PARTIES AND MOVEMENTS
campaign co-ordinators to encourage its often moribund local groups to
become more active – and has even trained some local groups in tech-
niques of non-violent direct action. Greenpeace too has been sensitive to
criticisms of its authoritarian, undemocratic structure. In 1995, for exam-
ple, Greenpeace UK relaxed its prohibition on local support groups engaging
in activities beyond fundraising and publicity in support of national and
international campaigns; later, in 1999, it established a network of ‘active
supporters’ to allow enthusiasts to become more involved in local actions
(Rootes 2005 : 38). Greenpeace USA has also worked closely with grassroots
groups and made a concerted effort to recruit more staff from ethnic minori-
ties (Dowie 1995 :147). One factor contributing to this change of heart was
that, in common with other major groups, FoE and Greenpeace experienced
afall-off in support and a decline in income during the mid-1990s – a direct
threat to the ‘protest business’ strategy. This stagnation may also be a func-
tion of the grassroots challenge. In the USA, the Sierra Club and National
Audubon Society have faced internal criticism from members demanding
that they should become more radical and less Washington-focused (Dowie
1995 :214–19). Thus there seems to be a symbiotic relationship between the
mainstream and grassroots sectors that will probably regularly reproduce
similar cycles of activity and stagnation across the ‘green rainbow’.
Secondly, EPGs have shown an increasing willingness to form coali-
tions and networks to pursue their aims more effectively by pooling their
resources. The established groups are regularly involved in international
and national coalition activity, reflecting (and contributing to) the growing
convergence between them. The big EPGs have years of experience work-
ing together in the lobby, on government committees and developing joint
responses to consultative documents (Bosso 2005 ). The emergence of loose-
knit coalitions with some grassroots groups, such as the anti-roads protesters
and the environmental justice movement, suggests that there is sufficient
common ground to work together on key issues. The successful conventional
campaign against the proposal to build a Thames river-crossing through
Oxleas Wood in London involved an alliance of FoE, WWF, Alarm UK and
Earth First! (Doherty 1998 : 284). Although the anti-roads campaigns initially
saw considerable hostility between FoE and the eco-warriors, particularly
at Twyford Down, they worked alongside each other in later campaigns
(Seel and Plows 2000 :118). Elsewhere, German anti-nuclear protests typically
involved a coalition of mainstream environmental groups, such as the Bund
fur Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) and Greenpeace, and local ̈
groups (Rucht and Roose 2003 :102). Gould et al. ( 1996 :195–6) concluded
from their study of local environmental mobilisation in the USA that groups
are most effective when they build alliances with regional or national organ-
isations. The massive international mobilisation of NGOs protesting against
theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) convention in Seattle in November
1999 involved a significant degree of co-ordination between mainstream and
grassroots networks.