State Sponsorship and Community Environmental Groups: The Atlantic Coastal Action Program in Newfoundland

Abstract

Introduction When the Canadian federal government announced in November 2002 that it would assume part of the cost involved in building a primary sewage treatment plant in St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, thereby halting the flow of untreated waste into that city's harbor, no one was happier than the members and supporters of the St. John's Harbour ACAP (SJH). ACAP is the acronym for Atlantic Coastal Action Program, an initiative of Environment Canada that provides project funding for community environmental organizations active in coastal ecosystem issues. Newfoundland (1) has two ACAPs. Besides the St. John's group, there is one in Corner Brook, the Humber Arm ACAP (HA). Although the Corner Brook organization also sought sewage treatment for its region, it has made very little headway on the issue. In this study, we examine the two local environmental groups, focussing on two distinct questions. The first asks why one group had greater success than the other. Answering this question necessarily requires looking at the structures of the two organizations, their specific objectives, and the political context in which they operated. Our second question is somewhat less obvious. Both ACAPs can be considered to be environmental groups, because both receive funding from the Canadian government. We want to know how having federal sponsorship affects their relationships with not just Ottawa but with the provincial and local authorities as well. In particular, we ask how having a link to the federal government influenced the capacity of the two to deal with wastewater issues, if it did at all. To answer these questions, the paper proceeds through a series of steps. First, it looks at the question of state sponsorship of interest groups. It then lays out the two cases that make up the study, searching for difference in structure, objectives, or relations with the governments involved that can explain why they achieved different results. The article's conclusion summarizes the findings, suggests an explanation for the results, and comments on the impact of governmental sponsorship on the two and their work. State-sponsored Groups The development of environmental in Canada is a relatively recent phenomenon. Unlike other Anglo-American countries, there were virtually no conservation or environmental prior to the 1960s. Nevertheless, in a short period of time, about two thousand environmental were established involving an estimated one to two million Canadians (Wilson, 2002; Doern and Conway, 1994). Pluralist theory views the flourishing of interest as a natural product of liberal democratic societies. Other theories focussing more on the development of new social movement have provided explanations in terms of the rise of a new middle class, the nature of late capitalism, and the development of post-materialist attitudes. Despite different theoretical perspectives, are generally seen as autonomous organizations originating in civil society. Although some researchers have noted the significance of state funding for many environmental groups, insufficient attention has been paid to the role of the state in encouraging and supporting environmental groups. In their classification of interest groups, Whittington and Van Loon (1996) make a useful distinction between groups that have been primarily responsible for their own creation and maintenance (autonomous groups) and groups that have been either created or encouraged by government itself (state-sponsored groups). As with all classification systems, there is a degree of arbitrariness in determining what is and is not a state-sponsored group; the degree of state-sponsorship may vary from those that are essentially agencies of the state to those that obtain some minimal level of support from the state. As well, the concept of state sponsorship may be considered multidimensional, including such aspects as whether government was responsible for founding or encouraging the founding of the group, the degree of financial dependence upon government, and the degree of autonomy of the group in terms of setting objectives, selecting strategies to achieve their objectives, and the choice of key personnel. …