Green Political Theory and the European Union: The Case for a Non-integrated Civil Society

Contrary to established ideas about the European Union's (EU) democratic deficit, a conception of European civil society based on contestation and communication within and across multiple public spheres is good for green politics and ecological democracy in the EU. This article shows that the European Commission's own proposals for restructuring its relationship to civil society organizations follows a trajectory from "passive inclusion" to "active inclusion" of civil society groups. This historical sequence, I argue, is associated with weakening civil society's capacity to serve as a reservoir of democratic innovation in the EU's system of multilevel governance. I aim to show that efforts to green and democratize the EU are better served by a non-integrated European civil society. Notes De Schutter (2002 De Schutter, O. 2002. Europe in search of its civil society. European Law Journal, 8(2): 198–217. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) makes a similar argument for the EU. The fourth type – active exclusion – need not concern us here because it is rarely practiced by liberal democracies and hard to sustain over time when it is. An actively exclusive state not only excludes interest groups' influence from public policy-making but also undermines their organizational capacity and attacks their very existence. Active exclusion goes hand in hand with radical market-liberal economic policies. Chile under Pinochet and the UK under Thatcher come to mind. See European Commission (2001 European Commission 2001 European Governance: A White Paper COM (2001) 428 [Google Scholar]) and European Commission (2002 European Commission 2002 Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission COM (2002) 704 [Google Scholar]). Stiftung Europäisches Naturerbe [Euronatur], Birdlife International, Climate Action Network, Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, European Environmental Bureau, European Federation for Transport and Environment, European Society for Environment and Development, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace International, International Friends of Nature, Seas at Risk, World Wide Fund for Nature, Youth and Environment Europe. See CONNECS. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/civil_society/index_en.htm (accessed 7 July 2004). Most groups included in the Commission CONNECS database that reveal their sources of funding receive some funds from public authorities, including the European Commission. These include Birdlife International (the Dutch government paid for its website), CAN-Europe (Commission, Dutch and Belgian governments), Euronatur (industry and government sources), the EEB (Commission, member NGOs), European Federation for Transport and Environment (30% DG Environment, 20% public authorities, 10% membership fees, 30% business sector, 10% NGOs), Friends of the Earth Europe (Commission), International Friends of Nature (24% DG Environment, 5% public authorities, 71% membership dues), Seas at Risk (50% DG Environment, 20% public authorities, 5% individual membership dues, 25% NGO member dues) and Youth and Environment Europe (16% DG Education and Culture, 64% public authorities, 2% membership dues, 18% own resources and donations). NGOs that rely on little or no government funding are in the minority, including only Greenpeace International and two animal welfare associations representing national animal welfare and animal rights groups. < For the following section, see Hunold & Dryzek (2002 Hunold, C and Dryzek, JS. 2002. Green political theory and the state: context is everything. Global Environmental Politics, 2(3): 17–39. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: 29–30). The information in this paragraph is from John Vidal (2003), 'Exclusion Zone: Mixed Messages over GM-Free Areas', The Guardian, 30 June. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1008129,00.html (accessed 7 July 2004). For a more thorough analysis of the politics of GM foods as subpolitics see Wales and Mythen (2002 Wales, C and Mythen, G. 2002. Risky discourses: the politics of GM foods. Environmental Politics, 11(2): 121–44. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).