenpeace.7 In Italy, the sudden breakdown of the First Republic and the related delegitimation of political parties led one of the more significant national environmental organizations, Legambiente, to weaken its ties with the main political party of the Left (della Porta & Andretta, 2001). Although the Southern European national environmental organizations still appear to be weaker than their Northern European counterparts, it is worth noticing that in Southern Europe, too, environmental organizations have become stronger in recent times. During the 1990s, in the wake of the consolidation of the new democracies and their entry into the EU, the changes that took place in the environmental political scene brought changes in the opportunities for the development of the environmental movement. Although local confrontations were still found in the 1990s (Jiménez, 2000), it was the environmental associations that developed most significantly over the course of the decade. In the case of those Southern European countries that were late entrants into the EU, the incorporation of EU environmental policies meant rapid institutionalization of the already expeditious growth of environmental associations (Kousis, 2003). Whereas environmental NGOs were scarcely involved in environmental policy-making circles in the 1980s, this situation changed significantly in the 1990s. Relations between environmental NGOs and the state became more cooperative and less confrontational. Environmental organizations were increasingly involved in various collaboration schemes (Eder & Kousis, 2001; Kousis, 2005, Kousis 2004). At the same time, the incorporation of EU environmental laws provided formal environmental NGO legitimation while fostering the institutionalization and deradicalization of these associations. In Southern European countries overall, noticeable moves have been made toward collaboration between state and environmental NGOs (Eder & Kousis, 2001). However, environmental organizations in Southern Europe have remained less single-issue oriented than have their Northern European counterparts. According to the Transformation of Environmental Activism project interviews, the average number of issues covered by national environmental organizations, per country, is 4.4 in Spain, 3.7 in Greece, and 3.4 in Italy, against 3.2 in France, 2.9 in Great Britain, and 2.8 in Germany. In addition, Southern European environmental organizations protest more often and are more actively engaged in networking than their Northern European counterparts (della Porta & Diani, 2004). Spanish and other European environmental NGOs have taken advantage of the expanded EU opportunities and managed to secure changes in the rules governing EU fund concessions (Jiménez, 2000). Local environmental activists have been approaching EU agencies for assistance, especially since the late 1980s (Figueiredo et al., 2001; Kousis, 2000). Although limited in this context, power has been shifting away from the nation-state and toward the supranational one. Other activists have blamed the EU for funding ecosystem damaging projects (Pridham, 2001).

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1642 American Behavioral Scientist

Conclusion Environmental activism in Southern Europe has been contrasted with the experience of the more industrialized, Northern European countries. The comparative analysis adopted in this article documents that there is no clear evidence for the existence of lower levels of environmental protest in Southern Europe, when compared to that of Northern Europe. Instead, our research uncovered significant differences in terms of the organizational structure and development of the environmental movement in these countries. In Southern Europe, we find a rich local network of environmental groups that are not supported by strong formal environmental organizations. In fact, the formal environmental organizations in Southern Europe appear to be even less endowed in terms of staff, members, and budget than their Northern European counterparts and instead more oriented to take a social movement profile, by not specializing on single issues and by networking with other social movement organizations. They, however, are growing fast, especially because of the sponsorship of the national government, as well as that of the EU. The article sheds light on a growing environmental movement in Southern Europe and on environmental contentious politics at the local level.

Notes 1. For a methodological overview of the project, see Fillieule and Jimenez (2003). 2. Our data on protest events are based on a sample of newspaper coverage. For the 1988-1997 period, we used 50% of all issues of a national quality daily, selected every other day. In Italy, the chosen newspaper was La Repubblica, in Greece, Eleftherotypia, and in Spain, El Pais. The data refer exclusively to reported protests, with all the limitations, biases, and selectivity that this implies. Yet, although this method does not obviously constitute anything like an unmediated record of events, it is possible “to give as comprehensive and balanced an account of events as is possible to assemble from public sources” (Rootes, 2000, pp. 2-3). With respect to the data on the number of protests in Table 1, the comparability of the sources is limited by the sensitivity of the sources to environmental issues and social protests in general; it is quite probable, for example, that the German Die Tageszeitung is significantly more sensitive than the other newspapers used. A second source of bias stems from the organizational structure and territorial coverage of each selected newspaper. In this respect, the French data probably underrepresent the level of protest in comparative terms, because of Le Monde’s focus on the metropolitan area of Paris, its state orientation, and an editorial policy that showed little interest in environmental protests (Fillieule & Ferrier, 1999). Regarding the limitations of newspaper reporting of environmental protest events in the Transformation of Environmental Activism project, see Fillieule and Jiménez (2003). For protest event analysis see, for instance, Rucht, Koopmans, and Neidhardt (1998). 3. Electoral competitions are excluded under this definition, given that parties do not challenge the system but work within it. 4. Regarding the stages that older environmental movements have gone through (as in the Swedish case), see Jamison and Ring (2000). 5. Identifying the environmental movement with environmental organizations, a systematic comparison of new social movements in four Northern European countries and Spain draws this conclusion, showing that Spain has the highest levels of all unconventional mobilizations but the lowest per capita rate of associational membership and, therefore, the lowest number of participants in the ecology movement (Koopmans, 1996).

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1643

6. Former head of World Wildlife Fund, Greece. 7. This organizational profile is illustrated by Ecologistas en Acción, the most significant national organization in Spain, with a federal structure created in 1998 after a long process of unification of 300 local groups from all over the country (Jiménez, 2005).

References Adeola, F. O. (2000). Cross-national environmental injustice and human rights issues. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 686-706. Aguilar-Fernández, S. (2001). Is Spanish environmental policy becoming more participatory? In K. Eder & M. Kousis (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Actors, institutions and discourses in a Europeanizing society (pp. 255-276). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Alexandropoulos, S. (1990). Collective action and interest representation in Greece before and following the regime change [In Greek]. Doctoral dissertation, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece. Barcena, I., & Ibarra, P. (2001). The Basque ecologist movemement: From nationalism to localism. In Klaus Eder and Maria Kousis (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Actors, institutions and discourses in a Europeanizing society (pp. 175-196). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Barcena, I., Ibarra, P., & Zubiaga, M. (1998). Movimientos sociales y Democracia en Euskadi: Insumisión y ecologismo (Social movements and democracy in the Basque Country: Anti-militarism and ecologism). In Ibarra, P., & Tejerina, B., (Ed.), Los movimientos sociales: Transformaciones políticas y cambio cultural (pp. 43-68). Madrid: Trotta. Borzel, T. A. (2000). Why there is no Southern Problem. On environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 141-162. Botetzagias I. (2000b, November). “Winning” the battles, losing the war? The impact of the Greek ENGOs on the Greek environmental movement. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association and British Sociological Association conference, Manchester, United Kingdom. Botetzagias, I. (2001). The Environmental Movement in Greece, 1073 to the present: an illusory social movement in a semi-peripheral country. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Politics, Keele University. Brand, K.-W. (1999). Dialectics of institutionalization: The transformation of the environmental movement in Germany. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 35-58. Bullard, R. D. (Ed.). (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston: South End Press. Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. London: Arnold. Close, D. H. (1999). Environmental crisis in Greece and recent challenges to centralized state authority. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 17(2), 325-352. della Porta, D. (1996). Movimenti Collettivi e Sistema Politico in Italia, 1960–1995 [Collective movements and the political system in Italy, 1960–1995]. Bari, Italy: Laterza. della Porta, D. (2005). Deliberation in movement: Why and how to study deliberative democracy and social movements. Acta Politica, 40, 336-350. della Porta, D., & Andretta, M. (1999, March). Changing forms of environmentalism in Italy: The protest campaign on the high speed railway system. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Protest in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research annual joint sessions, Mannheim, Germany. della Porta, D., & Andretta, M. (2000, April). Environmental movement organisations and political representation in Italy. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research joint sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1644 American Behavioral Scientist

della Porta, D., & Andretta, M. (2001). Movimenti sociali e rappresentanza: I comitati spontanei dei cittadini a Firenze. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 42, 41-76. della Porta, D., & Andretta, M. (2002). Social movements and public administration. International Journal of Urban Research, 26(2), 244-265. della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2004). Movimenti senza protesta? L’ambientalismo in Italia [Movements without protest? Enviromentalism in Italy]. Bologna, Italy: Mulino. della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. della Porta, D., & Rucht, D. (1995). Left-libertarian movements in context: Comparing Italy and West Germany, 1965–1990. In J. C. Jenkins & B. Klandermans (Eds.), The politics of social protest: Comparative perspectives on states and social movements (pp. 229-272). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. della Porta, D., Valiente, C., & Kousis, M. (1996, July). Women and politics in Southern Europe. Paths to women’s rights in Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. Paper presented at the Social Science Research Council conference on democratic consolidation and culture in Southern Europe, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. della Porta, D., Valiente, C., & Kousis, M. (forthcoming). Women and democratization: The women’s movements and their outcomes in Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. In P. N. Diamantouros, R. Gunther, & H.-J. Puhle (Eds.), Democracy and cultural change in the new Southern Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Diani, M. (1995). Green networks: A structural analysis of the Italian environmental movement. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1992). The evolution of the US environmental movement from 1970 to 1990: An overview. In R. E. Dunlap & A. G. Mertig (Eds.), American environmentalism (pp. 1-10). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Eder, K. (1996). The institutionalization of environmentalism: Ecological discourse and the second transformation of the public sphere. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 203-223). London: Sage. Eder, K., & Kousis, M. (2001). Is there a Mediterranean syndrome? In K. Eder & M. Kousis (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Actors, institutions and discourses in a Europeanizing society (pp. 393-406). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Figueiredo, E., Fidelis, T., & da Rosa Pirez, A. (2001). Grassroots environmental action in Portugal (1974–1994). In K. Eder & M. Kousis (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Actors, institutions and discourses in a Europeanizing society (pp. 197-221). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Fillieule, O., & Ferrier, F. (1999, March). Some notes on methodology: Selection bias in the French database on environmental events. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Protest in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research annual joint sessions, Mannheim, Germany. Fillieule, O., & Jimenez, M. (2003). Appendix A: The methodology of protest event analysis and the media politics of reporting environmental protest events. In C. Rootes (Ed.), Environmental protest in Europe (pp. 258-279). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Freudenberg, N., & Steinsapir, C. (1992). Not in our backyards: The grassroots environmental movement. In R. E. Dunlap & A. Mertig (Eds.), American environmentalism (pp. 27-35). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Gil Nave, J. (2000). The politics of environmental groups in Portugal. Doctoral dissertation, European University Institute, Department of Political and Social Sciences. Florence, Italy. Gómez, C., Noya, F. J., & Paniagua, A. (1999). Actitudes y comportamientos hacia el medio ambiente en España [Attitudes and behaviours towards the environment in Spain]. Madrid, Spain: CIS. Gould, K. A., Schnaiberg, A., & Weinberg, A. S. (1996). Local environmental struggles: Citizen activism in the treadmill of production. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gould, K. A., Weinberg, A. S., & Schnaiberg, A. (1993). Legitimating impotence: Pyrrhic victories of the modern environmental movement. Qualitative Sociology, 16, 207-246.

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1645

Gunther, R., Diamantouros, P. N., & Puhle, H.-J. (Eds.). (1995). The politics of democratic consolidation: Southern Europe in comparative perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Holliday, I. (1997). Living on the edge: Spanish greens in the mid-1990s. Environmental Politics, 6, 168-175. Humphrey, C. R., & Buttel, F. H. (1982). Environment, energy, and society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jamison, A., & Ring, M. (2000, April). The transformation of environmental organizations in Sweden. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research joint sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jiménez, M. (1999a). Consolidation through institutionalisation? Dilemmas of the Spanish environmental movement in the 1990s. Environmental Politics, 8, 149-171. Jiménez, M. (1999b, March). Ten year of environmental protest in Spain: Issues, actors and arenas. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Protest in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research annual joint sessions, Mannheim, Germany. Jiménez, M. (2000, April). Organizing the defence of the environment. Spanish ecologist groups in the 1990s. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research joint sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jiménez, M. (2005). El impacto político de los movimientos sociales. Un estudio de la protesta ambiental en Espana [The political impact of social movements. A study of environmental protest in Spain]. Madrid, Spain: CIS-Siglo XXI. Karamichas, J. (2003, March–April). Civil society and the environment problematic. A preliminary investigation of the Greek and Spanish cases. Paper presented at the joint sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research, University of Edinburgh, UK. Koopmans, R. (1996). New social movements and changes in political participation in Western Europe. West European Politics, 19(1), 28-50. Kousis, M. (1998). Ecological marginalization: Actors, impacts, responses. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 86-108. Kousis, M. (1999a). Environmental protest cases: The city, the countryside and the grassroots in Southern Europe. Mobilization: An International Journal, 4(2), 223-238. Kousis, M. (1999b). Sustaining local environmental mobilizations: Groups, actions and claims in Southern Europe. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 172-198. Kousis, M. (2000). Tourism and the environment: A social movements perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 468-489. Kousis, M. (2001). Competing claims in local environmental conflict in Southern Europe. In K. Eder & M. Kousis (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Actors, institutions and discourses in a Europeanizing society (pp. 129-150). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Kousis, M. (2003). Greece. In C. Rootes (Ed.), Environmental protest in Europe (pp. 109-134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kousis, M. (2004). Economic opportunities and threats in contentious environmental politics. A view from the European south. Theory & Society, 33(3/4), 393-415. Kousis, M. (2005). State Responses as threats and opportunities in Southern European Environmental Conflicts. In M. Kousis and C. Tilly (Eds.) Economic and Political Contention in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers. Kousis, M., Aguilar-Fernández, S., & Fidelis-Nogueira, T. (1996). Grassroots environmental action and sustainable development in Southern European Union. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Kousis, M., & Dimopoulou, L. (2000, April). Environmental movement organizations in Greece: A comparative perspective. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research joint sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark. Kousis, M., & Psarikidou, K. (forthcoming). Mediterranean Coastal Biodiversity, Environmental Activism and Carretta caretta: evidence from Zakynthos and Crete. In T. Selwyn, M. Kousis, and D. Clark (Eds.). Contending Mediterranean Voices, Middlesex University Press.

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

1646 American Behavioral Scientist

Koutalakis, C. (2004). Environmental compliance in Italy and Greece. The role of non-state actors. Environmental Politics, 13(4),755-775. La Spina, A., & Sciortino, G. (1993). Common agenda, southern rules: European integration and environmental change in the Mediterranean states. In J. D. Liefferink, P. D. Lowe, & A. P. J. Mol (Eds.), European integration and environmental policy (pp. 216-234). London: Belhaven Press. Louloudis, L. (1987). Social demands: From environmental protection to political ecology [In Greek]. In C. Orfanidis, The ecological movement in Greece (pp. 8-21). Athens, Greece: After the Rain. Pellow, D. N. (2000). Environmental inequality formations: Toward a theory of environmental injustice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 581-601. Perez-Diaz, V. (1993). The return of civil society: The emergence of democratic Spain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Perez-Diaz, V. (1999). Spain at the crossroads: Civil society, politics, and the rule of law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pridham, G. (2001). Tourism policy and sustainability in Italy, Spain, and Greece. In K. Eder & M. Kousis (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Actors, institutions and discourses in a Europeanizing society (pp. 393-406). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Rootes, C. (2000). Environmental protest in Britain 1988–1997. In B. Seel, M. Paterson, & B. Doherty (Eds.), Direct action in British environmentalism (pp. 25-61). London: Routledge. Rootes, C. (2002). The Europeanization of environmentalism. In R. Balme, D. Chabanet, & V. Wright, (Eds.), L’Europe des interets: Lobbying, mobilizations et espace europeen (pp. 377-404). Paris: Presses de Science Po. Rootes, C., & Miller, A. (2000, April). The British environmental movement: Organizational field and network of organizations. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research joint sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark. Rootes, C., Seel, B., & Adams, D. (2000). The old, the new and the old new: British environmental organisations from conservationism to radical ecologism. Paper presented at the workshop “Environmental Movements in Comparative Perspective” at the European Consortium for Political Research joint sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark. Rucht, D., & Roose, J. (1999). The German environmental movement at a crossroads? Environmental Politics, 8(1), 59-80. Spanou, K. (1995). The beginning of environmental policies in Greece: The dynamics of the political–administrative agenda during the dictatorship [In Greek]. In K. Spanou (Ed.), Social demands and state policies (pp. 223-286). Athens, Greece: Sakkoulas. Szasz, A. (1994). Ecopopulism: Toxic waste and the movement of environmental justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tilly, C. (1994). Social movements as historically specific clusters of political performances. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 38, 1-30. Valaora, T. (1995). The social role of environmental NGOs: Action and examples from the environmental area [In Greek]. In K. Spanou (Ed.), Social demands and state policies (pp. 205-210). Athens, Greece: Sakkoulas. Van der Heijden, H. A., Koopmans, J. R., & Giugni, M. (1992). The West European environmental movements. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change (Suppl. 2), 1-40. Vitsilaki, C. (1988). Working class formation: The case of Greece. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. World Bank. (1998). World development indicators. Washington, DC: Author.

Maria Kousis is professor and director of graduate studies in sociology at the University of Crete and resource editor of Annals of Tourism Research and revista de estudios de comunicacion, and editorial advisor of zer: revista de estudios de comunicación. She has edited a volume with Charles Tilly entitled Economic and Political Contention in Comparative Perspective (2005); one with Tom Selwyn and David

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kousis et al. / Southern European Environmental Movements 1647

Clark, Contending Voices in the Mediterranean (forthcoming); and one with Klaus Eder, Environmental Politics in Southern Europe: Actors, Institutions, and Discourses in a Europeanizing Society (2001). With interests in environmental and contentious politics as well as sustainability and social change, she has published articles in Mobilization, Environmental Politics, Annals of Tourism Research, Humanity and Society, and Sociologia Ruralis. Donatella della Porta is professor of sociology in the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the European University Institute. Among her recent publications are The Global Justice Movement (2007, with Massimiliano Andretta, Lorenzo Mosca, and Herbert Reiter), Globalization From Below (2006, with Abby Peterson and Herbert Reiter), The Policing of Transnational Protest (2006, with Manuela Caiani), Quale Europa? Europeizzazione, identità e conflitti (2006, with Mario Diani), Social Movements: An Introduction (2006, with Sidney Tarrow), Transnational Protest and Global Activism (2005, with M. Diani), Movimenti senza protesta? (2004, with H. Reiter), Polizia e protesta (2003), and I new global (2003). Manuel Jiménez is an associated professor at the Universidad Pablo de Olavide of Seville. He received his doctorate in political science from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in 2002 and is a member of the Juan March Institute (Madrid). His research interests include political participation, social movements, environmental policy, and environmental attitudes and behaviors. He published the book El impacto político de los movimientos sociales. Un estudio de la protesta ambiental en España (2005). He has recently published two articles in South European Society and Politics (2007) on the environmental and antiwar movements in Spain.

Downloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on June 12, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.