Beyond Borders Transnational Politics Social Movements and Modern Environmentalisms

Environmental Politics
ISSN: 0964-4016 (Print) 1743-8934 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20
Beyond borders: Transnational politics, social

movements and modern environmentalisms
Brian Doherty & Timothy Doyle
To cite this article: Brian Doherty & Timothy Doyle (2006) Beyond borders: Transnational politics,
social movements and modern environmentalisms, Environmental Politics, 15:5, 697-712, DOI:
10.1080/09644010600937132
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010600937132
Published online: 24 Jan 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1744
View related articles
Citing articles: 17 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fenp20
Download by: [188.251.17.104] Date: 09 December 2017, At: 18:09

Environmental Politics,
Vol. 15, No. 5, 697 712, November 2006
Beyond Borders: Transnational

Politics, Social Movements and
Modern Environmentalisms
BRIAN DOHERTY* & TIMOTHY DOYLE**
Downloaded by [188.251.17.104] at 18:09 09 December 2017
*School of Politics, Keele University, UK, **School of Politics and History, University of
Adelaide, Australia
ABSTRACT This introduction considers three themes that recur across the various con-
tributions to this collection. The rst is the nature of borders and how these have been
aected by the increase in transnational collective action and the growth in the power of
transnational institutions. The second is the distinction between environmental movements
and the social movement forms of environmentalism: meaning that not all forms of
environmental movement are social movements. The third is the evidence of the diversity of
environmentalisms, which leads us to identify three principal kinds of environmental
movement, the post-material movements strongest in the United States and Australia, the
post-industrial movements that are strongest in Europe and the post-colonial movements of
the South.
Reection on the history of environmentalism since the debates about risk and
limits to growth emerged in the early 1970s shows that transnational conicts
over power and ideology have been central from the beginning of the new
environmental politics. Limits to growth and overpopulation arguments that
came mainly from the North, while couched in terms of global humanity and
nature, seemed to many in the South a further means by which the most
powerful and wealthy countries could retain their control of the South.
Reection of this kind also reminds us how quickly things have changed. Many
environmental ideas that recently seemed marginal are now mainstream, and
some environmental movement organisations previously seen as outsiders have
become institutionalised in national and international policy-making struc-
tures. This has led some to argue that the environmental movement is the most
comprehensive and inuential movement of our time (Castells, 1997: 67), but
we will argue here instead that it is more accurate to think of the environmental
movement as still at an early stage in relation to shaping global politics.
Correspondence Address: Brian Doherty, School of Politics, International Relations and

Philosophy, Keele University, Keele ST5 5BG, UK. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0964-4016 Print/1743-8934 Online/06/05069716 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09644010600937132
698 B. Doherty & T. Doyle
This collection of articles does not aim to provide a full overview of the
nature of the environmental movement, either in the form of its most
important national cases or by assessing and explaining its impacts on national
or international political systems. Environmental movements have grown too
numerous and transnational politics too complex for this to be feasible in one
volume. Instead, the common focus is on understanding how transnational
political processes aect what environmental movements can do, and why they
choose to act as they do.
In this introduction we reect on three questions that recur across the
various contributions to this collection. First, we clarify what we mean when
we talk of transnational politics. Second, as environmental movements have
diversied so much, we discuss what it means to dene only some of them as
social movements. Third, we assess what ideological dierences between

dierent groups reveal about how environmentalism is developing, particularly
across the conceptual and geographical borders that divide North and South.
Environmental Movements, Transnational Politics and Border Thinking

The new environmentalism of the 1970s was, from the beginning, global in its
analysis, but there was very little evidence of global environmental protest
action or of groups working eectively across borders. New organisations such
as Greenpeace pursued direct action against national governments and
companies that were causing environmental problems, but Greenpeace was
and remains a Northern-based organisation with a strongly centralised
structure. Furthermore, it prefers to frame its campaigns in moral rather than
ideological ways, and so has not been associated strongly with the new Global
Justice movement. Other groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF) predated the new environmentalism but have adjusted to it to some
degree, becoming in recent years advocates of sustainable development and
tackling poverty as the best means to protect non-human nature (see Rootes,
this issue). Nevertheless while the character of WWF does vary a little between
countries, overall it is not a radical organisation either in the sense of engaging
in regular protest, or in making arguments that challenge the political order. Of
the three major international environmental non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) only Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) has associated itself
with the critique of neoliberalism and aligned itself with the global justice
movement. But despite having member groups in seventy countries, FoEI has
few nancial resources compared to Greenpeace or WWF (see Doherty, this
issue) and in that sense its international organisation is small relative to the
others.
Prior to the late 1990s, most national environmental organisations lacked
either the money or the time to be able to engage in consistent international
activity. However, there is evidence that transnational environmental action is
on the increase. According to Bandy and Smith (2005), in 1973 there were 17
transnational social movement organisations (TSMOs) in the environmental
Beyond Borders: Politics, Movements and Environmentalisms 699
eld, whereas in 2000 that gure had risen to 167. Environmental groups made
up 17% of all TSMOs, second only to human rights groups at 26% (Bandy &
Smith, 2005: 16). Alongside this quantitative increase, which in part reects the
institutionalisation of environmentalism in the spread of formal organisations,
there were also changes in environmental agendas. There is an increased
tendency for groups to adopt multi-issue rather than single issue frames for
their struggles and groups were more likely to identify the linkages between
issues such as between environmental protection and human rights . . .
(Bandy & Smith, 2005: 16). Smiths (2005) research on the spread of regional
organisation in transnational social movements since the 1980s showed that
groups in the South were more likely to retain ties with groups outside their
regions than those in the North and valued being part of transnational
networks. While, as Smith acknowledges and as we discuss below (see Doyle,

2005; Wood, 2005; also both Doherty and Routledge, this issue), there are
many ideological and organisational tensions between Northern and Southern
groups involved in transnational alliances, Southern groups in Smiths survey
were positive about the benets of transnational alliances, because they
provided them with resources and legitimacy. The cases of Madagascar,
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary analysed in this issue (see Duy, Fagan and
Kerenyi and Szabo) reveal how transnational alliances and rent-seeking
behaviour can lead to organisations which are structured to meet the
expectations of western funders. This may be an important extra part of the
explanation for Smiths ndings on the growth of transnational networks. It is
not surprising that it is in the more radical networks such as Peoples Global
Action (PGA; Wood, 2005; Routledge, this issue) and FoEI that the internal
power relations within the networks have been addressed most self-
consciously, although without pretending that these can be fully surmounted.
Thus, in examining the growth of TSMOs we need to be aware of the nancial
dependence on transnational funding of most environmental organisations
outside the wealthiest countries.
The growth of protest against global neoliberalism has been the most
important impetus for new attention to transnational environmental politics.
Prior to the 1990s the focus on global civil society in international relations was
on the role of formally organised NGOs in policy-making as there was little
transnational protest witnessed. When major transnational protests against the
Washington Consensus and neoliberalism began in the late 1990s, however,
this changed because these protests were new in important respects. There is a
long history of transnational protest going back to the anti-slavery movements
of the early nineteenth century, but these were still rooted in national politics.
Tarrow and della Porta (2005) argue that transnational politics took three
forms. First, diusion of ideas or actions from one country to another, as for
instance in the way that sit-ins spread from the US Civil Rights Movement to
European student movements in the 1960s; second, the domestication within
national politics of conicts that had external origins, such as protests against
national governments for accepting structural adjustment programmes
imposed by international nancial institutions; and third, externalisation, in

which external institutions were challenged to intervene in domestic aairs, as
in the advocacy coalitions through which Brazilian rubber tappers and NGOs
worked with Northern environmental groups and put pressure on the World
Bank to hold the Brazilian government to account for development projects in
the Amazonian rainforests (Keck & Sikkink, 1998). What is new in the recent
and diverse multi-national protests against neoliberalism is that these protests
target transnational institutions (including, but not limited to, the World Trade
Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) through
coordinated transnational protests. Thus, new transnational global justice
networks of protest movements and social forums have been inspired by the
evidence about unaccountable and unjust transnational sites of power. They
are also facilitated by two further developments: rst, the break up of the
USSR has removed the tendency to see all post-1945 conicts in bi-polar terms;
and second, cheaper communications in the form of telephone, fax, the inter-
net and email, have transformed the ease of transnational exchange of infor-
mation and coordination of action. Also vital has been the reduced cost of air
travel in facilitating face-to-face networking. While it is an uncomfortable truth
for environmentalists given the contribution of air travel to CO2 emissions,
face-to-face networking is vital to eective transnational campaigning, as it is
through sustained presence that the deeper relationships of trust and solidarity
are most likely to develop. This was evident in the negotiation of a crisis of
identity by key gures in FoEI (see Doherty, this issue), and also allows
cosmopolitan activists to cross borders regularly to engage in the kind of
imagineering work that Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers (this issue) identify
as essential for grassroots global justice networks.
This is not, however, a book about the globalisation of environmentalism.
There is no evidence of a single form of environmental movement emerging,
nor of national borders becoming irrelevant. The analysis in this collection is
linked by a concern with three questions raised about environmental move-
ments in connection with new and older transnational forms of power. First,
how do inequalities, including the legacy of colonialism, aect the context in
which environmental movements work? This aects the power relations within
transnational social movement networks (such as FoEI and PGA Asia) and the
governance networks that shape the opportunities available to environmental
NGOs as in Madagascar and Bosnia. Second, how do dierent parts of
national environmental movements engage with transnational institutions and
what is the relationship between national bases of operation and transnational
action? This is the focus of the contributions on Hungary, Britain and France.
Third, in what ways do national and other borders remain signicant? In
respect of this question it is salutary to compare environmentalism in Iran and
Burma (see Doyle & Simpson, this volume) with other cases examined in this
collection. In Iran the Islamic government, as a means of improving environ-
mental governance, has encouraged environmental NGOs, but they are not
permitted to work as political groups in any way that might challenge the
regime. When Iran held a major international environmental conference in

2005 it did not invite any NGOs from Iran or abroad in case they asked
questions that the regime did not want to answer. In Burma the military regime
has exploited its gas reserves at the expense of violent repression of ethnic and
religious minorities. Resistance groups among the Karen peoples have
developed the concept of earth rights to describe how environmental and
human rights are both being repressed. Environmentalism has crossed the
borders of both countries, but the borders matter, regime types matter, and
radical green ideas in both countries are accessible mainly through satellite
broadcasts and websites run by dissident exiles.
Mignolo (2000) has coined the term border thinking to describe how
borders of various kinds, both national and social are altered by the
transnational changes that we identied above. It is not that national borders

disappear as transnational sites of power become more signicant, but rather
that they gain a new meaning in an era of increased transnational ows of
people, nance and communications. The article on France by Hayes
illustrates this well. Environmental protest in France has taken a novel turn
to civil disobedience, following forms of protest that were common a few years
earlier in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Yet, rather than direct diusion
from other countries which is, as Hayes says, probably minimal, what matters
most in France is how these forms of protest were redened in French
Republican terms. Thus destroying GM crops is for Jose Bove, the inter-
nationally famous leader of the Confederation paysanne (CP), a form of civic,
as opposed to civil, disobedience. He frames this citizenship as a call on the
national state to protect aspects of French culture, in which food and its
production loom large, against the attening forces of neoliberalism by
standing up to the World Trade Organisation and refusing to grow or import
genetically modied (GM) products. Transnational political forces were at
issue in this case but they were not unchanged by crossing borders. Thus we
still need comparative national analyses, because even when environmental
movements in dierent countries are subject to the same global forces, they do
not all react in the same way. In this issue comparisons between Bosnia and
Madagascar show that in both cases transnational networks of governance
have imposed environmental policies based on mistaken assumptions about the
weakness of local civil society, but also that each diers because of nationally
specic conditions.
Given the unevenness of environmental movements, dierences between
movements and the importance of power relations between them, we are
cautious about the use of the terminology global civil society to describe the
transnational networks developing between environmental groups. This is
partly on historic grounds, as it is well known that even if there are new forms
of transnational power, anti-colonial and post-colonial movements have
always worked transnationally. The anti-apartheid movement (AAM) is a
good example of a movement that crossed borders, even while South Africa
was a closed society for most of its population (Thorn, 2006). The AAM began
in the early 1960s before the emergence of the New Left, to which some trace
the origins of the Northern movements in the new transnational contention.
The better accounts of global civil society include recognition of this long
historic context (Edwards & Gaventa, 2001; Keane, 2003). However, to us,
global civil society still suggests a stronger and abstracted unity than seems to
be evident given the dierences within and the limits, as yet, of transnational
environmentalism. We prefer the term used by Torgerson in his article in this
collection (see also Torgerson, 1999) the green public sphere. The key point
about the public sphere is that it is a space of dialogue and debate and does not
presuppose a unied movement or society simply in need of a single common
strategy. One point of criticism of the concept of public sphere is that its
Republican origins seem to privilege the abstract public citizen, disembodied
from bodily characteristics or historic inuences (Marion Young, 2002).

Torgerson, however, like Nancy Fraser (1990), argues that public spheres can
be multiple rather than a single transnational space. Thus, in his article in this
issue, he identies a post-colonial dimension to environmentalism which needs
to be addressed within the public spheres that are constituted by debates
between environmentalists across borders. This is a theme we will return to
below. Next, however, we need to explain what we mean by the terms
environmental movement and social movement. How these terms are dened
theoretically is important for the task of explaining the dierences between
dierent kinds of environmental movement.
The Social Movement in Environmental Movements

The concept of social movement is an analytical construct, not a description of
a given empirical phenomenon. There is no clear consensus on how to use the
term and so at best the criteria that various denitions set out provide a
heuristic device, which we argue can be used as a Weberian ideal type to
understand and interpret real cases. This means that we should not accept at
face value that all groups that call themselves environmental are necessarily
part of a single environmental social movement.
We identify four elements characteristic of social movements. First, a
movement must have some common identity which is not based simply on
ideas, but also expressed in the-taken-for-granted practices and culture
developed over time by participants in collective action (what Bourdieu calls
its habitus). Social movements in this sense are not momentary coalitions but
develop their collective identity over time, as they face the question of dening
who are we?, what do we believe? and how should we act?. A second
feature of social movements is that we can assess who is in the movement
empirically by assessing its network ties as opposed to membership of
organisations. Put most straightforwardly, movement involvement requires
regular interaction with others. Mapping this through network ties can show
which groups and individuals take common action or exchange ideas or
resources. This means that we can also distinguish between more or less active
and central and peripheral actors in the movement. A focus on networks also
means that there is no type of organisation that denes a social movement.
Movement organisations can be hierarchical and centralised, or the opposite.
Or, as in the environmental movement, and the transnational networks
examined by Routledge et al., they can be a combination of both. A third
feature is that parts of this movement network are involved in public protest,
which we regard as essential to the public political dimension of movement
action, although this can also be combined with counter-cultural lifestyles. The
fourth criterion is that movements challenge some feature of dominant cultural
codes or social and political values. In short, they argue for social and political
change that goes beyond policy change. Social movements are therefore radical
and this means that they can be of the left or the right. In the social movement
parts of the environmental movement, however, the inuence of the left-wing

heritage has been overwhelming (Doherty, 2002).
This is a complicated denition, as we have to apply four criteria separately
to actual groups that are in the process of constant change. Also, dierent
analysts of movements tend to give dierent weight in applying these criteria to
empirical cases. For instance, we argue that network ties alone are not enough
to dene the movement, as many groups can take joint action against the same
targets without developing a common identity. Groups that develop common
frames and culture through regular interaction, however, can develop common
identity over time. We give more weight than others to questions of collective
identity, but because we also stress the challenge to dominant cultural codes
and use of protest, in relation to the environmental movement, we see the
strongest social movement dimensions in the more radical and self-consciously
ideological environmental groups. In contrast, Rootes denes the identity
of the environmental movement broadly as a common commitment to the
importance of environmental concern (2004: 612) which entails a very
inclusive denition of the environmental movement able to include groups that
never take protest action, and do not challenge the political order ideologically.
These are clearly not black-and-white questions and exist on a continuum: the
observer has to decide not only whether a movement has a collective identity
and interacts, but what degree of interaction and evidence of shared ideas are
required.
The emphasis on critique as central to social movements is part of the
European tradition of social movement theory associated with seeking to
understand why new social movements emerged in the wake of the New Left
(Melucci, 1996). It can be contrasted with a more nominalist approach to
explaining social movements with its origins in the United States, which
focused on understanding how they mobilise and explaining patterns of protest
(Tarrow, 1998). These are not so much dierent theories of social movements
as approaches to dierent questions about collective action: the European
tradition emphasising understanding ideology in relation to social structure;
the US tradition focused on explaining specic protest actions. Thus, while the
application of the term social movement remains contested, it is quite possible
to draw on both European and US traditions in social movement theory and

remain consistent.
What does this understanding of social movement mean in relation to the
environmental movements that are discussed in this volume? First, we argue
that not all environmental groups have strong elements of a social movement.
Kerenyi and Szabo describe the predominance in Hungary of a narrow single-
issue environmentalism in the 1990s, which became completely integrated into
the new structures of government and failed to develop any capacity to
mobilise an environmental constituency. In 2004 new groups and more radical
ideas emerged through a protest campaign to protect a valued hill (Zengo)
from being damaged for a NATO military site. This campaign included urban
environmental activists with ties to global justice groups in other countries and
the Hungarian branch of Friends of the Earth, which was able to use its
international network contacts to put pressure on NATO and the EU. Using
our approach it could be said that the parts of the Hungarian environmental
movement that participated in the Zengo campaign increased their social
movement dimensions. In contrast, in Iran, the narrow and state-approved
connes within which nearly all environmental NGOs are required to operate
is a good example of why not all environmental groups have a social movement
dimension.
A second consequence of this approach to social movements is that it makes
allowance for the diversity of environmentalisms. Not all those engaged in
environmental action are necessarily part of the same social movement. It is
only to the degree that they interact regularly, taking joint action and
discussing and revising their common identity that groups are part of the same
movement. Thus social movements are not xed entities with stable member-
ships and xed ideologies, but are constituted through ongoing debate and
interaction. Nor are organisations or groups necessarily always denable only
as part of a single social movement. The CP, as discussed by Hayes, is part of
an international radical farmers network known as La Via Campesina, as well
as being part of global justice networks, particularly in the European social
forum. CP members took action with those who dened themselves as greens in
France against GM crops and may be developing a shared identity through
regular joint action. However, in general it makes sense to dene the CP as
taking environmental action without being central to the French environ-
mental movement. PGA Asia is part of an even broader coalition: like other
branches of Peoples Global Action, the participants are linked through their
opposition to neoliberalism. However, the process of debate within the PGA
network is helping to dene both a movement culture and a common identity,
hence the emphasis that Routledge et al. place on the work of those individuals
who seek to push the movement to keep debating. In Burma, groups from the
Karen people were driven by the brutality of the Burmese army to dene the
harm they experienced in ways that combined damage to the environment with
the violence meted out to their people. This led to ties with a variety of
international networks of indigenous peoples, human rights and environmental
groups. Again, these links with other groups are too complex to dene simply
as either environmental or human rights.
In the conclusion to this issue, we develop the emphasis on the importance of
the dierences between forms of environmental action further, making a
general and more normative distinction between emancipatory environmental
groups and governance environmental groups. The emancipatory environ-
mental groups necessarily have a strong social movement dimension, although
it does not follow that all social movement groups are emancipatory. The
governance groups are those that oer no challenge to environmental injustice
and are in general reproducing forms of inequality through their participation
with governments, nancial institutions and transnational corporations in
transnational structures of governance. One example discussed by Duy is
groups such as Conservation International that seek to move people out of

national parks in the South, using their inuence with international nancial
institutions to pressure Southern governments to adopt this policy. All this
suggests the need to separate out the empirical phenomena of organisations
and groups that call themselves environmental from the social movement
dimension in environmentalism. The latter can be found across diverse social
movements and in dierent forms across and beyond borders. If social
movement environmentalism is much more diverse than it was 30 years ago,
are there any ways to understand its principal forms? It is to this question that
we turn in the nal section.
NorthSouth or Three Posts?

When the ECPR workshop the forerunner to this volume was originally
proposed by us, a major aim was to investigate dierences, similarities and
transnational cross-overs between environmentalists operating in those
opposing hemispheres of geopolitical imagination: North and South. Much
of our discussion in the workshop showed that this division was overly
simplied. Not only is the South too diverse to be easily dened in terms of
shared experience, but also other regions such as the post-socialist states do not
t easily under either heading. And yet, in the absence of any other way of
mapping major dierences between the West and the rest, this theme remains
an important one after the fact, as it were, in the revised versions of these
articles.
The contributors use the terms North/South, First World/Third Worlds,
developed/developing worlds and minority/majority worlds interchange-
ably. Most of these dualistic divisions are orientated around poverty and
development issues. We acknowledge that all these terms are imperfect
categories. It is a problem to dene entire hemispheres as being rich and poor.
There is huge variance in levels of poverty in countries classied as part of
the South. Sometimes, the World Bank uses the term Fourth World to
dierentiate between the poorest nations and the simply poor nations of the
Third World. On other occasions, it has taken out the oil-rich nations of
the Middle East from its South categorisation. There are also classication
problems when considering recently industrialising countries versus those who
are yet to undergo signicant industrialisation. In some ways, one can follow
the advice of the Calverts in their text devoted to discussions of the environ-
ment and NorthSouth and simply say that the South is taken to mean all
the countries of the world not dened as Advanced Industrial Countries
(AICs) (Calvert & Calvert, 1999: 6). The problem with this approach, as
Calvert and Calvert accept, is that enormous discrepancies of wealth exist
within nation-states. In the Australian aboriginal situation, for example,
with indigenous peoples living a fourth world existence within a rst world
nation-state, it becomes obvious that the South can exist within the North. Of
course, the opposite is also true: elites in the South can enjoy wealthy lives akin
to what is generically expected in the North. Another example is found in the

United States: the forest preservation movements of the North West of the
United States most obviously comprise a minority world environmental
movement; while the US environmental justice movement, born in commu-
nities of colour originally in deliberate juxtaposition to what it perceived as the
white elite environmental movement, can be usefully designated as a majority
world experience. In any study of social movements, terminology must be
employed which is not based wholly on a discourse relating to nation-
states for, as aforementioned, social movements often traverse nation-state
boundaries.
Of course, as already stated, this is an overly dualistic and simplistic, but
useful broad-brush technique of highlighting dierences. It is reminicient of
Guha and Martinez-Aliers (1997) construction of the environmentalism of the
poor as distinct from that of the wealthy. On one hand, the environmentalism
of the minority world is constructed as largely post-materialist: more interested
in the rights of other nature, which are implicit in conservation, threatened
species and wilderness campaigns. Contrarily, the issues we have described
above, far from being post-materialist, are issues for survival. Elsewhere, Doyle
(2005) uses this simple dichotomy of the minority world and the majority
world. One criticism levelled at this work, as well as that of Guha and
Martinez-Aliez, is that it represents green concerns unfairly and inaccurately in
many parts of the industrialised world.
In the minority countries of the New World particularly the United States
and Australia there can be no doubt that post-materialist issues have
dominated environmental agendas over the past generation. The political
ecology movements of western Europe, which combined post-materialism with
a broader New Left-derived analysis of power, developed a signicantly
dierent green ideology, and alongside traditional nature conservation issues
wrestled with questions of structural change and multiple forms of social
inequality (gender, race, sexuality and class and bureaucracy) from their
inception. In the United States and Australia these issues were in a subservient
position to post-material environmental issues, which have been interpreted in
a particularly apolitical manner by the largest environmental organisations
(Dowie, 1995; Brulle & Jenkins, 2006). Building on the NorthSouth dualism,
it may be more accurate to construct a tripartite system of characterisation for
contemporary environmentalism: post-industrialism depicting the European
traditions of political ecology; post-materialism depicting the largely non-
anthropocentric concerns of nature conservation which have dominated in
the New World; and post-colonialism descriptive of the experience of the
majority of the earth: the South.
Environmentalism, then, crosses a vast range of theoretical material. It can
be understood in a post-materialist frame, championing the politics of other
nature; the protection of wilderness areas; and the saving of threatened
species. Through a post-industrialist lens, environmentalism challenges the
excesses of the industrialist project; the rights of corporations to pollute and
degrade; and the dwindling of the earths resources as they are fed into the
advanced industrial machines. Using post-colonialism as the narrative frame,
green concerns are cast in the light of the coloniser versus the colonised; the
dichotomous world of auence and poverty; along structuralist lines between
the haves and the have-nots. In dierent parts of the world, these frames, or
story lines and combinations of them and others are used more often to
explain the causes and eects of environmental issues and problems. In the
South, the frames of post-colonialism and structuralism usually dominate. In
many parts of Europe, post-industrialism is deep-seated; whereas in New
World cultures in North America and Australia, post-materialism can usually
be employed to interpret environmental politics.
Traditional social movement models based on Marxist and most parti-
cularly structuralist accounts of power enjoy enormous currency in the
South. As the article by Routledge (this issue) testies, large numbers of
environmental activists in the developing world identify themselves as
Marxists, seeing the key cause of environmental degradation being that
resources and production are in the hands of a ruling class. Solving these
problems does not lie necessarily in better management or more ecient and
sustainable practices. Rather, the rst part of the answer lies in local people
gaining control over their own resources, their own lives.
Unlike some forms of post-modern and post-positivist analysis, then, we still
nd the binary mega-division between majority and minority worlds
although imperfect a useful one, as it continues to match and describe the
empirical reality as we have encountered it; as long as it is understood that
these great divisions are neither necessarily geographically orientated nor
nation-state specic. Rather, there is an immense gulf in the context of
comparative environmental movements between the experiences of the
majority of the earths people (the South), when contrasted with those encoun-
tered by a small minority (the North). A rather simple, often-quoted equation
needs to be spelt out here. Approximately 80% of the Earths resources are
either consumed or owned by approximately 15% of the Earths people. On the
other hand, 85% of the Earths people have access to only 20% of the Earths
resources (Doyle & McEachern, 1998).
However, no sooner do we arrange some neat form of tripartite cate-

gorisation than environmental movements, with their almost pathological need
to cross borders whether they be conceptual, cultural or geographical make
nonsense out of such feeble positivist attempts to understand what is a diverse
and changing phenomenon. Movements have sought to work across these
divides. In Dohertys, Rootes, Hayes and Routledges articles in this issue,
mention is made of the Global Justice Movement which intersects with social
movement environmentalism; demanding that the South must gain fair and
equitable access to resources; challenging the over-consumption patterns of the
North; while also critiquing ways in which Northern development interests
act in ways which maintain the dependency of the South. Yet such border
crossings do not create a pure sphere of transnational civil society.
Contributions to this collection and others have examined how transnational

networks reproduce inequalities, even in those most committed to challenging
them (Bob, 2001; Anheier & Themudo, 2002).
Indeed, one of the critical traits which Calvert et al. list as a characteristic of
the South is the fact that almost all states are former colonies. This element of
colonisation is taken up by Doug Torgerson in this issue. He agrees that an
image of a divided planet in terms of rich and poor, or Eurocentric planet, is
a needed correction to the concept espoused by Ward and Dubos Only One
Earth, commissioned for the UNCED Conference in 1972. Torgerson goes
further, arguing that the divisions of the planet bear the unmistakeable mark
of the legacy of colonialisation, and as concerns are voiced from formerly
colonised regions of the divided planet, the many environmentalisms tend to
converge in the focus with the Global Justice Movement, a movement of
movements.
One of the trends to emerge from green globalisation has been for Northern
groups to attempt to incorporate those very dierent concerns expressed by
their Southern compatriots. There is no doubt that, increasingly, diverse
interpretations of green identity are under increasing pressures to homogenise.
This issue will be developed more fully later when we address the concept of
global green public sphere. But we must accept that, despite these recent trends
at conceptualising and sharing grand green narratives, the actual environ-
mental issues on the ground are profoundly dierent in the South than the
North. Movements, therefore, which surface in countries such as India,
Bangladesh, Chile or Somalia in the majority world will be more orientated
around issues of environmental security: that is, the rights of people to gain
access to the fundamental resources for survival: air, water, earth and re.
The most pressing environmental issues in the Indian Ocean region, for
example, comprising one-third of all the peoples on the earth, are almost all
anthropocentric: people ghting for food and water security; struggling for
adequate admission to a market which provides health care and adequate
shelter; providing a society to live in which is not consistently ravaged by
wars such as Afghanistan, Palestine or Angola and wave after wave of
colonialism, in all its forms, creates catastrophic tsunamis of human making
(Doyle & Risely, 2007). Conversely, in many parts of the North these issues,
however compassionately understood, are literally worlds apart from the lives
of the wealthy minority, most of whom will only ever experience the lives of the
majority what Toer (1971) calls the Living Dead through the vicarious
experiences oered by travel and lifestyle programmes on television and the
internet.
As aforesaid, after more than 30 years of new environmentalisms we are still
only at the beginning of addressing the fundamental environmental problems,
which are as rooted in transnational structures of power as they were three
decades ago. The key dierence is that new transnational structures of gover-
nance have split environmental movements between those that have become
governance movements, intergrated into policy making, and those that remain
closer to social movement and emancipatory forms of environmentalism.
Order of Exposition
Let us now out outline the order of specic contributions presented in this
issue, and review briey the content and argumentation included in each
chapter.
Torgerson addresses the nature of post-colonial thinking about the environ-
ment and argues for the need to recognise post-colonial political ecology as a
distinct part of the green public sphere. Recognition of this means greater
attention to the inescapable conicts that divide green politics. But he also
argues that the challenges to the tenets that nature is to be dominated and the
earth, conquered provide a basis on which a post-colonial political ecology can
develop. This issue then examines three cases from the South. Duys analysis
of the interaction of international NGOs, international nancial institutions
and local NGOs in Madagascar demonstrates the importance of structural
power and the power of transnational institutions over a Southern govern-
ment, but it also shows how a limited form of autonomy has been carved out
by local NGOs even within the neoliberal connes of the governance state.
Environmental groups in Burma and Iran are compared by Doyle and
Simpson. Both Iran and Burma are authoritarian and repressive regimes, but
the structure of power of each regime is dierent. In Burma the states territory
is controlled less eectively by the military dictatorship and repression is used
to control resistance groups, including those who oppose the regimes
environmentally and socially catastrophic energy export projects. In Iran, the
regime encourages apolitical forms of environmental organisations that
function as a release valve for parts of civil society.
Rootes then explains how the three British environmental organisations
most orientated towards global agendas dier in their approach. WWF UK
has become increasingly committed to an agenda of sustainable development,
which enables it to work both with government, business and with other
institutionalised environmental and development organisations. FoE has
adopted a more ideological agenda of transnational environmental justice,
which has been inuenced by its stronger ties with other non-environmental
organisations. Greenpeace, originally the organisation with the most interna-
tional focus, has changed least, as its strategy is to work less through coalitions
and to avoid broad ideological commitments in favour of clearly specied
issue-based campaigns.
The next three contributions examine other national environmental move-
ments in Europe that dier in that each case is characterised by a progressively
stronger green public sphere. In Bosnia, external funding after the civil war has
been directed to the creation of civil society groups, but the result has been the
creation of the kinds of organisations best suited to meeting the rubric of
funding regimes. These are groups of technical specialists who tend to avoid
political controversy and debate over environmental principles and have
stronger ties with funding agencies than with Bosnian publics. This side of
Bosnian environmental governance has many similarities with Madagascar.
Although political authority is fragmented in Bosnia, Fagan argues that the
policy that drives reconstruction assumes mistakenly that Bosnians never had a
capacity to mobilise on issues such as the environment. The case study of a
local environmental campaign shows that grassroots environmental groups can
work in Bosnia, but these are not the groups that are funded.
Bosnia and Hungary provide evidence that post-socialist states do not auto-
matically follow a western path to modernisation, contrary to the assumptions
of many policy makers. In Hungary, according to Kerenyi and Szabo, environ-
mentalism was a major part of the opposition to the Communist Party in the
later years of the regime. This heroic moment did not translate into a strong
post-socialist environmental movement, as after 1989 environmentalism was
fragmented and institutionalised through funding regimes from the United
States and the EU. It was after EU accession in 2004 that a new kind of
environmentalism developed in Hungary through the campaign to defend
Zengo Hill. An ideologically diverse coalition of urban counter-cultural greens,
local people and transnational environmental organisations was able to
pressure the national government, through the EU and NATO, to change its
plans.
France has a stronger history of protest than Hungary and Bosnia, and has
seen new forms of protest develop that reect the decline of the organised left
in recent years. In relation to the environment, this has taken the form of civic
disobedience by diverse and partly overlapping networks of activists in defence
of trees, against gas-guzzling 4 6 4 cars and against GM crops. Although
similar repertoires have developed in other countries, the way in which they are
justied and used in France is distinctive, in so far as this takes place
with reference to French Republican values and against externally imposed
neoliberalism.
The nal two articles examine cases of transnational networking. Routledge
et al. compare two contrasting international networks that play a role in
the global justice movement: Peoples Global Action (PGA) Asia and the
European arm of the International Federation of Chemical, Energy and Mining
Workers (ICEM). Neither network would usually be classied as part of the

environmental movement, although both campaign on environmental issues.
Including them here is consistent with our argument that social movement
environmentalism can also be found in groups outside those usually dened as
the environmental movement. PGA Asia is a network of predominantly peasant
movements engaged in struggles for land and water rights, food sovereignty,
economic and cultural survival, and environmental sustainability, while the
ICEM is engaged in campaigns for environmental regulation in industries that
are key sources of environmental problems. A central role in constituting both
these networks is played by imagineers: key activists, who have to relate the
international work to the realities of the daily struggles of the grassroots groups
that work principally at local level. The latter often nd it dicult to see the
relevance of international networking. This means that the success of trans-

national emancipatory networks depends on how successfully the imagineers
are able to link transnational social movement work to that rooted in local
places. This is in some ways also the challenge for FoEI. FoEI is a loose
federation of 71 national FoE groups with very dierent histories, resources and
national contexts. Doherty examines how FoEI faced major divisions on
NorthSouth questions. Many other transnational social movement networks
have also found NorthSouth dierences hard to overcome. For FoEI this was
particularly important, because it had built its common identity on a com-
mitment to global environmental justice. It was able to resolve dierences
because the key actors had developed a distinctive culture and relationships of
trust over regular international meetings. The key challenge for FoEI is whether
it can work eectively in practice, despite dierences of power and ideology
between national groups, which it is unlikely to be able to overcome completely.
The concluding article draws out a split between logics of emancipation and
logics of governance in the actions of the diverse environmental groups dealt
with in the dierent contributions to the issue. Ultimately, we conclude that the
transnational politics of modern environmentalism takes place within and
without social movement frames and, as such, can be understood simulta-
neously as polities of liberation and repression; emancipation and disciplined
conditionality.
References
Anheier, H. & Themudo, N. (2002) Organisational forms of global civil society: implications of
going global, in M. Glasius, M. Kaldor & H. Anheier (eds.), Global Civil Society 2002, pp. 191
216 (USA: Oxford University Press).
Bandy, J. & Smith, J. (2005) Introduction: cooperation and conict in transnational protest, in
J. Bandy & J. Smith (eds.), Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal
Order, pp. 117 (Oxford: Rowman and Littleeld).
Bob, C. (2001) Marketing Rebellion: insurgent groups, international media, and NGO support,
International Politics 38(3): 31134.
Brulle, R. & Jenkins, J. C. (2006) Spinning our way to sustainability, Organization & Environment
19(1): 827.
Calvert, P. & Calvert, S. (1999) The South, The North and the Environment (London and New York:
Pinter).
Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity (Oxford: Blackwell).
Chapin, M. (2004) A challenge to conservationists, World Watch, November/December 2004,
World Watch Institute, pp. 1731.
Doherty, B. (2002) Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement (London: Routledge).
Dowie, M. (1995) Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Doyle, T. & McEachern, D. (1998, 2001) Environment and Politics (London and New York:
Routledge).
Doyle, T. (2005) Environmental Movements in Majority and Minority Worlds: A Global Perspective
(New York and London: Rutgers University Press).
Doyle, T. & Risely, M. (2007) Crucible for Survival: Environmental Justice and Security in the Indian
Ocean Region (New York and London: Rutgers University Press), in press.
Edwards, M. & Gaventa, J. (2001) Global Citizen Action (London: Earthscan).

Fraser, N. (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing
democracy, Social Text 25/26: 5680.
Guha, R. & Martinez-Alier, J. (1997) Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South
(London: Earthscan).
Keane, J. (2003) Global Civil Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Keck, M. E. & Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International
Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Marion Young, I. (2001) Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Melucci, A. (1996) Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Mignolo, W. (2000) The many faces of cosmo-polis: border thinking and critical cosmopolitanism,
Public Culture 12(3): 72148.
Rootes, C. (2004) Environmental movements, in D. Snow, S. Soule & H. P. Kriesi (eds.), The
Blackwell Companion to Social Movement, pp. 60840 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Smith, J. (2005) Building bridges or building walls? Explaining regionalization among trans-
national social movement organisations, Mobilization 10(2): 25169.
Tarrow, S. (1998) Power in Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tarrow, S. & della Porta, D. (2005) Transnational protest and social activism, in S. Tarrow & D.
della Porta (eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism, pp. 117 (Oxford: Rowman and
Littleeld).
Th}orn, H. (2006) Anti-apartheid and the Emergence of a Global Civil Society (Basingstoke:
Palgrave).
Toer, A. (1971) Future Shock (London: Pan Books).
Torgerson, D. (1999) The Promise of Green Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Ward, B. & Dubos, R. (1972) Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet
(New York: Norton).
Wood, L. J. (2005) Bridging the chasms: the case of peoples global action, in J. Bandy & J. Smith
(eds.), Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order, pp. 95117
(Oxford: Rowman and Littleeld).

Beyond Borders Transnational Politics Social Movements and Modern Environmentalisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beyond Borders Transnational Politics Social Movements and Modern Environmentalisms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beyond Borders Transnational Politics Social Movements and Modern Environmentalisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Politics

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

Beyond borders: Transnational politics, social

Brian Doherty & Timothy Doyle

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010600937132

Published online: 24 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1744

View related articles

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

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

Download by: [188.251.17.104] Date: 09 December 2017, At: 18:09

Beyond Borders: Transnational

Correspondence Address: Brian Doherty, School of Politics, International Relations and

ISSN 0964-4016 Print/1743-8934 Online/06/05069716 2006 Taylor & Francis

social movements. Third, we assess what ideological dierences between

Environmental Movements, Transnational Politics and Border Thinking

networks. While, as Smith acknowledges and as we discuss below (see Doyle,

imposed by international nancial institutions; and third, externalisation, in

regime. When Iran held a major international environmental conference in

transnational changes that we identied above. It is not that national borders

from bodily characteristics or historic inuences (Marion Young, 2002).

The Social Movement in Environmental Movements

parts of the environmental movement, however, the inuence of the left-wing

to draw on both European and US traditions in social movement theory and

groups such as Conservation International that seek to move people out of

NorthSouth or Three Posts?

to what is generically expected in the North. Another example is found in the

However, no sooner do we arrange some neat form of tripartite cate-

Contributions to this collection and others have examined how transnational

closer to social movement and emancipatory forms of environmentalism.

Workers (ICEM). Neither network would usually be classied as part of the

relevance of international networking. This means that the success of trans-

Edwards, M. & Gaventa, J. (2001) Global Citizen Action (London: Earthscan).

You might also like