In Pursuit of Sustainable Development

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit called for global efforts to promote sustainable
development in response to the deepening environmental crisis. This book
explores how nation states have responded to this call by engaging with sub-
national, regional and local actors. It moves beyond an implementation
study to explore whether and to what extent the promotion of sustainable
development acts as an organising principle for the emergence of new forms
of governance practices. In Pursuit of Sustainable Development investigates
these new practices at the sub-national level in EU member states and in
Norway.
Drawing on the fruits of several major international research projects and
a specially commissioned Workshop, the contributors explore the import-
ance of ‘new governance’ practices. Their findings reaffirm the crucial role
played by traditional governing activity, including steering by local and
national governments and by international authorities. While national legis-
lation and policy priorities are key drivers for sustainable development,
success is also dependent on ensuring the active engagement of local actors
and the use of the skills and expertise found within civil society.
Leading experts in the field employ their research to show how both new
governance practices and traditional government interventions combine to
promote and sustain real progress in pursuit of sustainable development.
This book will be of interest to students and researchers of politics, develop-
ment studies, geography, planning, environmental sociology and social
policy.

Susan Baker is Professor in Environmental Social Science at Cardiff School

for Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK. Katarina Eckerberg is Profes-
sor in Public Administration in the Department of Political Science, Umeå
University, Deputy Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and
Team Leader at the Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Routledge/ECPR studies in European political science
Edited by Thomas Poguntke
Ruhr University Bochum, Germany on behalf of the European Consortium for
Political Research

The Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science series is pub-

lished in association with the European Consortium for Political Research –
the leading organisation concerned with the growth and development of
political science in Europe. The series presents high-quality edited volumes
on topics at the leading edge of current interest in political science and
related fields, with contributions from European scholars and others who
have presented work at ECPR workshops or research groups.

1 Regionalist Parties in 6 Social Capital and European

Western Europe Democracy
Edited by Lieven de Winter and Edited by Jan van Deth,
Huri Türsan Marco Maraffi, Ken Newton and
Paul Whiteley
2 Comparing Party System
Change 7 Party Elites in Divided
Edited by Jan-Erik Lane and Societies
Paul Pennings Edited by Kurt Richard Luther
and Kris Deschouwer
3 Political Theory and the
European Union 8 Citizenship and Welfare State
Edited by Albert Weale and Reform in Europe
Michael Nentwich Edited by Jet Bussemaker

4 Politics of Sexuality 9 Democratic Governance and

Edited by Terrell Carver and New Technology
Véronique Mottier Technologically mediated
innovations in political practice
5 Autonomous Policy Making in Western Europe
by International Edited by Ivan Horrocks, Jens Hoff
Organizations and Pieter Tops
Edited by Bob Reinalda and
Bertjan Verbeek
10 Democracy without Borders 18 Public Opinion and the
Transnationalisation and International Use of Force
conditionality in new Edited by Philip Everts and
democracies Pierangelo Isernia
Edited by Jean Grugel
19 Religion and Mass Electoral
11 Cultural Theory as Political Behaviour in Europe
Science Edited by David Broughton and
Edited by Michael Thompson, Hans-Martien ten Napel
Gunnar Grendstad and Per Selle
20 Estimating the Policy
12 The Transformation of Position of Political Actors
Governance in the European Edited by Michael Laver
Union
Edited by Beate Kohler-Koch and 21 Democracy and Political
Rainer Eising Change in the ‘Third World’
Edited by Jeff Haynes
13 Parliamentary Party Groups
in European Democracies 22 Politicians, Bureaucrats and
Political parties behind closed Administrative Reform
doors Edited by B. Guy Peters and
Edited by Knut Heidar and Jon Pierre
Ruud Koole
23 Social Capital and
14 Survival of the European Participation in Everyday Life
Welfare State Edited by Paul Dekker and
Edited by Stein Kuhnle Eric M. Uslaner

15 Private Organisations in 24 Development and Democracy

Global Politics What do we know and how?
Edited by Karsten Ronit and Edited by Ole Elgström and
Volker Schneider Goran Hyden

16 Federalism and Political 25 Do Political Campaigns

Performance Matter?
Edited by Ute Wachendorfer- Campaign effects in elections
Schmidt and referendums
Edited by David M. Farrell and
17 Democratic Innovation Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck
Deliberation, representation and
association 26 Political Journalism
Edited by Michael Saward New challenges, new practices
Edited by Raymond Kuhn and
Erik Neveu
27 Economic Voting 35 Political Theory and the
Edited by Han Dorussen and European Constitution
Michaell Taylor Edited by Lynn Dobson and
Andreas Follesdal
28 Organized Crime and the
Challenge to Democracy 36 Politics and the European
Edited by Felia Allum and Commission
Renate Siebert Actors, interdependence,
legitimacy
29 Understanding the European Edited by Andy Smith
Union’s External Relations
Edited by Michèle Knodt and 37 Metropolitan Governance
Sebastiaan Princen Capacity, democracy and the
dynamics of place
30 Social Democratic Party Edited by Hubert Heinelt and
Policies in Contemporary Daniel Kübler
Europe
Edited by Giuliano Bonoli and 38 Democracy and the Role of
Martin Powell Associations
Political, organizational and
31 Decision Making Within social contexts
International Organisations Edited by Sigrid Roßteutscher
Edited by Bob Reinalda and
Bertjan Verbeek 39 The Territorial Politics of
Welfare
32 Comparative Biomedical Edited by Nicola McEwen and
Policy Luis Moreno
Governing assisted reproductive
technologies 40 Health Governance in Europe
Edited by Ivar Bleiklie, Issues, challenges and theories
Malcolm L. Goggin and Edited by Monika Steffen
Christine Rothmayr
41 Republicanism in Theory and
33 Electronic Democracy Practice
Mobilisation, organisation and Edited by Iseult Honohan and
participation via new ICTs Jeremy Jennings
Edited by Rachel K. Gibson,
Andrea Römmele and 42 Mass Media and Political
Stephen J. Ward Communication in New
Democracies
34 Liberal Democracy and Edited by Katrin Voltmer
Environmentalism
The end of environmentalism?
Edited by Marcel Wissenburg and
Yoram Levy
43 Delegation in Contemporary 49 Civil Societies and Social
Democracies Movements
Edited by Dietmar Braun and Potentials and problems
Fabrizio Gilardi Edited by Derrick Purdue

44 Governance and Democracy 50 Resources, Governance and

Comparing national, European Civil Conflict
and international experiences Edited by Magnus Öberg and
Edited by Yannis Papadopoulos Kaare Strøm
and Arthur Benz
51 Transnational Private
45 The European Union’s Roles Governance and its Limits
in International Politics Edited by Jean-Christophe Graz
Concepts and analysis and Andreas Nölke
Edited by Ole Elgström and
Michael Smith 52 International Organizations
and Implementation
46 Policy-making Processes and Enforcers, managers,
the European Constitution authorities?
A comparative study of member Edited by Jutta Joachim,
states and accession countries Bob Reinalda and Bertjan Verbeek
Edited by Thomas König and
Simon Hug 53 New Parties in Government
Edited by Kris Deschouwer
47 Democratic Politics and
Party Competition 54 In Pursuit of Sustainable
Edited by Judith Bara and Development
Albert Weale New governance practices at the
sub-national level in Europe
48 Participatory Democracy and Edited by Susan Baker and
Political Participation Katarina Eckerberg
Can participatory engineering
bring citizens back in?
Edited by Thomas Zittel and
Dieter Fuchs
Also available from Routledge in association with the ECPR:

Sex Equality Policy in Western Europe, Edited by Frances Gardiner;

Democracy and Green Political Thought, Edited by Brian Doherty and
Marius de Geus; The New Politics of Unemployment, Edited by Hugh
Compston; Citizenship, Democracy and Justice in the New Europe,
Edited by Percy B. Lehning and Albert Weale; Private Groups and Public
Life, Edited by Jan W. van Deth; The Political Context of Collective
Action, Edited by Ricca Edmondson; Theories of Secession, Edited by Percy
Lehning; Regionalism Across the North/South Divide, Edited by Jean
Grugel and Wil Hout
In Pursuit of Sustainable
Development
New governance practices at the
sub-national level in Europe

Edited by Susan Baker and

Katarina Eckerberg
First published 2008
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
© 2008 Selection and editorial matter, Susan Baker and Katarina
Eckerberg; individual chapters, the contributors
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
In pursuit of sustainable development: new governance practices at
the sub-national level in Europe/edited by Susan Baker and Katarina
Eckerberg.
p. cm. – (Routledge/ECPR studies in European political science; 54)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Sustainable development–Europe. I. Baker, Susan, 1955–II.
Eckerberg, Katarina, 1953–
HC240.9.E5I6 2008
338.9407–dc22 2007047909

ISBN 0-203-92816-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0-415-41910-7 (hbk)

ISBN10: 0-203-92816-4 (ebk)

ISBN13: 978-0-415-41910-9 (hbk)

ISBN13: 978-0-203-92816-5 (ebk)
Contents

List of illustrations xi
Notes on contributors xiii
Series editor’s preface xviii
Acknowledgements xx
List of abbreviations xxi

Introduction: in pursuit of sustainable development at

the sub-national level: the ‘new’ governance agenda 1
SUSAN BAKER AND KATARINA ECKERBERG

PART I
Promoting governance capacity for sustainable
development 27

1 National sustainable development strategies in EU

member states: the regional dimension 29
GERALD BERGER AND REINHARD STEURER

2 Economic instruments and the promotion of sustainable

development: governance experiences in key European
states 50
SUSAN BAKER AND KATARINA ECKERBERG

3 Institutional and social capacity enhancement for local

sustainable development: lessons from European urban
settings 74
BOB EVANS, MARKO JOAS, SUSAN SUNDBACK AND
KATE THEOBALD
x Contents
PART II
Engaging in governance for sustainable development 97

4 Institutional capacities for sustainable development:

experiences with Local Agenda 21 in Spain 99
KENNETH HANF AND FRANCESC MORATA

5 Sub-national sustainable development initiatives in

federal states in Germany 122
KRISTINE KERN

6 Rhetoric or reality? Responding to the challenge of

sustainable development and new governance patterns
in Ireland 145
BERNADETTE CONNAUGHTON, BRÍD QUINN AND
NICHOLAS REES

7 Governance networks promoting rural sustainable

development in Norway 169
SISSEL HOVIK

8 New interpretations of local governance for sustainable

development in the Netherlands 190
FRANS COENEN

Conclusion: combining old and new governance in pursuit

of sustainable development 208
SUSAN BAKER AND KATARINA ECKERBERG

Index 229
Illustrations

Figures
5.1 Sustainable development in the German Länder 134
6.1 NUTS III regions in Ireland 159
7.1 The three case studies 176

Tables
I.1 Array of environmental policy instruments 11
I.2 Sustainable development reporting protocol 13
I.3 New governance reporting protocol 20
2.1 Government investment programmes for promoting
sub-national sustainable development 53
2.2 Patterns of engagement with the promotion of sustainable
development 68
3.1 The 40 cases 79
3.2 Relationship between social and institutional capacity,
capacity-building measures and sustainable development
policy capacity 80
3.3 Areas of policy capacity for sustainable development 82
3.4 Institutional capacity (qualitative assessment) 87
3.5 Civil society capacity (qualitative assessment) 90
3.6 Categories of governance 91
4.1 Documents signed in connection with formal political
commitment of local authorities to sustainable development 104
4.2 Budgetary allocations for sustainable development in
municipalities 105
4.3 Location of municipalities in different phases of the LA21
process 109
4.4 Perceived obstacles to the integration of the environment
and economic development 112
5.1 Sustainable development in the German Länder 130
xii Illustrations
6.1 Key developments in Ireland: sustainable development and
waste management 152
6.2 Main actors for policy-making, monitoring and
implementation 155
6.3 Main sub-national actors involved in policy-making,
monitoring and implementation 157
6.4 Waste management regions in Ireland 160
6.5 Public–private partnerships in waste management, 2005 163
7.1 Governance of the three rural sustainable development
networks 183
8.1 Key components of Dutch national sustainable development
plans and strategies 194
8.2 Implementation and planning style 203
Contributors

Susan Baker, Professor in Environmental Social Science, Cardiff School of

the Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales. Her main research interest
lies in environmental policy and politics, particularly in the EU and
Eastern Europe. Her recent books include Sustainable Development (London:
Routledge 2005), Dilemmas of Transition: The Environment Democracy and
Economic Reform in East and Central Europe, edited with P. Jehlička,
(London: Frank Cass 1998); The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory,
Policy and Practice in the European Union, edited with M. Kousis, D.
Richardson and S. Young (London: Routledge 1997); and Protecting the
Periphery: Environmental Policy in Peripheral Regions of the EU, edited with K.
Milton and S. Yearley (London: Frank Cass 1994).
Gerald Berger, Research Fellow, Research Institute for Managing Sustain-
ability, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration,
Austria. His main research interests are sustainable development, multi-
level governance and regional development. He co-ordinated the ‘Strat-
egies for Regional Sustainable Development: An Integrated Approach
Beyond Best Practice’ (REGIONET) project, funded by the European
Commission under the 5th Framework Programme for Research and
Development (Contract No. EVG 1–2001–20003). His recent publica-
tions include: ‘Editorial: Regional Sustainable Development – The Role
of Structural Funds’, Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science
Research, Special issue, 2004, Vol. 17, No. 1: 3–9 (guest editor with
Michael Narodoslawsky); ‘Reflections on Governance: Power Relations
and Policy Making in Regional Sustainable Development’, Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol. 5, No. 3 (2003): 219–234;
‘Environmental Governance: Prospects and Problems for Sustainable
Regional Development’, in Corrado Diamantini (ed.), The Region:
Approaches for a Sustainable Development (Trento: Temi Editrice 2002),
211–227.
Frans H. J. M. Coenen, Senior Research, Center for Clean Technology and
Environmental Policy, University of Twente, The Netherlands. His
recent publications include: ‘The Environment and Social Well-being:
xiv Contributors
An Exploration of Facts and Figures and of Possible Relationships’,
Environmental Strategy Publication 2000/6 Series (The Hague 2000), 1–90,
with D. A. Fuchs and R. A. van de Peppel; ‘The Netherlands: LA21 as a
New Heading for Local Sustainable Development’, in W. Lafferty (ed.),
Implementing LA21 in Europe: New Initiatives for Sustainable Communities
(Oslo: ProSus 1999), 131–147; ‘Subsidised Seeds in Fertile Soil’, in W.
Lafferty and K. Eckerberg (eds), From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies
of Local Agenda 21 in Europe (London: Earthscan 1998), 153–179.
Bernadette Connaughton, Junior Lecturer in Public Administration,
Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limer-
ick, Ireland. She is currently one of the co-ordinators of the permanent
working group on politico-administrative relations within the Network
of Institutes of and Schools of Public Administration in Central and
Eastern Europe (NISPAcee). Her publications include articles in Public
Administration, Regional and Federal Studies, Irish Political Studies and as an
editor with B. G. Peters and G. Sootla of Politico-Administrative Dilemma –
Traditional Problems and New Solutions (Bratislava: NISPAcee 2006).
Katarina Eckerberg, Professor in Public Administration, Department of
Political Science, Umeå University, Sweden, Deputy Director of the
Stockholm Environment Institute and Team Leader at the Stockholm
Resilience Centre. Her main research interest is environmental policy and
administration, with thematic focus on land use and comparative studies
across Europe. Recent publications include Environmental Policy Integration
in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning, edited with M. Nilsson
(London: Earthscan 2006); Understanding LIP in Context: Central Govern-
ment, Business and Comparative Perspectives, edited with S. Baker and A.
Marell (Stockholm: SEPA Report 5454 2005; special issue on Multi-
Level Environmental Governance in Local Environment, edited with M.
Joas, Vol. 9, No. 5 (October 2004); and From the Earth Summit to Local
Agenda 21: Working Towards Sustainable Development, edited with
W. M. Lafferty (London: Earthscan 1998).
Bob Evans, Professor and Director of the Sustainable Cities Research Insti-
tute, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. He is author of many
books, book chapters and articles on land use planning, sustainability,
and local governance, including ‘LASALA: Evaluating Local Agenda 21
in Europe’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 46,
No. 5 (2003): 781–794, with Kate Theobald; Governing Sustainable Cities
(London: Earthscan 2005), edited with M. Joas, S. Sundback and K.
Theobald. He is co-editor of the international journal Local Environment
and has worked as a town planner in the public, private and community
sectors. He was the UK Chair of the European Union’s Working Group
on Urban Environmental Management and a member of the Award Panel
for the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Award.
 Contributors xv
Kenneth Hanf, Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Pompeu Fabra Uni-
versity, Barcelona. His main research interest is in environmental policy
implementation and governance for sustainable development at the
regional level, in particular in Spain. He has published several articles and
books in his field, including Governance and Environmental Quality:
Environmental Politics, Policy and Administration in Western Europe, edited
with A.-I. Jansen (London: Longman 1998); Adapting to European Integra-
tion: Small States and the European Union, edited with Ben Soetendorp
(London: Longman 1997); International Environmental Agreements and
Domestic Politics: The Case of Acid Rain, edited with Arild Underdal
(London: Ashgate 2000); Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary
Systems: Questions of Analysis and Design (NATO Science Series), edited
with A. J. Toonen (The Hague: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1985).
Sissel Hovik, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute of Urban and
Regional Research, Oslo, Norway. Her recent publications include
‘Private–Public Partnership: An Exceptional Solution in Nature Conser-
vation in Norway’, co-authored with Morten Edvardsen in Local Environ-
ment, Vol. 11, No. 4 (2006): 361–372; ‘Norwegian Local Councils as
Democratic Meta-governors? A Study of Networks Established to
Manage Cross-Border Natural Resources’, co-authored with Signy Irene
Vabo in Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 28 (2005): 257–275; ‘National
Environmental Goals in Search of Local Institutions’, co-authored with
Marit Reitan in Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy, Vol.
22 (2004): 687–699.
Marko Joas, Acting Professor, Department of Public Administration, Åbo
Akademi University, Finland. His research interests cover comparative
environmental administration and policy, especially from a democratic
and governance perspective. His recent publications include: Reflexive
Modernisation of the Environmental Administration in Finland (Åbo Akademi
University Press 2001); M. Joas and B. Grönholm, ‘A Comparative
Perspective on Self-Assessment of Local Agenda 21 in European Cities’,
Boreal Environmental Research (December 2004): 499–507; M. Joas, B.
Evans and K. Theobald, ‘Evaluating Governance for Local Sustainability:
On-line Tools for Self-assessment’, Progress in Industrial Ecology – PIE,
Vol. 2, Nos 3–4 (Double Special Issue: Sustainable Information Society)
(2005): 440–452; K. Eckerberg and M. Joas, ‘Multi-level Environmental
Governance: A Concept under Stress?’, Local Environment, Vol. 9, No. 5
(October 2004): 405–412.
Kristine Kern, DAAD Visiting Professor, University of Minnesota, Min-
neapolis, USA. Her main research interest is in environmental policy and
politics, particularly in North America and the EU, with a special focus
on the sub-national level. Her recent publications include: ‘Local Govern-
ment and the Governing of Climate Change in Germany and the UK’,
xvi Contributors
Urban Studies, Vol. 43 (2006), with Harriet Bulkeley; ‘Sustainable
Development in the Baltic Sea Region: Governance beyond the Nation
State’, Local Environment, Vol. 9, No. 5 (2004) 451–467, with T. Löf-
felsend; ‘Red-green Environmental Policy in Germany. Strategies and
Performance Patterns’, in W. Reutter (ed.), Germany on the Road to ‘Nor-
malcy’: Policies and Politics of the First Red-green Government (1998–2002)
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2004), 183–206, with S. Koenen and
T. Löffelsend; and Die Diffusion von Politikinnovationen: Umweltpolitische
Innovationen im Mehrebenensystem der USA (Opladen: Leske + Budrich
2000).
Francesc Morata, Professor in Political Science and Director of the Institut
Universitari d’Estudis Europeus (University Institute of European
Studies), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Catalonia. His main
research interest is in public administration and environmental policy.
His publications include Las Políticas Públicas, with Yves Meny and Jean-
Claude Thoenig (Barcelona: Ariel 1992); ‘Spanish Regions in the Euro-
pean Community’, in J. Barry Jones and Michael Keating (eds), The
European Union and the Regions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995); ‘Spain:
Environmental Policy and Public Administration. A Marriage of Conve-
nience Officiated by the Public?’, with N. Font in K. Hanf and A.-I.
Jansen (eds), Governance and Environmental Quality: Environmental Politics,
Policy and Administration in Western Europe (London: Longman 1998).
Bríd Quinn, Lecturer in Public Administration, Department of Politics and
Public Administration, University of Limerick, Ireland. Her main
research interests are in governance and democratic renewal and in EU
regional policy. Her publications include ‘Irish Local Government in a
Comparative Context’, in M. Callanan and J. Keogan (eds), Local Govern-
ment in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration
2003), 447–459; ‘Gender Relations in Ireland’, in The New Challenge of
Women’s Role in Rural Europe, Proceedings of an International Conference,
Nicosia, Cyprus, 4–6 October 2001 (Nicosia: The Agricultural Research
Institute), 341–351; ‘The Visibility of EU Policies at Regional and Local
Level: Ireland – A Case Study’, in M. L. von Bergmann-Winberg (ed.),
The Regional Impact of Community Policies (Upplaga: Swedish Institute for
Regional Research 2000), 135–155.
Nicholas Rees, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies at the
National College of Ireland, Dublin, and former Jean Monnet Professor in
European Institutions and International Relations, Department of Poli-
tics and Public Administration and Dean of the Graduate School, Univer-
sity of Limerick, Ireland. His research interests include EU institutions
and multi-level governance, including in relation to EU regional and
environmental policies. His publications include Europeanisation and New
Patterns of Governance in Ireland (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
 Contributors xvii
forthcoming), with Bríd Quinn and Bernadette Connaughton; EU
Enlargement and Multi-Level Governance in Public Policy-Making (London:
Ashgate 2006), edited with C. J. Paraskevopoulos and P. Getimis; United
Nations Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era (London: Routledge 2005)
with Terry O’Neill.
Reinhard Steurer, Project Leader and Lecturer, Research Institute for Man-
aging Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business
Administration, Austria. His main research interests are governance
issues in the context of sustainable development and business–society
relations, in particular corporate social responsibility. He co-ordinates the
European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN) Office, a support
mechanism for public administrators responsible for sustainable develop-
ment strategies. His recent publications include: ‘Towards a New Pattern
of Strategy Formation in the Public Sector: First Experiences with
National Strategies for Sustainable Development in Europe’, Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2005): 455–472;
‘Corporations, Stakeholders and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical
Exploration of Business–Society Relations’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
61, No. 3 (2005): 263–281. Currently he is preparing a European Environ-
ment Special Issue on the topic ‘Sustainable Development Strategies in
Europe: Taking Stock’.
Susan Sundback, Professor of Sociology at Åbo Akademi University,
Finland. She started her career within the field of sociology of religion,
but currently focuses on civil society, the ‘third sector’ and social capital.
More recently her work also involves research into ethnicity and lan-
guage. In 1999–2000 she was a collaborator in the DISCUS project and
published in Governing Sustainable Cities, ed. Bob Evans et al. (London:
Earthscan 2005).
Kate Theobald, Research Fellow, Sustainable Cities Research Institute,
Northumbria University, UK. She has published extensively on local
governance and sustainable development within Europe. She is Editorial
Co-ordinator for the journal Local Environment: The International Journal of
Justice and Sustainability, and is Chair of the Planning and Environment
Research Group of the Royal Geographical Society.
Series editor’s preface

The relevance of this volume is beyond any reasonable doubt: as these lines
are being written, the UN world climate change report is presented at
Valencia, and the news is certainly not good. While scientists have discussed
for many years whether the indicators of global warming represented tempo-
rary fluctuations are indeed a secular, human-made trend caused by pollu-
tion, this debate has faded recently. There can be very little doubt that
humankind is confronted with the huge challenge of making development
sustainable if this planet is to remain reasonably inhabitable in the future.
Clearly, this challenge needs to be met on all levels of the political
system, that is, by the institutions of supra-national governance, the nation
states, and by sub-national actors. Furthermore, it requires not only consid-
erable effort but also innovative governance practices – and this is the focus
of the present volume. As the editors write in their introduction, this book
studies how policies on sustainable development are implemented and new
forms of governance practised. While their analyses concentrate on sub-
national politics, including regional and local levels, they also include the
interactions with all other levels of environmental governance. In other
words, in an age of global challenges the governance of sustainable develop-
ment at sub-national levels is interconnected with national and supra-
national governance structures, and this needs to represent an integral part
of the analysis.
To be sure, in an age where even the current President of the United
States finds it increasingly difficult to ignore the challenge of climate change
there is a tendency for everyone to somehow turn ‘green’. Hence, as the
editors point out in their introduction, there is a danger that the concept of
‘sustainable development’ turns into ‘an empty conceptual shell, to be filled
by whatever characteristics or variables are deemed appropriate’. Consis-
tently, they devote considerable attention to the discussion of the differences
between ‘sustainable development’ on one hand and ‘environmental policy’
or ‘ecological modernisation’ on the other.
Furthermore, they argue that there may be unity between form and sub-
stance in that the promotion of sustainable development may require new,
innovative forms of governance, which blur the traditional boundaries
 Series editor’s preface xix
between public and private and involve a range of non-state partners in
processes of policy formulation and implementation. As a means of ensuring
conceptual clarity and in order to facilitate the generation of comparable
information across the range of cases and areas covered in the book, the
editors have developed reporting protocols on sustainable development and
new governance requirements, which form the basis of their concluding
chapter.
The volume begins with three broadly comparative chapters which focus
on the interaction between national strategies and local action and on differ-
ent governance patterns across European towns and cities. In the somewhat
larger second part a number of case studies are presented that analyse aspects
of new forms of governance aiming at the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment in sub-national arenas across a number of European countries.
When it comes to summarising the wealth of empirical detail assembled
in this volume, the message is somewhat mixed. While the commitment to
sustainable development is widespread on the so-called ‘declatory level’, the
evidence on actual policy measures is more mixed. Also, there is no causal
relationship between new governance practices and the pursuit of sustain-
able development. In other words, form and substance are not necessarily
connected. Finally, and most importantly, the instruments of ‘new gover-
nance’ seem to have their limits. Rather that concluding that the state and
its traditional government are receding, the editors conclude that ‘tradi-
tional governing activity’ remains important ‘in the promotion of sustain-
able development’. In a nutshell, ‘governance and government remain
intertwined but distinct elements of the process of governing’. This import-
ant study on a central policy arena reminds us of some of the basics of com-
parative politics: despite all new forms of governance, there is still a role for
the state, and it is worth analysing the key actors within it.

Thomas Poguntke, Series editor

Bochum, November 2007
Acknowledgements

This book stems from a Workshop on ‘Initiating Sustainable Development:

Patterns of Sub-National Engagement and their Significance’, convened at
the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Joint Sessions of
Workshops, Granada, May 2005. We would like to thank the ECPR for
their generosity in sponsoring this Workshop. In his role as Series Editor of
the Routledge/ECPR series Studies in European Political Science, Professor
Thomas Poguntke initially contacted us about the possibility of publishing
a book from the Workshop contributions. We owe him a great deal of
thanks for his initial encouragement and for providing us with much needed
guidelines on how we could turn our Workshop presentations into a coher-
ent book. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the three anony-
mous referees who reviewed our initial book proposal and provided
invaluable help to us at an early and formative stage in our book project.
We are grateful to all the participants in the Workshop not least for their
lively and informed discussions throughout the week in Granada. In particu-
lar we extend our thanks to John Barry, Harriet Bulkeley, Andrew Flynn,
Jean-Baptiste Harguindéguy, Panu Kontio, Anna Meincke, Josu Mezo, Eva
Mineur, Eugenio Pizzimento and François-Mathieu Poupeau.
Editing the work of others is always easier than critically reviewing one’s
own output! When, as editors of this book we faced the prospect of includ-
ing our own Granada paper in this volume, we turned to Christine Hudson
and Ian Welsh for help. Both provided much needed and constructive com-
ments, helping us to turn our initial paper into a chapter that we hope is
worthy of inclusion in this book.
We also wish to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Jackie
Swift for her calm and patient editorialist work on the initial manuscript.
Finally, we would like to thank the staff at Routledge, in particular Amelia
McLaurin, Editorial Assistant, for all their hard work in getting this volume
to press.

Susan Baker and Katarina Eckerberg

Cardiff and Stockholm, 2008
Abbreviations

BLAGNE Working Group on Sustainable Development (in Germany)

BMLFUW Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management
BUGM Bijdragenbesluit Uitvoering Gemeenelijk Milieubeleid (Contribu-
tion Decree on the Implementation of Municipal Environ-
mental Policy in the Netherlands)
CDB County/City Development Board (in Ireland)
CDU Christian Democratic Party (in Germany)
Comhar National Sustainable Development Partnership (in Ireland)
CPB Central Planning Bureau (in the Netherlands)
CSU Christian Social Union (in Germany)
DBU Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (National Foundation for Sus-
tainable Development in Germany)
DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport (in the UK)
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (in the
UK)
DISCUS Developing Institutional and Social Capacities for Urban Sus-
tainability, EU-funded research project
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FUN Funding the Implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Plan (in the Netherlands)
GDR German Democratic Republic (former East Germany)
GIDO Gemeenschappelijk Initiatief Realisatie Duurzame Ontwikkeling
(The Common Initiative for Realising Sustainable Develop-
ment in the Netherlands)
EEA European Environment Agency
EMAS Environmental Management and Audit Scheme
ESDN European Sustainable Development Network
EU European Union
FDP Liberal Party (in Germany)
IBEC Irish Business Employers’ Confederation
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability – formerly International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
xxii Abbreviations
INTERREG Interregional Co-operation Programme of the European Union
LA21 Local Agenda 21
LEADER French abbreviation for Community initiative for rural devel-
opment, financed by the EU structural funds
LEPP Local Environmental Policy Plans (in the Netherlands)
LIP Lokala Investeringsprogrammet for Ekologiskt Hållbar Utveckling
(Local Investment Programme for Ecological Sustainability in
Sweden)
MEDD French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development
NCDO National Committee on International Co-operation and Sus-
tainable Development (in the Netherlands)
NDP National Development Plan (in Ireland)
NEPI New Environmental Policy Instruments
NEPP National Environmental Policy Plan (in the Netherlands)
NIDO National Institute Sustainable Development (in the Nether-
lands)
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NOF New Opportunities Fund of the National Lottery (in the UK)
NRW North Rhine-Westphalia (in Germany)
NSDS National Sustainable Development Strategy
NUTS Statistical Territorial Units (in Ireland)
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OEE Office of Environmental Enforcement (in Ireland)
ÖROK Austrian Planning Conference
PPP Public–private Partnership
RDP Regional Development Plan
REGIONET Strategies for Regional Sustainable Development: An Integrated
Approach Beyond Best Practice, EU-funded research project
RIVM Environmental Planning Bureau (in the Netherlands)
RNE German Council for Sustainable Development
SDC Sustainable Development Commission (in the UK)
SFS Svensk Författningssamling (Swedish Ordinance)
SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
SPD Social Democratic Party (in Germany)
TMLNU Thuringen Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and
the Environment (in Germany)
UK United Kingdom
UMK Conference of Environmental Ministers (in Germany)
VOGM The Supplementary Contribution Scheme for Developing
Municipal Policy (in the Netherlands)
VROM Vervolgbiljdrageregeling Ontwikkeling Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid
(Follow-up Contribution Scheme for the Development of
Municipal Environmental Policy in the Netherlands)
WRR Scientific Council for Government Policy (in the Netherlands)
WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature
Introduction
In pursuit of sustainable development at
the sub-national level: the ‘new’
governance agenda
Susan Baker and Katarina Eckerberg

Focus of the book

This book explores the promotion of sustainable development as an organis-
ing principle for the emergence of new forms of governance practices. It does
this by investigating the existence, nature and extent of ‘new’ governance
practices in relation to sub-national implementation of sustainable develop-
ment policies in European Union (EU) member states and in Norway.
The authoritative Brundtland formulation of sustainable development
(WCED 1987), is taken as the starting point. While this formulation is
open to different interpretations, at its core it challenges the industrialised
world to keep consumption patterns within the bounds of the ecologically
possible and set at levels to which all can reasonably aspire (Baker 2006).
The Brundtland formulation is used because it commands authoritative
status, acting as a guiding principle of economic and social development
policy, particularly within the United Nations (Lafferty and Meadowcroft
2000). In addition, the EU has declared itself to be guided by both the
Brundtland formulation and its related UNCED process.
Building upon the work of the Brundtland Report, the 1992 UN Confer-
ence on Environment and Development (UNCED), or the Rio Earth
Summit as it is more popularly known, marked a watershed in international
policy. It approached environment and development as equal, interdepen-
dent components of sustainable development. However, there is considerable
difference of opinion about what an effective implementation of the
UNCED programme entails, in particular whether it calls forth ‘weak’ or
‘strong’ forms of sustainable development (see Baker 2006). Even if the
concept is understood in a weak manner, as it is within major organisations
and within OECD countries, ‘there can be little doubt that the ambitions
enunciated in Rio . . . involve significant changes in economic, social and
cultural institutions’ (Lafferty 2004: 19). Agenda 21, the action plan for sus-
tainable development adopted at the Rio Earth Summit, gives a special role
to sub-national authorities in pursuit of sustainable development through
Local Agenda 21 (LA21) and more recently Local Action 21. As the experi-
ences of LA21 have shown, promoting sustainable development is a complex
2 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
and multidimensional task. It covers a wide range of issues, not just in rela-
tion to pollution control and natural resource management, but also in rela-
tion to access to and distribution of resources across place (between the
North and the South) and time (now and into the future).
Following the obligations incurred at the Rio Earth Summit, the decade
of the 1990s saw west European states begin to produce national sustainable
development strategies (Dalal-Clayton 1996). These central government
framework documents structure how sustainable development is to be
achieved within a specific country context.
Engagement with sustainable development by central governments in high
consumption societies in Western Europe has been subject to extensive
research (see in particular the seminal work of Lafferty and Meadowcroft
(2000). Implementation of national strategies began in the late 1990s and
continues through to the twenty-first century. In this context, this book
explores how implementation strategies engage sub-national, regional and
local actors in the promotion of sustainable development at the sub-national
levels. Particular attention is paid to the scope of these strategies, the nature of
the issues they address and the role they envisage for the sub-national level.

Building upon previous analysis of sustainable development

implementation
This book builds upon a number of previous works on how the commitment
to the pursuit of sustainable development is being implemented in a Euro-
pean context. These include the structural, institutional analysis of develop-
ments in environmental governance in European states made by Hanf and
Jansen (1998) and the exploration of implementation in the context of
multi-level governance structures, extending from the EU to the local levels
by Weale et al. (2000). However, the primary focus of these studies remains
on environmental policy, not sustainable development strategies. Moreover,
they concentrate on traditional means of governance in the environmental
policy sector, especially that led by central state actors and EU institutions,
rather than patterns of ‘new’ governance. Similarly, given its primary focus
on central government efforts to develop national policy frameworks, Laf-
ferty and Meadowcroft (2000) examined state level responses in high con-
sumption societies to structure national commitment to sustainable
development. This book moves further through exploring the implementa-
tion of sustainable development policies at the sub-national level, including
in new Eastern European member states. The conceptual approach also
differs in that the concern is to analyse how this engagement is structured
by, and is in turn structuring, new patterns of governance for sustainable
development.
Studies of the implementation of sustainable development policies at the
sub-national level have been made in the REGIONET project (Lafferty and
Narodoslawsky 2004). However, its main focus was on the role of the EU
 Introduction 3
Structural Funds in the construction of regional models of sustainable
development. Further studies from the same project, compiled and edited
by Lafferty (2004), looked at how Western democracies promote strategic
governance for sustainable development, analysing institutional mechan-
isms of policy implementation of interest to the business community,
NGOs and policy makers. We remain guided by Lafferty’s concern to
address issues of pragmatic, functional governance, that is, to explore adap-
tation of current values, procedures and institutions to the functional pre-
requisites for sustainable development. However, while Lafferty asked
‘what works, where, when and how?’, we ask, ‘what has been implemented
at the sub-national level, and what does it tell us about the governance of
sustainable development?’
The case material presented in this volume was selected from contribu-
tions to an ECPR workshop in 2005 entitled ‘Initiating Sustainable Devel-
opment: Patterns of Sub-National Engagement and Their Significance’. The
Workshop sought comparative studies of the implementation process at the
sub-national level that draw more general conclusions on emerging new
forms of governance practices. The three contributions in the first part of the
book provide such comparative studies. They enable the book to explicitly
focus on how the promotion of sustainable development acts as an orientat-
ing concept for governance, thus stretching beyond an implementation
study of traditional environmental policy. We also draw upon analysis of the
processes of urban governance for sustainable development that formed the
basis of research in the DISCUS project (Developing Institutional and Social
Capacity for Sustainable Development) (Evans et al. 2004). This volume con-
tains contributions from authors who were also involved in the DISCUS
research projects, alongside contributions from those involved in two other
comparative EU-funded research projects, on LA21 and on regional models
of sustainable development (REGIONET).
In addition, the selection of contributions to this book was guided by the
need to include material that took account of the fact that, within Europe,
efforts to promote sustainable development are filtered through, or mediated
by, the EU’s system of multi-level governance. Thus, not only are efforts to
promote sustainable development guided by the international, UNCED
process, but they also stem from the complex interactions between the EU
policy-making institutions, member state central governments and the sub-
national (regional and local) levels. Through constitutional, legislative and
administrative frameworks and financial means, higher levels of government
(and in this case, also the EU) may enhance, or restrict, what can be done at
lower levels. Three of the chapters (Chapters 1, 2 and 8) are particularly
devoted to analysing the ‘steering’ effects of funding programmes, either
from the EU (Structural Funds) or national level of government, on the
scope for action at the sub-national level. Furthermore, even in those chap-
ters that keep the sub-national level of implementation as their prime focus,
analysis and discussions of the multi-level context are prevalent.
4 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Building on previous studies of LA21
Comparative analyses of the implementation of LA21 across Europe also
form a point of departure for this book. These include studies of the initi-
atives by central and local government, social partners and networks in the
promotion of LA21 (Lafferty and Eckerberg 1998; Lafferty 2002). Studying
the implementation of sustainable development at sub-national levels of
government inevitably takes LA21 into account. LA21 constitutes some of
the core elements of sub-national sustainable development activities. LA21
has also received continuous attention through the UNCED process and
subsequent follow-ups from national strategies and local government net-
working to promote sustainable development.
In those European countries which represent the LA21 ‘earlier starters’,
such as Sweden and the Netherlands, examples from their LA21 experience
are drawn (Chapters 2 and 8). While the peak of LA21 is perhaps already
reached in many of these states, others (such as Spain and eastern European
member states) are just now embarking on LA21 processes. The analysis of
institutional capacities in Spanish local government (Chapter 4) takes
empirical evidence from the emerging LA21 agenda, and in Germany
similar activities form the basis of study in the German Länder (Chapter 5).
However, rather than pursuing yet another comparative study of the
implementation of LA21 across Europe, the case selection has incorporated a
far wider range of sub-national initiatives into their studies. This recognises
that the quest for sustainable development embraces actions across a range of
policy areas. Therefore, the second part of the book concentrates on key case
studies, from different national contexts. These are drawn from EU member
states and from Norway. In the high consumption of the EU, waste manage-
ment remains one of the major challenges in creating sustainable production
and consumption patterns (Chapter 6), while the tension between nature
protection and economic development constitutes an important test in
achieving sustainable forms of rural development (Chapter 7). Both of those
policy areas represent traditional environmental management issues, but
that are now struggling to adapt to the broader sustainable development
agenda. They will provide important text cases for viewing how successfully
sustainable development principles have been integrated into the economic
sectors. The kinds of partnerships and networks that are formed through
such processes of integration are of particular interest to the theme of this
book.
In order to enhance the potential for comparative findings, each of the
contributors to this book were asked to structure their chapters around two
‘Reporting Protocols’. These present the conceptual and theoretical frame-
work for analysis of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘new governance’ respec-
tively. They consist of lists of characteristics that are considered to form the
essential components of these two key concepts. Each contributor was asked
to identify whether, and to what extent, these characteristics are present in
 Introduction 5
their case or country study. In some cases, this may lead to the addition of
new characteristics, and in others, some of the characteristics listed may
prove to be less relevant. Contributors were asked to explicitly state when
this is the case and to analyse its significance. The use of the two Reporting
Protocols is aimed at enhancing the conceptual coherence of book, while at
the same time providing a wealth of comparative material that can be drawn
upon to inform the books’ Conclusion. The findings from, and limitations
of, the Protocols are discussed in the Conclusion.
As stated above, this book investigates the extent to which the commit-
ment to sustainable development is providing an organising theme for the
promotion of ‘new’ models of governance. By examining the interrelation-
ship between this commitment and the emergence of ‘new’ patterns of gov-
ernance, the book brings together these two hitherto distinct bodies of
academic literature. We begin the presentation of each Reporting Protocol
by discussing its underlying theoretical approach that guided its develop-
ment and then summarise the Protocol in tabular format starting with a dis-
cussion on the sustainable development Protocol.

Theoretical underpinning 1: sustainable development

The research presented in this book is driven by the theoretical position that
sustainable development is an essentially contested political concept (Laf-
ferty 1995). There is generally agreement on its core set of principles, but
beyond that, much debate about its precise meaning. This is because, like
such key political concepts as ‘democracy’, its meaning is realised through
action, or in practice. As such, what is of interest is seeing what happens
with the concept of sustainable development when efforts are made at policy
implementation. This turns attention to the identification of differences in
the ways in which the concept has been interpreted and applied in different
sub-national, regional and local contexts. By exploring these applications,
the book hopes to cast light on whether engagement with sustainable devel-
opment is giving rise to new understandings within European states of what
constitutes societal progress or, in contrast, whether sustainable develop-
ment remains little more than a heuristic devise to help re-articulate tradi-
tional, growth orientated economic development models.

Distinguishing sustainable development from ecological

modernisation
The investigations in this book depend upon making a clear distinction
between ecological modernisation and sustainable development. There is a
tendency in the literature to approach the classic Brundtland formulation of
sustainable development as if it were an empty conceptual shell, to be filled
by whatever characteristics or variables are deemed appropriate to the poli-
tical, social and cultural context within which it is applied. This tendency to
6 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
conceptual pragmatism has allowed the term ‘ecological modernisation’ to
be used as if it were synonymous with the term ‘sustainable development’
(Baker 2007). This tendency is encouraged by the fact that ecological
modernisation has become the major discourse and strategy by which indus-
trialised countries currently frame and tackle their ecological problems
(Blühdorn 2001: 182).
There is now a substantial body of literature on ecological modernisation
and, as is so often the case in the social sciences, this has led to a widening
and loosening of the theory’s core concept and to a disparate collection of
empirical approaches. Despite these differences, however, it is generally
accepted that there are four main themes at the core of the theory (Gouldson
and Murphy 1996: 13).
First, that there can be synergy between environmental protection and eco-
nomic growth. Policies to protect the environment can enhance efficiency and
accelerated innovation, thereby providing an engine for further economic
development. Here a major role is envisaged for government in the redirection
of the economy, including in relation to industrial policy and the promotion
of research and development. Second, it requires the integration of environ-
mental policy into other areas of government activity. This process, known as
‘environmental policy integration’ (EPI), is a core feature of both ecological
modernisation strategies and those directed at the promotion of sustainable
development, as discussed below. Third, there is the development of ‘new
instruments for environmental policy’ (NEPIs) (Jordan et al. 2003). These
include voluntary agreements, pricing mechanisms, eco audit and manage-
ment systems, and reform of fiscal measures along ecological lines. The use of
these instruments is also seen as closely related to the emergence of new gover-
nance, as discussed below. Fourth, ecological modernisation takes place
through sector specific activity, particularly in the industrial sector where it
involves the invention, innovation and diffusion of new technologies and tech-
niques of operating industrial processes (Murphy 2000).
However, the strategy of ecological modernisation stands, we argue, in
sharp contrast to the discourse on sustainable development, especially that
proposed by the classic Brundtland formulation (Baker 2006). To begin
with, the wide-ranging tasks associated with the promotion of sustainable
development, as detailed in Agenda 21 and in LA21, are reformulated under
the ecological modernisation strategy as the technical, managerial task of
‘decoupling’ through eco-efficiency. Decoupling refers to breaking the link
between economic growth and negative environmental impact.
While Lafferty (Lafferty 2004) argues that decoupling has radical
implications for ‘business as usual’, ecological modernisation still frames
nature as a ‘standing reserve’ of exploitable resources. This does not chal-
lenge the western economic development model either to limit growth or
change existing patterns of high consumption. As such, it fails to address
the basic ecological contradiction in capitalism – that it requires constant
expansion of consumption in a world characterised by finite resources. As the
 Introduction 7
Brundtland Report has forcefully argued, promoting sustainable develop-
ment in an ecological system characterised by finite resources requires a
reduction in growth in the high consumption societies in the North, in
order to make way for ‘ecologically legitimate’ development in the South
(Baker 2006). While the Brundtland understanding of sustainable develop-
ment is open to different interpretations, we argue that at its core, it chal-
lenges the industrialised world to keep consumption patterns within the
bounds of the ecologically possible and set at levels to which all can reason-
ably aspire (Baker 2006). This requires changes in the understanding of
well-being and what is needed to live a good life (WCED 1987: 51). Fur-
thermore, ecological modernisation differs from sustainable development in
its understanding of social change. Ecological modernisation places almost
exclusive emphasis on technology and economic entrepreneurs as determin-
ants of social change (Christoff 1996). Social change, especially for Brundt-
land, is a process involving a wider set of actors who are engaged with a
deeper set of principles. These include the normative principles of inter- and
intra-generational equity (Baker 2006). In contrast, the social justice aspects
of sustainable development are ignored by ecological modernisation
(Langhelle 2000).

Distinguishing sustainable development from environmental

policy
The book also depends on being able to make a distinction between efforts
to promote sustainable development from those that address environmental
policy. This is all the more important given the tendency, particularly
among public authorities, to equate environmental management with the
promotion of sustainable development. We distinguish environmental
policy from sustainable development policy along two axes. The first axis
relates to the overall aim of policy, the second relates to its governance
requirements. The overall aim of sustainable development policy is to
promote sustainable consumption and sustainable production. Sustainable
consumption refers to changing levels and patterns of consumption through
addressing the ethical dimensions of what is consumed and by whom. Sus-
tainable production refers to reducing the resource intensity of production,
while at the same time protecting the resource base for further production.
Promoting sustainable development involves enhancing the synergistic rela-
tionship between these two goals.
Combining this policy ‘content’ requirement with governance require-
ments enables us to distinguish sustainable development from environ-
mental policy. We have identified five specific governance requirements that
can be used to make such a distinction. First, as developed under the UNCED
process, promoting sustainable development, while a quintessentially global
task, requires a high level national government commitment, typically reflected in
the form of a national sustainable development strategy or plan. This means
8 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
that the authors of each chapter in this book have been asked to show how,
and in what ways, the particular policy or issue under investigation is embed-
ded in a national sustainable development strategy. In this sense, sustainable
development is also understood to be a ‘meta policy’, that is, a policy designed
to guide the development of numerous, more specific policies.
Second, promoting sustainable development depends to a great deal not
just on high-level political commitment, but well-functioning government
institutions (OECD 2001). As noted by Brundtland, many of the key issues
that need to be addressed to promote sustainable development are managed
by institutions that tend to be ‘independent, fragmented and working to
relatively narrow mandates with closed decision-making processes’ (WCED
1987: 310). When it comes to this task, the policy capacity of government
is of prime importance. At one level, this requires strengthening relevant
institutions and procedures and fostering co-operation between them.
The link between capacity-building and sustainable development was
stressed in Agenda 21, which argued that the ability to pursue sustainable
development critically depends on the capacity of people and institutions.
Capacity-building encompasses ‘human, scientific, technological, organi-
zational, institutional and resource capabilities’ (UNCED 1992: paragraph
37.1). Strategies to promote sustainable development thus need to include
provisions for improving capacity. In the sustainable development policy
debate, Jänicke’s and Weidner’s (1997) concept of capacity-building has
been widely applied. This is further discussed in Berger and Steurer
(Chapter 1) and Evans et al. (Chapter 3), both of which draw upon their
conceptualisation.
In many instances, capacity building has led to the establishment of sus-
tainable development institutions, such as round tables and commissions.
This has typically been combined with institutional innovation and reform,
including at the sub-national levels. Recent years have also seen the emer-
gence of new institutional arrangements for lesson learning and for policy
transfer (as discussed by Kern in Chapter 5). These have helped to move
problem solving along practical paths. They have also facilitated learning
among diverse stakeholders and helped in the construction of more ‘adap-
tive’ decision making processes (O’Toole 2004). Yet, despite recognition of
the importance of institutions for the promotion of sustainable development,
there remains an urgent need to explore in a more systematic way the insti-
tutional challenges of sustainable development. In addition, how and in
what ways these challenges have been taken up in specific cases remains
under-explored.
Third, it is now recognised that policies to promote sustainable develop-
ment must be cross-cutting, and take account of sectoral linkages. In the
1960s and 1970s, environmental policy was conceived and implemented as a
‘stand alone’ policy area, largely independent of policies in other sectors.
However, by the 1990s, the emerging agenda of sustainable development
conceived economic, environmental and social policies as interdependent,
 Introduction 9
thus highlighting the need to take environmental considerations into
account in a wide range of sectoral policies. This called for the integration of
‘social, economic, development and environmental issues at all levels of
developmental decision-making and implementation’ (UNCED 1992, para-
graph 8.12). The necessity of what has come to be known as ‘environmental
policy integration’ (EPI) was also referred to in Chapter 8 of Agenda 21.
EPI is concerned with the integration of environmental considerations into
other policy fields. However, beyond this there is little agreement on the exact
meaning of the concept (Jordan and Lenschow 2000; Lafferty and Hovden
2003; Lenschow 2002; Nilsson and Persson 2003; Lafferty 2004; Schout and
Jordan 2005). Some authors go as far as suggesting a ‘principled and conse-
quential prioritisation’ of sustainable development considerations over and
above sectoral interests as a general rule of EPI (Lafferty and Hovden 2003).
Others see EPI as a way of establishing a more rational policy-making process
by ensuring a more comprehensive basis for decisions (Underdal 1980), thus
overcoming co-ordinating failures in public policies. In addition, EPI can be a
tool for general environmental policy, as well as for the promotion of ecolo-
gical modernisation. In line with Lafferty and Hovden, we are interested in
exploring whether it is possible to distinguish EPI as a tool for sustainable
development by identifying when it grants a principled and consequential pri-
oritisation of the sustainable development implications of specific policies,
programmes and activities (Lafferty and Hovden 2003).
Given the traditional segmentation of government decision-making
processes, EPI challenges institutions to develop new practices, procedures and
work instructions (OECD 2006: 102). In many ways, EPI can be seen as a
context-specific interpretation process, one that is likely to involve many dif-
ferent actors and evolve over time as problems and understandings are
continually reframed (Nilsson and Eckerberg 2007). EPI can be promoted
both by international ‘drivers’ for change, and by national government, where
institutional set up and specific institutional measures, such as mechanisms for
co-ordination and assessment of policies, become important (Nilsson and
Eckerberg 2007). In Europe, EPI now has a constitutional backing not only in
many national jurisdictions but also in the EU Treaties. At the EU level, EPI
is structured and monitored through the so-called ‘Cardiff Process’, which led
to the development of integration strategies in several sectors, including trans-
port, energy and agriculture (Baker 2007). However, most observers suggest
that the degree of implementation of EPI at the member state level has been
disappointing (Lenschow 2002; EEA 2005; Nilsson and Eckerberg 2007).
This book hopes to cast further light on the extent to which, and the methods
by which, EPI has been achieved within member states.
Often, two forms of EPI are discussed in the literature: horizontal
(HEPI), which refers to cross-sectoral policy integration, and vertical (VEPI)
policy integration, that is, within a particular governmental sector (Lafferty
2002: 16; 2004: 205–206). Lundqvist (2004) refers to these as ‘inter-
sectoral’ and ‘intra-sectoral’ policy integration respectively. As a horizontal
10 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
policy, the promotion of sustainable development involves a large number of
players, including those drawn from across ministries. Implementing HEPI
is associated with the adoption of national sustainable development strat-
egies, or other high-level policy documents, which comprehensively
addresses sustainable development concerns in sector policies (Lafferty 2002;
Lundqvist 2004). This aspect is covered in our analysis of the role of NSSDs,
particularly by Berger and Steurer in Chapter 1. VEPI can be seen as ‘the
extent to which a particular policy sector has taken on board and imple-
mented environmental policy objectives’ (Lafferty 2002: 16) and thus signi-
fies administrative responses as one extends down the different levels of
government. This theme is taken up in all chapters in this book.
Although criticised for its rigid presentation of highly separated and self-
contained policy sectors that may be difficult to distinguish in policy prac-
tice (Persson 2007), the distinction between HEPI and VEPI remains
important in current research. VEPI recognises that the promoting sustain-
able development can not remain confined to central government. Its con-
cerns stretch to the various tiers of international, national, regional and local
government, and, as such it has significant, vertical dimensions. The main
strategic principles and directions have to be set at central level, which can
be drawn down from the international to the national level, but the more
detailed planning, implementation and monitoring has to be undertaken at
sub-national levels. As such, sustainable development strategies involve an
interactive process between international, national and decentralised levels,
that is, between HEPI and VEPI.
Yet, the problem remains that many local levels of government do not
have the capacity to undertake such tasks, especially when this requires
integrated and innovative long-term policy thinking. These capacity dif-
ficulties have come all the more evident as a result of major reforms in the
role of sub-national government in many western states during the last two
decades of the twentieth century. These reforms led to devolution of numer-
ous environmental responsibilities downwards to the local level. This has
increased the complexity in the distribution of responsibilities in many
policy fields and increase instances where overlapping activities occur
between the centre and the sub-national levels, resulting in ‘grey areas’
(OECD 1997). Such ‘grey areas’ may undermine the progress towards sus-
tainable development by reducing policy coherence. They also raise import-
ant questions about the balance between greater decentralisation, on the one
hand, and maintaining sufficient ‘steering’ capacity in the centre, on the
other. Account is also taken of the fact that co-ordination between different
levels of government is inherently more difficult in federal states, where
powers over sustainable development policies are divided among levels of
government in specific ways.
Our fourth governance requirement for sustainable development is that
government alone can not take responsibility for promoting sustainable
development, even if it manages to mobilise all of its ministries and its
 Introduction 11
various tiers of government. Other stakeholders need to become active part-
ners, including those from the business community, trade unions, farmers
and NGOs.
Broadening the range of actors who share responsibility for promoting
sustainable development has led many EU member states to develop more
co-operative approaches with the private sectors. This means that hierarchi-
cal interventions, such as that related to ‘command and control’ regulatory
approaches, are increasingly combined with co-operative arrangements and
legally non-binding agreements between public and private actors, particu-
larly through the use of voluntary agreements. These ‘new’ environmental
policy instruments (NEPIs) (Jordan et al. 2003) also include market tools,
such as charges and taxes. The result is that a broad range of policy tools,
both traditional and new, are now used for the promotion of sustainable
development. Making increased use of a variety of instruments helps cope
with the growing complexity of sustainable development policy, against a
background of limited state institutional and administrative capacity.
The enhanced diversity of instruments now available means that govern-
ments can tailor the instruments or create a combination of instruments to
suit the specific environmental issue at hand. Devising the right policy
instrument is also dependent on what level or tier of government is
involved. However, the picture is not that simple. The extent to which the
state can use such new instruments to ‘steer’ final policy outcomes depends

Table I.1 Array of environmental policy instruments

Category Example

Command and control Licences/permits; ambient quality standards;

emission standards; process standards; product
standards; prohibition bans
Economic instruments Charges; taxes; tradable emission permits;
tradable quotas; environmental subsidies;
deposit-refund systems; performance bonds;
non-compliance fees; resource pricing
Liability, damage compensation Strict liability laws; compensation funds;
compulsory pollution insurance; extended
producer responsibility
Education and information Education campaigns for the general public;
diffusion of technical information; publicity of
sanctions for non-compliance; eco-labelling
Voluntary approaches Unilateral commitments; public voluntary
programmes; negotiated agreements
Management and planning Environmental management systems; zoning;
land use
Source: OECD 2006.
12 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
on several factors. They include the historical patterns of regulation and
control within the particular policy area, the institutional interests in main-
taining traditional forms of control, the need for legal political authority in
the area and the strength of societal organisations and networks (Lundqvist
2001). In order to address this complexity, each contributor to this book was
asked to explore whether and to what extent their study shows evidence of
the enhanced use of NEPIs and how and in what ways these are combined
with traditional tools. Contributors were also asked to consider that not all
instruments are equally welcome among environmentalists and they may
have unintended consequences which may be negative. Some new policy
instruments, especially voluntary agreements have been subject to particular
criticism. These have been seen as mere exercises in public relations, as
leading to only weak control, and as subject to regulatory capture, allowing
industry interests to exercise undue influence over policy and its regulatory
process (Power 1999).
Widening the range of actors engaged in the policy process has also given
a new role to social actors and groups in the pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment. This participation is seen as critical by Brundtland, to such an extent
that enhanced participation is now seen as a core characteristic of sustainable
development processes. The participation of stakeholders and citizens is one
of the key issues of Agenda 21 which, among other things, aims to
strengthen the role of major groups (Agenda 21, section 3). Here participa-
tory processes become an essential component of democratic governance.
This is not least because promoting sustainable development requires trade-
offs among society’s economic, social and ecological objectives, value judge-
ments which can not be determined by governments alone.
New forms of both stakeholder and citizen participation became central
to the development of Agenda 21 at different levels of government. Within
the EU, consultation processes were organised at the European, national,
regional and local levels. Yet, participation in policy processes and practices
vary widely in terms of the status, timing and breadth of stakeholder
involvement, reflecting different national institutional settings and prefer-
ences (OECD 2006). Contributors were asked to examine this governance
requirement, so as to investigate not only the emergence of new
public/private partnerships arrangements but also the extent and nature of
participatory practices emerging as the sub-national level engages with the
pursuit of sustainable development.
This brings us to our fifth and final governance requirement for the
promotion of sustainable development. The complex nature of the issues
surrounding the promotion of sustainable development calls for long-term
policies. This longer-term perspective typically brings an inter-generational
time frame into policy. In addition to balancing economic, environmental
and social objectives, a basic tenet of sustainable development is the require-
ment to balance the needs of current and of future generations. This is
reflected in the core definition of sustainable development adopted by the
 Introduction 13
1987 Brundtland Report. The capacity of governments to address longer-
term issues effectively depends on their ability to predict future trends and
emerging issues (OECD 2006: 105). Contributors were asked to bear this in
mind in their presentations and analysis.

The sustainable development reporting protocol

The use of a Sustainable Development Reporting Protocol (see Table I.2) is
thus, in part, designed to distinguish government efforts to promote sus-
tainable development from their more traditional environmental manage-
ment functions. Of key concern here is ascertaining whether initiatives are
purporting to promote sustainable development, whereas in fact they are
facilitating traditional environmental engagement, that is, whether there is
a genuine shift in policy focus. This also means distinguishing approaches
that are more akin to promoting ecological modernisation than they are to
promoting sustainable development.

Theoretical underpinning 2: new governance

We have identified five specific governance requirements to distinguish sus-
tainable development from environmental policy and from ecological

Table I.2 Sustainable development reporting protocol

Commitment at declaratory level

• Declaratory commitment to sustainable development made.
• Links to Brundtland and/or UNCED stated.
• Explicit reference made to EU engagement.
• Policy in the area/issue under investigation embedded in wider sustainable
development commitment.
Commitment in policy context
• Attempts to promote EPI in policy design.
• Policy developed from, or otherwise linked, to LA21.
• Capacity enhancement, including at the institutional level, in relation to
promoting EPI.
• The use of participatory structures to facilitate policy-making; mobilisation of
stakeholders in policy formulation and implementation.
• Combined with a use of a range of policy instruments.
Commitment in policy content
• Continued attention to traditional environmental policy.
• Linkage make to all three pillars of sustainable development (ecological, social
and ecological).
• The existence of a social inclusion agenda, with issues of social well-being,
cohesion and justice, including enhancement of social capital.
• Adoption of a long-term perspective.
14 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
modernisation. Many of these requirements can be seen as prerequisites for
effective and efficient governance for sustainable development – helping to
identify priorities, encourage policy co-ordination across the different levels
of government and promoting implementation. However, the significance of
these governance requirements extends well beyond this role. Many of them
are not simply about effectiveness and efficiency, but about changing pat-
terns in the relationship between national and sub-national tiers of govern-
ment and their institutions as well as between the public and the private
sectors. In short, many of these requirements relate directly to the issue of
‘new’ governance.
The concept of governance deals with managing, steering and guiding
action in the realm of public affairs. Governance, it should be pointed out, is
something governments have always done. Traditionally, governments have
engaged in steering by regulation and sanctions. Guy Peters makes a useful
distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ governance (Peters 2000). Old gover-
nance is about steering and control from the centre, wherein the state steers
society and the economy through political brokerage and by defining goals
and making priorities. Analysis of old governance focuses on what extent to
which the state has political and institutional capacity to steer and how the
role of the state relates to the interests of other influential actors (Pierre
2000: 3). ‘New governance’ differs from this in that it refers to new patterns
of interaction between state, economy and society.
The term ‘new governance’ is, however, used in a variety of ways and has
a variety of meanings (Rhodes 1996; Stoker 1998). Despite these differences,
there is general agreement that new governance refers to the development of
governing styles in which the boundaries between and within public and
private sectors have become blurred (Stoker 1998: 17).
The emergence of new governance is, it is claimed, a result of the increas-
ing complex, dynamic and interdependent nature of contemporary policy-
making (Kooiman 1993). Globalisation and Europeanisation are part of this
process (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1998). Its emergence is also attributable to
the fiscal crisis of the state, particularly in welfare state regimes, towards the
end of the twentieth century. This led to new strategies for public service
production and delivery, including privatisation and public/private partner-
ships (Kooiman 2000: 150). These strategies formed part of the neo-liberal
waves of reform that swept many European states in the latter half of the
twentieth century, designed to improve efficiency, effectiveness and account-
ability of public service provision. Under these conditions, governance
becomes an interactive process, because no single actor has the knowledge
and resource capacity to tackle problems unilaterally (Kooiman 2000;
2003). It is these interactions that give rise to new patterns of governance.
New governance makes use of governing mechanisms that do not rest on
the authority and sanctions of government alone. Rather, it involves the use
of ‘softer’ steering instruments, combined with decentralisation and the
engagement of stakeholders and civil society in policy-making and delivery
 Introduction 15
(Lafferty 2004). These administrative reforms have displaced political and
institutional policy capacity downwards in the political system, outwards to
agencies and NGOs and upwards to trans-national institutional systems
such as the EU (Painter and Pierre 2005: 1). This, it is argued, has resulted
in major shifts in the role of government. As a result, the ‘steering’ role of
the state changes, because governments can not impose its policy but must
negotiate both policy and implementation with partners in the public,
private, and voluntary sectors (Stoker 2000: 98). The tendency for the state
to withdraw from direct provision or to provide through public/private part-
nerships in a number of sectors is of direct relevance to the theme of this
book. Many of the sectors are critically important for the promotion of sus-
tainable development, including the energy, waste and transport sectors. We
are keen to investigate whether the ‘steering’ capacity of governments in
these critical sectors has been reduced and the impact that this has had on
the promotion of sustainable development at the sectoral level.
This discussion links the research presented in this book to themes to
four specific themes within the new governance literature: (1) multi-level
governance; (2) networks and public/private partnerships; (3) participation
and (4) new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs). Below, we briefly
explore the overlap between the five specific governance requirements we
have identified to distinguish sustainable development from environmental
policy and ecological modernisation and these key themes within the new
governance literature.

1 Multi-level governance
In the literature, the concept of multi-level governance is interpreted in
several ways and remains a rather fluid theoretical basis for empirical
research (Joas and Eckerberg 2004). Nevertheless, it is useful to emphasise
the increased interdependencies between national, regional and local govern-
ment. This is particularly relevant in the context of the deepening of the EU
integration process, where policies cross traditional jurisdictional boundaries
(Smith 2003: 619). The EU is increasingly conceptualised as a system with
interdependent, multiple levels or spheres of governance, including Euro-
pean, national and sub-national policy arenas (Hooghe 1996; 2001; Hooghe
and Marks 2001; 2003). This conceptualisation has led to new explorations
of the power sharing and resource dependencies between the levels of
government within the member states and across the EU (Bache and
Flinders 2004).
The conceptualisation of the EU as a system of multi-level governance is
of particular interest to us in this book. This is because it is now recognised
that many policies and programmes in the area of sustainable development
require management activities that move beyond a single level of govern-
ment or a single jurisdiction, leading to alternative approaches to
autonomous and separate governmental authority (Radin 2003: 608). The
16 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
deepening of the European integration process means that there is now a
much more complex governance structure, in which the capacities of gov-
ernments to steer their sustainable development trajectories is only one
aspect, although undoubtedly a critical aspect, of how the relationship
between economy, ecology and society is governed.1 The conceptualisation
allows us to take this complexity into account, and explore national gover-
nance for sustainable development while taking account of governance
processes at the European Union level. In addition, it focuses our attention
on the dynamics involved in setting framework policies and objectives at the
EU and national levels, while at the same time, distributing roles and
responsibilities across the different levels of governance in ways that are con-
sistent with the resources and capacity of each level (Meadowcroft 2002).
In addition, the lens of ‘multi-level governance’ turns our attention to the
fact that, not only has authority within the EU has been transferred from the
national to the supra-national, but also to the sub-national level (Pierre and
Peters 2000: 77; Rosenau 1997: 31). This enables us to frame our study of
sub-national, regional and local pursuit of sustainable development within a
multi-level EU governance context. It thus focuses our attention directly on
issues of interdependencies, resource sharing and the political dynamics of
policy-making between the sub-national level, the centre and EU institu-
tions. In this way we hope to investigate whether we are witnessing a ‘hol-
lowing out of the state’, as is often claimed in the new governance literature,
or whether the state is restructuring to remain viable in the face of the
changing role of the sub-national level and the deepening of European
integration (Smith 2003; Pierre 2000).
LA21 takes on particular significance for those interested in capturing the
multi-level governance dimension involved in the pursuit of sustainable
development. The success of LA21 is critically dependent upon finding ways
in which top-down and bottom-up policy approaches can be combined. This
is because developing these local strategies involves integrating sustainable
development goals into the local authority’s policies and activities. At the
same time, LA21 places political obligations on national governments, while
leaving local authorities’ scope to determine what is needed to promote sus-
tainable development in their area, and to develop more integrated
approaches towards their economic, environmental and social activities. This
range of activities provides insight into the relationship between the multi-
levels of governance (international, national and local) involved in promot-
ing sustainable development, while simultaneously giving insights into
efforts to date to achieve EPI.

2 Networks and public/private partnerships

In addition to its attempts to capture the interactions between levels of gov-
ernance, the concept of new governance also attempts to capture the disper-
sal of policy-making and delivery among a variety of private and public
 Introduction 17
actors (Rhodes 1997; Rosamund 2004: 121). We should note, however, that
several of the features associated with ‘new’ governance are actually well
established models of exchange between public and private actors (Painter
and Pierre 2005: 2; Peters and Pierre 2003: 3). Schmitter’s work on
corporatism in particular drew our attention to the institutionalised system
of exchange across the public: private divide in western European states
(Schmitter 1989).
New governance can be distinguished from these established features by
its focus on the role of policy networks, which include public/private part-
nerships and policy communities, in policy-making. More specifically, new
governance focuses on the play of power involved as public and private
actors, at various institutional levels, formulate and implement policy. The
aim of ‘new governance’ arrangements is also different, in that they focus
less on developing regulatory measures and more on consultation, which can
often lead to voluntary measures. What becomes of interest here for the
theme of this book is the extent to which the promotion of sustainable
development can be pursued not just by political institutions but also by
other actors involved in such network governance. We are particularly keen
to see the outcomes of local authorities’ attempts to draw upon the resources
of other actors in the private and voluntary sectors to both formulate and
implement policies in the pursuit of sustainable development.
It is generally recognised that strategies to promote sustainable develop-
ment need to include provisions for improving capacity, especially given the
explicit link between capacity-building and sustainable development that
was stressed in Agenda 21. The study of network governance also needs to
look at the issue of capacity. To do so, we need to be clear on what is under-
stood by ‘capacity’. There are different ways of looking at capacity. State
capacity refers to the state’s ability to mobilise social and economic support
and consent for the achievement of public goals. We are less interested in
this form of capacity and more interested in what we may term ‘policy
capacity’, which is the ability to marshal the necessary recourses to make
intelligent collective choices about, and set strategic directions for, the allo-
cations of scarce resources to public ends (Painter and Pierre 2005: 2).
Within this, we are particularly interested in ‘administrative capacity’,
which is the ability to manage efficiently the human and physical resources
required to deliver the outputs of government (Painter and Pierre 2005: 2).
Policy capacity is particularly relevant to the issue of governance, not least
because new governance arrangements, particularly those that involve joint
public: private action, have the potential to impact on state capacity to steer
collective action.
The concept of capacity can also take on a non-institutional dimension,
especially when we consider that the major policy capacity that rests
outside the state has to be mobilised in new governance processes. Recently,
considerable attention has been given to the notion of ‘social capital’ to
describe those features of society, particularly at the community level, that
18 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
facilitates collective action and the types of changes necessary to promote
sustainable development. Drawing upon the work of Putnam (2004), social
capital refers to networks, shared norms, values and understandings that
facilitate co-operation within and between groups. LA21, in particular, has
addressed the need, particularly within rural communities, to foster the
accumulation of social capital, so as to enable local communities to promote
sustainable development. For this reason, we have included several chapters
that focus on social capital as the route for non-state policy capacity
enhancement, thus allowing us to capture this added dimension to capacity
studies in our book.

3 Participation
The issue of social capital bring us directly to the fact that enhanced partici-
pation of civil society in policy-making is seen as an essential component of
new forms of governance. The shifting boundaries between the state and
civil society in the policy-making process is seen as reflective of dramatic
changes in the ways in which both citizens and governments think about the
role of government in democratic societies (Radin 2003: 608). Here the
term ‘new governance’ also tries to capture the enhanced role of civil society
in policy-making processes. However, since sustainable development is a
process that is directed towards the involvement of all of society, participa-
tion in governance for sustainable development can refer to an array of con-
texts. In this book, we are directed by Meadowcroft’s focus on increased
societal participation in processes of making and implementing decisions
involving ‘official’ or ‘public’ bodies, institutions that have some recognised
mandate to act for the public good (Meadowcroft 2004). In the context of
participation in such official bodies, we are keen to see whether and to what
effect ‘new’ governance for sustainable development encompasses the
representation of concerned interests, the encouragement of deliberative
interactions, the integration of different forms of knowledge and the promo-
tion of societal learning (Meadowcroft 2004).

4 New environmental policy instruments

It is argued that the development of less bureaucratic, more flexible, more
effective instruments favours and legitimises the formation of new forms of
governance (Lenschow 1999). The use of these new instruments emphasises
a closer co-operation between public and private actors in the formulation
and implementation of policy.
The use of NEPIs aims to create positive incentives for actors to voluntar-
ily co-operate and participate in policy-making. Many of the EU member
states have moved towards the use of more co-operative approaches with the
private sectors. This means that hierarchical intervention is increasingly
combined with co-operative arrangements and legally non-binding agree-
 Introduction 19
ments between public and private actors, particularly through voluntary
agreements. This contrast with the more adversarial relationship between
government and economic actors that is characteristic of ‘command and
control’ regulatory approaches. This harnessing of market forces for environ-
mental protection is, as discussed above, in keeping with a neo-liberal, eco-
nomic reform agenda. Making increased use of a variety of instruments also
helps cope with the growing complexity of environmental policy, against a
background of limited state institutional and administrative capacity. Their
use can thus also be seen as part of renewed attempts to address the imple-
mentation deficit in existing environmental policy.
This means that the use of NEPIs is not necessarily an indication of the
emergence of new governance processes. However, while there has been
some empirical investigation of the use of NEPIs (Lenschow 1999; Jordan et
al. 2003; OECD 2006; Holzinger et al. 2006) there remains urgent need to
investigate whether in what ways the use of such NEPIs is related to new
governance patterns. The relationship between the use of NEPIs and the
emergence of new forms governance should not be taken a priori, but needs
to be investigated through an empirical lens. This book explores the rela-
tionship between the adoption of new policy instruments and whether and
to what extent we are witnessing the emergence of new patterns of gover-
nance.

The new governance reporting protocol

The New Governance Reporting Protocol (see Table I.3) is designed to help
the inquiry into whether the promotion of sustainable development acts as
an orientating concept for the emergence of new forms of governance. In
using the New Governance Reporting Protocol, each contributor was asked
to make an evaluation by answering the following questions: are we seeing
the emergence of new governance arrangements for the promotion of sus-
tainable development in this case? Is the difference between the traditional
approach and the current approach of a quantitative or a qualitative nature?
For example, while participation may be identified, does the extent of par-
ticipation differ across the different stages of the policy-making process
(agenda setting; policy formulation; implementation; monitoring; evalu-
ation), making participation more, or making it less, significant for deter-
mining the direction of policy?

Structure of the book

The book is divided into two Parts, followed by a Conclusion. Part I, Promot-
ing governance capacity for sustainable development, explores the concept of gov-
ernance and how this relates to the implementation of sustainable
development strategies and initiatives. Its main focus is on central govern-
ment efforts to enhance governance capacity for the promotion of sustainable
20 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Table I.3 New governance reporting protocol

Governance characteristics
• Engagement in traditional business of government: including acting as
regulatory authority and passing laws; central state policy-making and planning.
• Engaging in process of governing: policy-making and monitoring, including via
institutional arrangements; making use of policy networks to increase policy
efficiency.
New governance characteristics
• Continued use of patterns of governance as above.
• Enhanced engagement of multi-levels of territorial government.
• Efforts to improve institutional capacity at sub-national levels.
• Emergence of new public/private partnerships, in particular at the project level.
• Use of new participatory practices, including involvement of wider range of
stakeholders and expanding their roles
• Leading to efforts to enhance social capital.
• Emergence of horizontal networks for policy learning and horizontal patterns of
policy transfer.
• Widening range of policy tools used, including NEPIs.

development at the sub-national levels. Part I thus constitutes a point of

departure for analysing the sub-national implementation. All three contri-
butions in this section are comparative studies, drawing from a large
number of countries with the ambition to reveal common patterns and prac-
tices.
Chapter 1 by Gerald Berger and Reinhard Steurer presents a comparative
examination of national strategies to stimulate local action in ten European
countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Poland, the Slovak Republic, Spain and the United Kingdom). They use
this information to identify to what extent regional models for sustainable
development are emerging. In particular, they analyse the relevance of
National Sustainable Development Strategies and the impact of EU Struc-
tural Funds at the regional level, thus contributing to the debate on multi-
level governance.
Susan Baker and Katarina Eckerberg take this theme further in Chapter 2
by looking at central government funding for local initiatives. The empirical
base consists of six investment programmes aimed to promote sustainable
development at the local level of government in five northern European
states (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK). These
programmes provide good examples of what central government can do to
stimulate sub-national implementation. They were selected from countries
with a proven record as ‘leader states’ in terms of implementing environ-
mental and sustainable development policies. The authors compare how sus-
tainable development became operationalised in the different programmes’
deliverables; to what extent the criteria for funding were either fixed by
 Introduction 21
central government or flexible towards local priorities and innovative activ-
ities; and what target groups were eligible for funding and what this meant
in terms of facilitating engagement among various government and non-
government actors in governance processes.
Enhancement of capacity to promote sustainable development at the sub-
national level forms the focus of the Chapter 3, by Bob Evans et al. This
builds upon the research undertaken within the DISCUS Project focusing on
the lessons from urban settings across 40 European towns and cities. The
authors examine how local governments interact with social partners to
mobilise their energies and initiatives and increase acceptance of what are
often difficult problems to solve in the pursuit of sustainable development.
The Chapter concentrates in particular on how the institutional and social
capacities for urban sustainable development are intertwined.
Part II, Engaging in governance for sustainable development, turns attention to
the exploration of developments in leader environmental states, or sub-state
regions in Europe. These can be characterised as states that have moved
beyond the policy-formulation stage to begin to engage in the implementa-
tion of sustainable development strategies at the sub-national level. It
explores the conditions necessary for the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment at the sub-national, regional and local levels, focusing on the gover-
nance prerequisites. All chapters in this section are case studies of specific
countries and/or policy sectors.
Governance for the promotion of sustainable development brings with it
institutional prerequisites, a topic explored in Chapter 4 by Ken Hanf and
Francesc Morata. They examine efforts to strengthening institutional capac-
ity at the sub-national level in Spain, with particular emphasis on the region
of Catalonia. Attention is paid to relations between the local and national
levels and to the multi-level decision-making processes necessary for govern-
ing the Local Agenda 21 Action Plans and other sustainable development
initiatives in the region.
Multi-level governance relations also provide a key theme in Chapter 5 by
Kristine Kern, which examines the prospects for and barriers to environ-
mental governance in Germany. She emphasises the importance of looking
beyond the formally constructed division of power between the federal and
Länder levels if we are to capture the dynamic and extensive engagement of
the Länder level in the promotion of sustainable development. She also dis-
cusses the role of policy learning in this process.
In Chapter 6, Bernadette Connaughton et al. return to this theme when
they explore the changing nature of environmental governance in Ireland, in
the context of EU membership. They focus on waste management in
Ireland, where waste is increasingly managed through public–private part-
nerships. They analyse whether these partnerships have promoted new forms
of governance, particularly those that involve enhancing stakeholder partici-
pation in policy-making. In Chapter 7, similar partnership developments are
investigated in the Norwegian case, where Sissel Hovik studies the
22 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
emergence of governance networks to promote rural sustainable develop-
ment. She discusses the role of such networks in contributing to input-based
legitimacy in nature protection areas, where there is conflict between protec-
tion of biological diversity and development of tourism. These regional net-
works are assessed as to the extent to which they represent new governance
processes.
Our final contributor, Frans Coenen, explores the role of local authorities in
promoting sustainable development in the Netherlands. Hence, Chapter 8
synthesises lessons learned from the long history of Dutch planning, showing
the changing understanding over time of what constitutes the policy agenda
for sustainable development. The analysis concentrates on revealing trends
towards new governance patterns at the local level, and corresponding changes
in the role of central state and its relationship to the local level.
In the Conclusion of this book, the editors use the information provided
by the two Reporting Protocols together with empirical explorations to
identify whether the commitment to sustainable development is providing
an organising theme for the promotion of new models of governance. If so,
then the implications this has for the role of the state in this policy field and
more generally as a policy maker are examined. Through this it is hoped to
reveal whether new models of governance to promote sustainable develop-
ment may change our understanding of what constitutes (green) democratic
practice, and how this, in turn, is related to discussions on the changing role
and nature of the state in Europe.

Note
1 International integration, including in relation to GATT and UNCED, adds to
this complexity (Gamble 2000: 134). This latter dimension of governance has
been well explored by Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000), but did not form a central
component of the present volume.

References
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (eds) (2004) Multi-level Governance, Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
Baker, S. (2007) ‘Sustainable Development as Symbolic Commitment: Declaratory
Politics and the Seductive Appeal of Ecological Modernisation in the European
Union’, Environmental Politics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 297–317.
Blühdorn, I. (2001) ‘Reflexivity and Self-Referentiality: On the Normative Founda-
tions of Ecological Communication’, Critical Studies, Vol. 16, 181–201.
Christoff, P. (1996) ‘Ecological Modernisation, Ecological Modernities’, Environ-
mental Politics, Vol. 5, 476–500.
Dalal-Clayton, B. (1996) Getting to Grips with Green Plans: National Level Experience
in Industrial Countries, London: Earthscan.
EEA (2005) Environmental Policy Integration in Europe: State of Play and an Evaluation
Framework, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
 Introduction 23
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S. and Theobald, K. (2004) Governing Sustainable
Cities, London: Earthscan.
Gamble, A. (2000), ‘Economic Governance’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–139.
Gouldson, A. and Murphy, J. (1996) ‘Ecological Modernisation and the European
Union’, Geoforum, Vol. 27, No. 1, 11–21.
Hanf, K. and Jansen, Alf-Inge (eds) (1998) Governance and Environment in Western
Europe: Politics, Policy and Administration, Harlow: Longman.
Holzinger, K., Knill, C. and Schäfer, A. (2006) ‘Rhetoric or Reality? “New Gover-
nance” in EU Environmental Policy’, European Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, May,
403–420.
Hooghe, E. (1996) ‘Building a Europe with the Regions: The Changing Role of the
European Commission’, in L. Hooghe (ed.), Cohesion Policy and European Integra-
tion: Building Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98–126.
Hooghe, E. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of
Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooghe, E. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance, New York: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Hooghe, E. and Marks, G. (2003) ‘Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of
Multi-level Governance’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, May,
233–243.
Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (1997) (eds) National Environmental Policies: A Compar-
ative Study of Capacity-Building, Berlin: Springer.
Joas, M. and Eckerberg, K. (2004) ‘Multi-level Environmental Governance: A
Concept under Stress?’ guest editorial, Local Environment, special issue, Vol. 9, No.
5, 405–412.
Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A. (2000) ‘ “Greening” the European Union: What Can
Be Learned from the “Leaders” of EU Environmental Policy?’, European Environ-
ment, Vol. 10, 109–120.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. and Zito, A. R. (2003) (eds) New Instruments
of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects, London: Frank
Cass.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (1998) (eds) The Transformation of Governance in the
European Union, London: Routledge.
Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions,
London: Sage.
Kooiman, J. (2000) ‘Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of Social-
Political Interaction’ in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance, Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 138–166.
Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance, London: Sage.
Lafferty, W. M. (1995) ‘The Implementation of Sustainable Development in the
European Union’, in J. Lovenduski and J. Stanyer (eds), Contemporary Political
Studies, Proceedings of the Political Studies Association of the UK, Belfast, Vol.
1, 223–232.
Lafferty, W. M. (ed.) (2002) Sustainable Communities in Europe, London: Earthscan.
Lafferty, W. M. (ed.) (2004), Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of
Adapting Form to Function, London: Edward Elgar.
Lafferty, W. M. and Eckerberg, K. (eds) (1998) From the Earth Summit to Local
Agenda 21: Working Towards Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.
24 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Lafferty, W. M. and Hovden, E. (2003) ‘Environmental Policy Integration: Towards
and Analytical Framework’, Environmental Politics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1–22.
Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J. (eds) (2000) Implementing Sustainable Develop-
ment: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies, Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Lafferty, W. M. and Narodoslawsky, M. (eds) (2004) Regional Sustainable Development
in Europe – The Challenge of Multi-Level, Cross-Sectoral, Co-operative Governance, Oslo:
ProSus, 2004.
Langhelle, O. (2000) ‘Why Ecological Modernisation and Sustainable Development
Should not Be Conflated’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 2, No.
4, 303–322.
Lenschow, A. (1999), ‘Transformation in European Environmental Governance’, in
B. Kohler-Koch and R. Eising (eds), The Transformation of Governance in the Euro-
pean Union, London: Routledge, 39–60.
Lenschow, A. (ed.) (2002) Environmental Policy Integration. Greening Sectoral Policies in
Europe, London: Earthscan.
Lundqvist, L. (2001) ‘Implementation from Above: The Ecology of Power in
Sweden’s Environmental Governance’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy
and Administration, Vol. 14, No. 3, July, 319–337.
Lundqvist, L. J. (2004) Sweden and Ecological Governance: Straddling the Fence, Man-
chester: Manchester University Press.
Meadowcroft, J. (2002) ‘Politics and Scale: Some Implications for Environmental
Governance’, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 61, 169–179.
Meadowcroft, J. (2004) ‘Participation and Sustainable Development: Modes of
Citizen, Community and Organisational Involvement’, in W. M. Lafferty (ed.),
Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function,
London: Edward Elgar, 162–190.
Murphy, J. (2000) ‘Ecological Modernisation’, Geoforum, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1–8.
Nilsson, M. and Eckerberg, K. (eds) (2007) Environmental Policy Integration in Prac-
tice: Shaping Institutions for Learning, London: Earthscan.
Nilsson, M. and Persson, Å. (2003) ‘Framework for Analysing Environmental Policy
Integration’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 5, No. 4, 333–359.
O’Toole, L. (2004) ‘Implementation Theory and the Challenge of Sustainable Devel-
opment: The Transformative Role of Learning, in W. M. Lafferty (ed.), Governance
for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, London:
Edward Elgar, 32–60.
OECD (1997) Managing across Levels of Government, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001) Sustainable Development: Critical Issues, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2006) Good Practice in the National Sustainable Development Strategies of OECD
Countries, Paris: OECD.
Painter, M. and Pierre, J. (2005) ‘Unpacking Policy Capacity: Issues and Themes’,
in M. Painter and J. Pierre (eds), Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends
and Comparative Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Persson, Å. (2007) ‘Different Perspectives on EPI’, in M. Nilsson and K. Eckerberg
(eds), Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning,
London: Earthscan, 25–48.
Peters, B. Guy (2000) ‘Governance and Comparative Politics’, in J. Pierre (ed.),
Debating Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 36–53.
Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, J. (2003) ‘Introduction: The Role of Public Administra-
 Introduction 25
tion in Governing’, in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public
Administration, London: Sage, 1–10.
Pierre, J. (2000) Introduction: Understanding Governance’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debat-
ing Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–12.
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. Guy (2000) Governance, Politics, and the State, London:
Macmillan.
Power, M. (1999) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Putnam, Robert D. (ed.) (2004) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in
Contemporary Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radin, B. A. (2003) ‘The Instruments of Intergovernmental Management’, in B.
Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage,
607–618.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996) ‘New Governance: Governing without Government’,
Political Studies, Vol. XLIV, 652–667.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rosamund, B. (2004) ‘New Theories of European Integration’, in Michelle Cini
(ed.), European Union Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–127.
Rosenau, J. (1997) ‘Global Environmental Governance: Delicate Balances, Subtle
Nuances, and Multiple Challenges’, in M. Rolén, H. Sjöberg and U. Svedin (eds),
International Governance on Environmental Issues, Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer,
19–56.
Schmitter, P. C. (1989) ‘Corporatism Is Dead, Long Live Corporatism’ Government
and Opposition, Vol. 24, 54–73.
Schout, A. and Jordan, A. (2005) ‘Coordinated European Governance: Self-
organizing or Centrally Steered’, Public Administration, Vol. 83, 201–220.
Smith, A. (2003) ‘Multi-Level Governance: What It Is and How it Can Be Studied’,
in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public Administration, London:
Sage, 619–628.
Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Governance as Theory: Five Propositions’, International Social
Science Journal, Vol. 155, 17–28.
Stoker, G. (2000) ‘Urban Political Science and the Challenge of Urban Governance’,
in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–109.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992)
Agenda 21, New York: United Nations. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/
agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (accessed 11 December 2006).
Underdal, A. (1980) ‘Integrated Marine Policy: What? Why? How?’, Marine Policy,
July, 159–169.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our
Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weale, A., Pridhan, G., Cini, M., Konstadakopulos, D., Porter, M. and Flynn, B.
(2000) Environmental Governance in Europe: An Ever Closer Ecological Union?,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Part I
Promoting governance
capacity for sustainable
development
1 National sustainable
development strategies in EU
member states
The regional dimension
Gerald Berger and Reinhard Steurer

Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to investigate the implementation of
National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs) at the sub-national
level in selected European Union (EU) member states. The focus is on the
governance arrangements and policy priorities to promote sustainable devel-
opment at the regional level. Key policy issues for the promotion of sustain-
able development, for example, climate change and biodiversity, cross-cut
not only the horizontal boundaries between various central government
ministries, but also the vertical levels of political systems. Thus, it is
important to examine the vertical dimension of policy-making if we are to
fully understand the relevance and impacts of sustainable development strat-
egies and policies. By exploring conceptual and practical approaches towards
vertical policy integration in the context of NSDSs, this chapter tries to
capture the ‘steering capacity’ of the nation state in pursuit of sustainable
development.
The chapter explores the following three research questions:

• How do NSDSs address the challenge of vertical policy integration with

respect to the regional level? What kind of (new) governance arrange-
ments do NSDSs imply for sustainable development policy-making in
regions?
• Do the vertical policy integration mechanisms foreseen in the NSDSs
largely perpetuate traditional patterns of environmental policy or do
they introduce new instruments and pathways that are more in line with
the concept of sustainable development?
• What does vertical policy integration in NSDSs imply for the ‘steering
capacity’ of the European nation states?

The bulk of the empirical material presented here is based on the results of
the EU-funded project ‘Strategies for Regional Sustainable Development:
An Integrated Approach Beyond Best Practice’ (REGIONET) and the
30 G. Berger and R. Steurer
outcomes of two conferences with NSDS coordinators from EU member
states organised by the European Sustainable Development Network
(ESDN). For the more in-depth analysis presented in this chapter, four EU
member states were selected, namely the United Kingdom (UK), France,
Ireland and Austria.
The following section discusses basic terms and concepts that are relevant
for the chapter, including ‘governance’, ‘policy integration’, the notion of
‘regions’ and ‘capacity-building’ for sustainable development. Then a brief
overview is given of the development and practical experiences with NSDSs
in Europe in general, followed by an in-depth analysis of the implementa-
tion of sustainable development at the regional level. The main arguments
and reflections are summarised in a concluding section.

Basic concepts

Governance and policy integration

Over the last decade, ‘governance’ has become one of the most prominent
concepts among both policy makers (European Commission 2001a) and
social scientists (Treib et al. 2005; Kooiman 2003; Pierre and Peters 2000).
Governance mainly refers to the ‘steering capacity’ of a political system
(Gamble 2000). The concept became increasingly important when changes
in framework conditions (for example, reinforced neo-liberal market
approaches, globalisation trends) led to the questioning of traditional forms
of top-down government interventions and policy-making. Therefore, one
can distinguish between ‘old’ and ‘new’ governance approaches.
The key characteristics of ‘new’ governance are:

iii The use of ‘softer’ policy instruments: instead of ‘command-and-control’

legislation, new governance is associated with new environmental policy
instruments that are characterised by the use of market incentives (for
example, eco-taxes and environmental agreements) and the provision of
information about effects of certain choices (for example, eco-labelling)
(Jordan et al. 2003).
iii Extended forms of participation: new governance refers to a decision-
and policy-making style that provides more possibilities for involving
different kinds of non-state actors, such as companies or non-
governmental organisations (Treib et al. 2005). This element of new
governance is also known as ‘network governance’ (Kriesi et al. 2006).
iii Increased involvement of sub-national levels of government: new gov-
ernance is associated with ‘multi-level governance’, a concept that
refers to a stronger collaboration between the different levels of govern-
ment (European, national, regional and local) in the decision- and
policy-making process (Smismans 2006; Berger 2003; Peters and
Pierre 1998).
 Sustainable development strategies 31
In the analysis in this chapter, it is important to reflect further upon multi-
level governance and policy integration.
In the EU context, multi-level governance features are seen as defining
the interface between EU policy-making and the member states. However,
scholars dispute the role of the nation state in this respect. On the one hand,
Hooghe and Marks (2001: 1) argue that ‘formal authority has been dispersed
from central states both up to the supranational institutions and down to the
subnational governments’. On the other hand, Pierre and Peters (2000)
argue that nation states still possess important resources for guiding policy
structures and processes. Generally, the ‘steering capacity’ of the nation state
remains critical in order to establish a coordinated form of policy-making in
the various policy fields, for example, through framework legislation or
strategy formulation, but at the same allowing leeway for the sub-national
level, especially in the implementation of policies.
The concept of governance also refers to ‘policy integration’. The search
for better policy coordination has lead to intensive discussions about the way
policy-making should be carried out. Several scholars in the field of public
policy and public administration have dealt with policy integration (Schout
and Jordan 2005; Peters 1998). According to Meijers and Stead (2004: 2)
policy integration ‘concerns the management of cross-cutting issues in
policy-making that transcend the boundaries of established policy fields, and
which do not correspond to the institutional responsibilities of individual
departments’. This definition mainly refers to ‘horizontal policy integration’,
which points to the coordination between different ministries and/or admin-
istrative bodies on the same political level. The main objective is to develop
provisions and measures for integrating various sectoral policies. Over the
last years, for example, efforts have been made to achieve environmental
policy integration, that is, the integration of environmental issues into
other, non-environmental fields (Lafferty and Hovden 2003). However,
policy integration also comprises ‘vertical policy integration’, which refers to
the coordination of various policies between the different levels of govern-
ment. This can involve, for example, framework legislation, strategies or
programmes and coordinating bodies, including councils or commissions.
The aim is to achieve coherence between activities at the different political
levels, from policy generation to implementation (Zingerli et al. 2004).
Generally, both horizontal and vertical policy integration is inherent in the
concept of sustainable development, which calls for the integration of ‘social,
economic, development and environmental issues at all levels of develop-
mental decision-making and implementation’ (UNCED 1992, paragraph
8.12).
Reflection on the ‘steering capacity’ of the nation states for a coordinated
form of policy-making – that is policy integration to achieve coherence
between different political levels from policy generation to implementation
– is of central importance in this chapter. The focus is on a specific form of
coordination tool used by central states, namely, strategy documents. We
32 G. Berger and R. Steurer
focus in particular on national sustainable development strategies, examin-
ing how they are used to foster sustainable development at the sub-national
levels. Overall, vertical policy integration comprises two major challenges
for national governments. First, they have to secure the commitment for
policy objectives and measures from the sub-national levels. Second, they
need to contribute to building or strengthening the capacities of the sub-
national levels to undertake the actions foreseen (May et al. 1996).

Regions in Europe and sustainable development

Because the concept of sustainable development transcends different levels of
government, it needs to be tackled also at the regional level (Börzel 2003).
First, regions are increasingly identified as the space in which many of the
specific problems that are associated with sustainable development become
evident and impinge directly upon human life. Second, regions are seen as
the appropriate political level to deal with the practical tasks of promoting
sustainable development policies. In other words,

regions [. . .] hold important resources that are necessary to develop and

implement sustainable development. It is not only their capacity to
make and impose [. . .] decisions [. . . but they] play a crucial role as
interface coordinators or arenas for policy coordination among local
actors with the necessary resources to make regional policies work.
(Börzel 2003: 20)

However, before we further investigate the role of regions in policy-making

and sustainable development policy, it is important to clarify what is meant
by the notion of ‘regions’.
There is no generally accepted definition of what a ‘region’ is, neither in
the EU member states nor among scholars. Berger (2003) makes a distinc-
tion between three forms of regions. First, regions can be regarded as spatial
or geographical entities which share common historical roots, language or
culture (Lafferty 2000). Second, regions can be defined as functional entities
with regard to a specific policy field, for example, economic, labour market
or bio-regions (McGinnis 1998). Finally, and most importantly, regions are
political-administrative entities, representing the first level below the nation
state, with specific political and/or administrative competencies. How these
competencies are defined is dependent on different state traditions within
the member states. Loughlin (2001: 12) argues that ‘each of these state tra-
ditions conceives of the state in a particular manner and [therefore] distinct
political and administrative cultures, forms of state organisation, and kinds
of state-society relationships [prevail]’. As a consequence, ‘the place of sub-
national government also varies considerably across different traditions’
(Loughlin 2001: 12). The most common distinction in state traditions is
between central and federal political systems. In addition to state traditions
 Sustainable development strategies 33
influencing the structure of centre/local relations, the EU has become
another strong influence shaping the relationship between the different
levels of government. In particular, direct relationships have developed
between the EU and the regions in relation to the implementation of EU
regional development programmes, including the Structural Funds.
A brief overview is presented here of the relationship between the govern-
mental levels in the selected four countries. The UK, Ireland and France
have centralised political systems in place, whereas Austria is one of the few
federal states in Europe. The changing role of the regions within the EU,
along with the administrative needs of the Structural Funds regime, was a
prime driver in the development of a more regional approach in the UK.
This led, among other changes, to the creation of Regional Development
Agencies. In recent years, the UK has witnessed some dynamics in its poli-
tical system because the devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland) gained specific legislation and policy-making powers
(McEvoy and Ravetz 2004).
Similar to the UK, the development of regional authorities in Ireland has
occurred largely in response to EU requirements, particularly for the man-
agement of Structural Funds spending. Nevertheless, Ireland is still charac-
terised by a high degree of centralisation (see also the chapter of
Connaughton et al. in this volume). Thus, while the newly created regional
authorities were charged with reporting on key issues for their regions, they
continued to lack political power and financial resources. However, they do
nonetheless play a role in the implementation of sustainable development at
the local level (Mullally 2003, 2004a).
Although France must still be considered as a centralised state, its regions
have significantly more competencies than those in the UK and Ireland, in
particular since the decentralisation laws passed in 1982 (Bertrand and
Larrue 2005). As a result, French regions have become important actors in
the implementation of regional policies (Brillet and Féron 2003).
In contrast, Austria is the only federal state among the selected countries.
The nine Austrian regions are not only provided with important competen-
cies in certain fields, for example, health, social policy and nature protection,
but also have their own budget. Although sometimes referred to as ‘imple-
mentation federalism’, the practical policy-making process is characterised
by the strong bargaining power of the regions and their informal relation-
ships with the national level (Berger and Narodoslawsky 2004).
The importance of regions in the implementation of sustainable develop-
ment policies brings discussion to the concept of capacity-building for, and
in, the regions.

Capacity-building for promoting sustainable development

The link between capacity-building and sustainable development was made
in Agenda 21, the action plan that followed the United Nations (UN)
34 G. Berger and R. Steurer
conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was acknowledged that the ability
to follow a sustainable development path critically depends on the capacity
of people and institutions. Capacity-building encompasses ‘human, scien-
tific, technological, organizational, institutional and resource capabilities’
(UNCED 1992: paragraph 37.1). For sustainable development, the main
implication is that long-term sustainable development strategies, to be suc-
cessfully implemented, need to include concepts and provisions for improv-
ing capacity. As pointed out in Agenda 21, ‘a fundamental goal of
capacity-building is to enhance the ability to evaluate and address the
crucial questions related to policy choices and modes of implementation’
(UNCED 1992: 37.1).
In the sustainable development policy debate, Jänicke’s (1997) concept of
capacity-building has become seminal. He defines capacity building as the
‘necessary preconditions for successful solutions of a given type of problem’
(Jänicke 1997: 1). He identifies the preconditions for sustainable develop-
ment policy capacity as: (i) ecological, technological and administrative
knowledge, (ii) legal, personal and budgetary resources, and (iii) the inclu-
sion of relevant political and societal actors.
In addition, we argue that NSDSs can contribute to improve the capaci-
ties for sustainable development at the regional level through providing a
long-term vision of sustainable development and by enabling strategic plan-
ning, including identifying policy priorities and appropriate instruments.
These can, in turn, be used to guide the regional institutions and actors in
their practical implementation tasks.

National sustainable development strategies in the EU

Agenda 21 suggests that NSDSs should ‘build upon and harmonize the
various sectoral economic, social and environmental policies and plans that
are operating in the country [and] ensure socially responsible economic
development while protecting the resource base and the environment for the
benefit of future generations’ (UNCED 1992, 8.7). Policy planning or policy
strategy documents mark one of the many tools that are available to govern-
ments to systematically organise the policy-making process. The discussion
about the theory and principles of strategic planning has a long tradition in
the management literature (Brews and Hunt 1999; Mintzberg et al. 1998;
Mintzberg 1994).
According to Steurer and Martinuzzi (2005), strategic planning is
important (a) to coordinate activities, (b) to ensure that possible future
developments are taken into account, (c) to control the use of resources, and
(d) to facilitate collective and incremental learning processes. Consequently,
strategies can be considered as important ‘steering’ and capacity-building
tools in policy-making for nation states.
Only a few European countries had developed NSDSs in the 1990s. This
situation changed with the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001, at
 Sustainable development strategies 35
which sustainable development was addressed in two respects. First, there
was the launch of the first European Union Sustainable Development Strat-
egy (European Commission 2001b). Second, in line with OECD and UN
requests, the European Council invited the EU member states ‘to draw up
their own national sustainable development strategies’ (European Council
2001: 4). A considerable number of member states and the then accession
countries followed this call and developed NSDSs in time for the UN World
Summit in Johannesburg in September 2002.
As the European Commission’s staff working document on NSDSs out-
lines, the actual strategy documents differ widely in various respects (Euro-
pean Commission 2004). Some NSDSs communicate a bold vision with a
few priorities on some dozen pages, while others present a bulky array of
intentions and objectives spread over more than 200 pages. In order to facil-
itate policy integration, countries clustered the issues dealt with in the
NSDSs into broad categories, around key actors or alongside the three
dimensions of sustainable development. Despite the differences between
them, the European Commission (2004: 17) argues that they share a
common problem, in so far as strategies ‘often lack sufficient prioritisation of
issues and the linkage between social, economic and environmental dimen-
sions [. . .] is usually weak’.

The implications of sustainable development at the

regional level: an analysis of selected EU member states
In this section, experiences with vertical policy integration in the selected
EU member states are explored. First, an overview is given of the provisions
that are outlined for the regional level in the NSDS documents. Second, the
practical experiences in the regions with processes and policies to promote
sustainable development are investigated.

Provisions for regions in the NSDSs

General role of the regions

Each NSDS of the four selected EU member states refers to regions as
important level for the delivery of the national sustainable development
strategy (DEFRA 2005a; Irish Ministry for the Environment 1997;
BMLFUW 2002; MEDD 2003). Not surprisingly, the NSDSs argue that
regions play a particular role in the translation and implementation of the
NSDSs to regional circumstances. For example, the Irish NSDS mentions
that regions have an ‘ongoing responsibility for the regionalisation’ of the
strategy (Irish Ministry for the Environment 1997: 187). The Austrian
NSDS points out that the country’s ‘federalist culture requires that there is a
strong emphasis on sustainable development at the regional and communal
level’ (BMLFUW 2002: 13). In the UK, regional leadership and ‘the
36 G. Berger and R. Steurer
commitment and capacity of [. . .] local authorities and those providing
public services at regional and local level’ is seen as crucial (DEFRA 2005a:
152) The UK government also points to the need for collaboration with the
devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) in order to
set common goals for sustainable development (DEFRA 2005b).
In practice, representatives of regional authorities participate in National
Councils for Sustainable Development or other sustainable development
committees. This is the case in France and Ireland as well as in Austria
where, in the latter case, regional sustainable development coordinators
participate in the ‘Committee for a Sustainable Austria’ that has an import-
ant role to play in accompanying and implementing the NSDS.

Policy priorities for the regional level

Sustainable development policy priorities vary across the four countries.
Nevertheless, two important common priorities can be identified for the
regional level. First, all four NSDSs mention Local and Regional Agenda 21
initiatives as important programmes for sustainable development policies on
the sub-national level. Second, most of the policy priorities stress the aim of
achieving horizontal policy integration. Thus, the NSDSs represent a shift in
focus from sectoral (environmental) policies towards a more integrated form
of sustainable development policy-making.
In the UK, for example, integrated policy programmes are suggested, so
as to create links between regional transport, economic development and
housing programmes. These, it is argued, should be supported by alternative
economic scenarios in line with the concept of sustainable development.
Reflecting upon the public health dimensions of sustainable development is
another dimension of these integrated policy proposals (DEFRA 2005a). In a
similar vein, the Irish NSDS outlines a number of policy priorities for the
regional level, including regional economic development, water manage-
ment, transport policy as well as policies related to the Structural Funds pro-
grammes that should be guided by the sustainable development paradigm
(Irish Ministry for the Environment 1997, also Connaughton et al. in this
volume).
The Austrian regions are requested to contribute to the 20 key objectives
outlined in the NSDS, according to their devolved responsibilities. One key
objective, ‘Responsible Use of Land and Regional Development’, specifically
addresses the regions and includes policy priorities like economic and cul-
tural diversity, preservation of ecosystems, tourism and regional planning
(BMLFUW 2002).
The French NSDS dedicates a separate chapter in its action programme to
the regions. This lists a broad range of policy priorities coupled with con-
crete objectives, for example, in relation to urban sprawl, cultural heritage,
energy consumption, nature preservation, biodiversity and ecosystems as
well as amending social inequalities. An interesting priority is the develop-
 Sustainable development strategies 37
ment of a ‘sustainability’ approach within cross-border cooperation projects,
in order to facilitate concerted management and joint projects for sustain-
able development with regions in neighbouring countries (MEDD 2003).

Coordination mechanisms of sustainable development governance between the

national and regional level
There are various coordination mechanisms foreseen in the NSDSs. They are
mainly concerned with the coordination of activities between different intra-
regional institutions and levels of government as well as the collaboration
between the various stakeholders. They range from regional sustainable
development frameworks, networks and partnerships to training pro-
grammes for civil servants.
In the UK, three regional institutions, namely the Regional Development
Agencies, Regional Assemblies and Government Offices in the regions, are
responsible for delivering sustainable development, although each receives
guidance from central government. This guidance stipulates that the
regional level should draw up regional sustainable development frameworks
whose core elements are developed in consultation with stakeholders. The
frameworks should include a shared vision for the regions; objectives, prior-
ities and targets for advancing sustainable development; action plans with
responsibilities or organisations for delivering sustainable development
priorities; and regional indicators and monitoring framework (DEFRA
2005a).
The Austrian NSDS mentions decentralised action as crucial for success-
ful implementation. For this task, establishing interfaces between the
national and regional levels are suggested, in accordance with the principle
of subsidiarity. Not unusual for a country with a consensus- and
partnership-oriented political culture is the reference to strong networking
between national ministries, regions and social partners (BMFLUW 2002).
Additionally, existing networks and dialogue forums should be integrated in
the implementation efforts, including, for example, the ‘Conference of Sus-
tainability Coordinators’ that was set up by the environmental advisers in
the regions (Austrian Federal Chancellery 2006).
Similarly, the Irish NSDS suggests that regional authorities should coor-
dinate exiting organisations and institutions because they are an ‘appropriate
fora for achieving the best balance between development and sustainability’
(Irish Ministry for the Environment 1997: 186). Regional authorities should
also promote partnerships between different stakeholders in the regions to
ensure a unified set of sustainable development targets.
Although the French NSDS is largely silent about coordination mechan-
isms for the regional level, there are two hints at interesting approaches
(MEDD 2003). On the one hand, training programmes for civil servants at
all levels are envisaged in order to learn how best to integrate sustainable
development in the various policy fields. On the other hand, research should
38 G. Berger and R. Steurer
be fostered at the regional and local levels for a better understanding of
policy integration issues for sustainable development, as well as to provide
data and information for policy-makers.

Policy tools/instruments for the regional level

The NSDSs pay only scant attention to outlining policy tools/instruments
that could be used at the regional level. More often, they make only general
references to regional strategies, frameworks or guidelines. The NSDSs of
the UK, France and Austria, for example, refer to the development of
regional sustainable development strategies to coordinate action at the
regional level.
In France, besides urging the regions to integrate sustainable develop-
ment into regional strategies, a request is also made to develop regional
coherence frameworks, including regional policy priorities, action plans and
management guidelines (MEDD 2003). The Austrian NSDS not only points
to regional sustainable development strategies and action programmes, but
also to the need to create suitable instruments and processes to integrate sus-
tainable development in all policies, including for example, the use of
sustainability impact assessments of policies, programmes and plans
(BMLFUW 2002). The UK strategy calls on the devolved administrations
to specify further actions and priorities according to regional needs. Further-
more, these should inform other regional strategies, in particular, economic
and spatial strategies (DEFRA 2005a). The Irish NSDS is particularly vague
regarding policy tools/instruments. It mentions that regions should identify
sustainable development priorities, recommend appropriate implementation
mechanisms and assist in the development of regional sustainable develop-
ment indicators (Irish Ministry for the Environment 1997).
Thus, while new environmental policy instruments do play a prominent
role in the NSDSs, however, they are not directly linked to the regional
level. Therefore, in relation to whether NSDS introduce new policy instru-
ments, we conclude that that the shift in policy priorities towards a compre-
hensive sustainable development approach, as presented in the NSDSs, is not
matched by a concrete outline of policy tools/instruments that the region
could use to successfully realise this shift. This might limit the achievement
of vertical policy integration, as the coordination tool (the NSDS) does not
include a comprehensive outline of the link between policy generation and
implementation, needed if such strategies are to promote policy
coordination.
 Sustainable development strategies 39
Experiences in the regions with the promotion of sustainable
development

Regional sustainable development strategies

As described above, the NSDS often urges regions to develop regional sustain-
able development strategies. In practice, there is a substantial amount of initi-
atives undertaken in the regions of the selected countries. What is also
important to notice is that other plans and strategies, apart from NSDSs, have
an important impact on sustainable development initiatives at this level.
In the UK, national legislation requires a number of strategies to be pro-
duced in each region. These include regional economic and spatial strategies.
Other strategies are not statutory requirements, but are strongly recom-
mended by central government and all regions have developed these strat-
egies to some extent, such as in relation to housing, waste management,
sustainable energy or transport strategies. The most significant ones in terms
of sustainable development are the regional sustainable development frame-
works which are meant to be high-level documents setting out a vision for
sustainable development at the regional level. However, they are confined to
the English regions.
A recent report by the independent Sustainable Development Commis-
sion on sustainable development in the English regions shows, however, that
the strategy has had only limited influence. The report argues that ‘there are
too many regional strategies to be effective [and] these are often in conflict
with the move towards “integrated” regional strategies of one kind or
another’ (SDC 2005: 10). As regards the regional sustainable development
frameworks, they argue that there is confusion about their purpose and that
they are not recognised by the stakeholders as the overall regional frame-
work (SDC 2005). The Report suggests that the focus should shift towards
finding means to achieve strategic integration of different policies so that a
single regional ‘vision’ can be borne (McEvoy and Ravetz 2004).
In Austria, the regions have not, as yet, come up with integrated sustain-
able development strategies. There are numerous environmental and sustain-
able development initiatives developed in the regions, however, they are
based on the general statutory duties of the regions. Examples of coordinated
work towards sustainable development can be found, however, at the city
level. Vienna, for example, has developed an eco-business plan and has
included sustainable development in its various strategic city plans.
Recently, Salzburg’s regional governor stated that the region wants to
become a European model region for sustainable development (Salzburger
Landeskorrespondenz 2006). Currently, there only exists a partnership for
sustainable development with industry and an information initiative.
Further development of regional sustainable development strategies requires
stronger efforts to promote horizontal policy integration at the regional level
(Austrian Federal Chancellery 2006).
40 G. Berger and R. Steurer
A further document that gives guidelines for the regions in terms of sus-
tainable development is the national ‘Austrian Spatial Development
Concept’ of 2001 (ÖROK 2001). This is a guiding document that provides
recommendations for parties involved in planning policy. As the Austrian
regions have been given competence for development planning under the
provisions of the Austrian Constitution, the Spatial Development Concept is
an important strategic document. Among the six priorities for Austrian
spatial development policy that are outlined in the Concept, are ‘sustainable
use of natural resources’ as well as ‘balanced regional development and social
integration’. Because the regions have a constitutional obligation for devel-
opment planning, they are engaged in a number of ways to implement the
priorities and provisions outlined in this Concept (Berger and Naro-
doslawsky 2004).
Similar to the Austrian situation, there are other national plans and strat-
egies which influence practical actions towards sustainable development at
the regional level in Ireland (see Chapter 6 in this volume). Regions are
requested to support the implementation of the ‘National Development
Plan (NDP)’, that is the principal mechanism for investment in regional
development in Ireland. The NDP 2000–2006 marked a shift from a pre-
dominantly sectoral focus towards a more regional one, with an emphasis on
balanced regional development as well as an appropriate balance between
environment and development (Mullally 2004b). The regional authorities
have a statutory role to review and monitor the expenditure undertaken
under the NDP. This enables them to ensure that their development needs
are met or corrective action is taken when necessary. Likewise, the ‘National
Spatial Development Plan’ aims to foster balanced development to realise
economic and social progress that is consistent with environmental consider-
ations. The regions are requested to implement this strategy through
regional planning guidelines and local development plans and strategies.
Overall, it seems that sustainable development policies in Irish regions are
more influenced by the NDP than the Irish NSDS, which may have negative
implications for the development of a more coordinated approach at the
regional level, based on the overall sustainable development objectives laid
out at the nation level.
The prominence of sustainable development in French regions varies
enormously. Bertrand et al. (2004) have grouped French regions into three
stages, according to the progress they have made. First, there are regions
that have not yet initiated specific sustainable development procedures. In
the second group are regions that are considering sustainable development
and ways of practical implementation. The third group consists of ‘pioneer-
ing’ regions that have a track record on being involved in sustainable devel-
opment issues and have made efforts at policy integration. As Holec (2001:
50) argues, ‘how far regions have advanced varies [. . .] depending on the
political support given to the process’. Generally, it seems that the regional
sustainable development initiatives in France are very heterogeneous and, by
 Sustainable development strategies 41
and large, only weakly linked to the NSDS process developed at the national
level.

Structural funds and sustainable development

EU Structural Fund activities are highly relevant for regional policies in
Europe. However, the key question here is to what extent they take sustain-
able development into account, both in rhetoric and in concrete actions.
The main objective of the Structural Funds regulations is to reduce dispari-
ties in the development of European regions and to promote economic and
social cohesion in the EU. This is carried out by a funding scheme which is
based on EU and national co-funding. Regions need to draw up regional
development plans (RDPs) and programming documents laying out their
priority actions over the programming period. The Structural Fund regula-
tions covering the period 2000–2006 included the sustainable development
paradigm (Council of the European Communities 1999). This means that
the RDPs need to include not only provisions for economic development
and social cohesion, but also measures for environmental improvements.
There has been a lively discussion among scholars whether the Structural
Funds represent a true multi-level governance model (Sutcliffe 2000; Allen
1999; Bache 1998). Bache (1998), for example, pointed out that the
member states play a pivotal role in deciding to what extent the sub-
national levels can participate in this funding scheme, thus maintaining a
‘gate-keeper’ role.
As is widely known, Structural and Cohesion Funds, as well as other
Community initiatives, such as LEADER and INTERREG, that include
mechanisms for advancing integrated rural development and inter-regional
cooperation, had an especially strong impact in Ireland. In particular
Community initiatives have proved popular in the regions because funding
under these schemes is often transferred directly from Brussels, bypassing
the gate-keeper role of the central government that is executed in other
Structural Fund programmes (Callanan 2002). Overall, Structural Fund
regime activities in Ireland have begun to integrate the theme of sustainable
development in its rhetoric, although less so in concrete projects (Mullally
2004a).
In the UK, the Structural Funds have initiated a wide variety of projects,
from large-scale public works (for example, improved public transport
access) to small-scale local initiatives (for example, buildings refurbishment)
(McEvoy and Ravetz 2004). The Structural Funds required, and ultimately
fostered, institutional capacities and regional strategies, both also aiming at
collaborative regional working. However, the programmes in the UK
regions are delivered by the Regional Development Agencies without prop-
erly taking into account horizontal policy integration. The Sustainable
Development Commissions has argued that several Regional Development
Agencies do not recognise that ‘economic outcomes should be delivered in
42 G. Berger and R. Steurer
such a way that environmental and social inclusion objectives are secured at
the same time’ (SDC 2005: 7). Additionally, the central government in
London has been able to exert a ‘gate-keeper’ role as the Structural Funds
allocations for the English regions are administered by the national level.
In Austria, the impact of Structural Funds on regional sustainable devel-
opment has been weak in terms of concrete sustainable development pro-
jects, that is, projects integrating environmental, economic and social issues.
The main thrust is economic development in the regions. Project proposals
remain driven by economic considerations, largely bypassing environmental
concerns. Even the visibility and rhetoric of environmental issues in projects
supported by Structural Funds could be increased (Berger and Naro-
doslawsky 2004). One of the more intriguing impacts of Structural Funds in
Austria is in the field of capacity-building. Regional Development Agencies
were created as regional administrative units to implement Structural Fund
projects. This has had considerable impact on the capacity of regional actors
to formulate and implement a variety of projects on their own, including in
relation to knowledge, resources and institutional capacities.
In French regions, Structural Fund activities have supported local sustain-
able development initiatives, such as LA21 plans, the maintenance of natural
parks and environmental management. However, the process of integrating
sustainable development into Structural Fund programmes and projects is
only at an initial stage. The French experience so far shows that Structural
Fund activities are a potential lever for sustainable development, which can
be applied to a pre-existing context but not as a tool capable of launching a
new approach towards regional sustainable development (Bertrand et al.
2004).
Overall, the Structural Funds have helped sustainable development to
gain more prominence in the RDPs, but ‘real’ sustainable development pro-
jects – that is, project that actually integrate environmental, economic and
social issues – are still the exception rather than the rule. However, Struc-
tural Funds have influenced the governance structure in the member states
and to some extent increased capacity-building in the regions as the experi-
ences in the UK and Austria show (Berger and Narodoslawsky 2004).

Multi-level governance capacities and pathways

Generally, the sub-national levels have important duties and responsibilities
in various policy fields, especially regarding implementing policies. In what
follows, stakeholder involvement in multi-level governance of sustainable
development is reviewed. Such involvement is seen as a key component of
‘new’ governance.
Austria, with its long tradition as a federal state, is fairly well acquainted
with subsidiarity in decision-making processes. However, in terms of multi-
level governance and coordinated forms of policy-making, the Austrian
political system shows clear signs of hierarchy, that do not allow for an easy
 Sustainable development strategies 43
cooperation between the different levels of government and stakeholders
(Berger and Narodoslawsky 2004). For example, the implementation of
Structural Fund programmes in Austria gave rise to a new institutional form
of regional governance in the form of Regional Development Agencies. This
brought with it a conflict in policy-making between the existing adminis-
trative structures and the initiatives of the Regional Development Agencies.
The tension in this relationship was a driving force behind the regions’
decision to link up with the European level. Here we are witnessing increas-
ing inter-regional and cross-border cooperation among regional actors,
which often bypassed the national level, as evident by the direct relations
that have developed between the European and regional levels in the
LEADER programme. Therefore, the recently completed evaluation on the
implementation of the Austrian NSDS suggested the need

to improve coordination between national and regional levels [because]

broadening the coordination activities [. . .] would be desirable so as to
exploit new synergies and also to stabilise and expand what are in some
cases extensive activities conducted at the regional level.
(Carius et al. 2005: 5)

The implementation of regional sustainable development in France is

largely based on a process of partnership between various stakeholders. The
promotion of sustainable development helps to break up the traditional
decision-making process at the regional level, mainly due to the permeabil-
ity and flexibility of the various procedures used, such as partnerships, con-
tractual arrangements and multi-sectoral initiatives. However, as Bertrand et
al. (2004: 17) argue, ‘it seems that sustainable development issues reinforce
horizontal governance, i.e. inter-institutional governance between the differ-
ent actors at the regional level, more than vertical governance’. Another
interesting fact is that also in France the Structural Fund regime led to
direct relationships between the EU and the French regions, as well as an
increased inter-regional collaboration.
Like in France, the Irish regional authorities have become more proactive
in their relationship with Europe. Structural Fund programmes have gener-
ally contributed to the formation of intra-, inter- and trans-regional net-
works that support sub-national development initiatives. Additionally, new
sets of relationships between the state, trade unions and community groups
have developed horizontally at the sub-national levels, as well as vertically
between the local and national level (Walsh 2001). Indeed, their experience
with Regional Agenda 21 have shown that multi-actor, multi-level
coordination framed by higher-level plans and strategies is a pre-condition
for the success of regional sustainable development (Mullally 2004b).
The UK is represented by a complex and multi-layered governance
system, where relationships and tensions tend to reflect the historical
balance of power between the different political levels (McEvoy and Ravetz
44 G. Berger and R. Steurer
2004). With the establishment of the Government Offices for the regions
and the Regional Development Agencies there was optimism that this
would provide a platform for the development of a strategic approach
towards sustainable development. However, ‘a lack of consistent leadership
at the regional level’ (SDC 2005: 6) was identified as one of the major obs-
tacles in the delivery of regional sustainable development. Furthermore, the
role of the regional institutions in relation to the promotion of sustainable
development is not defined clearly enough and no single body is acting as
the lead advocate for delivering sustainable development policies. Generally,
the regional institutions need ‘to strengthen integration of sustainable
development throughout their organisations’ (SDC 2005: 6). Finally, as wit-
nessed in the other selected countries, with the introduction of the Struc-
tural Funds, the regions became a more central player with the EU (McEvoy
and Ravetz 2004).
There are two striking issue that emerge from this study of multi-level
governance. First, horizontal policy integration efforts are achieving better
results for sustainable development in the regions than vertical policy
integration. According to Steurer and Martinuzzi,

horizontal integration is well on its way (at least in the administrative

branch of government), vertical integration is often either weak or
nonexistent. Asked about what worked well in a country’s NSDS
process, seven out of eighteen respondents of the survey [among national
NSDS coordinators] indicated horizontal collaboration and only one
(Switzerland) indicated vertical collaboration [. . .] This of course does
not mean that the concept of sustainable development is ignored by
regional or municipal authorities. The lack of vertical policy integration
implies that these activities are not systematically synchronised with the
targets and activities of higher political authorities. Consequently, they
are also not effectively coordinated with each other.
(Steurer and Martinuzzi 2005: 462)

The second finding to merge is that, although most national governments

and regions strive for improved vertical integration of policies, regions are
increasingly bypassing the national level, in particular in terms of their
engagement with the Structural Fund regime, but also in relation to the
development of inter-regional collaborations.

Conclusions
This chapter analysed the implications of NSDSs for the regional level in
selected EU member states. This concluding section reflects upon the three
research questions set out at the beginning: (1) what are the implication of
NSSDs for (new) sustainable development governance at the regional level?;
(2) To what extent NSDS perpetuate traditional patterns of environmental
 Sustainable development strategies 45
policy or follow new instruments and pathways?; and (3) what are the impli-
cation of NSDSs for the ‘steering role’ of the nation states?
As the analysis shows, the NSDSs of the four selected EU member states
refer to the regions as an important level for the implementation of sustain-
able development. The sustainable development policy priorities outlined
for the regions in the strategies express national desires to strengthen hori-
zontal policy integration. Although a recent European Commission report
(European Commission 2004) pointed to an insufficient linkage between the
three pillars of sustainable development, the integration efforts described in
the NSDSs do suggest a shift in focus towards integrated sustainable devel-
opment policy-making instead of a continuation with traditional environ-
mental management. Moreover, new environmental policy instruments
feature prominently in the NSDSs. However, this shift towards horizontally
integrated sustainable development policies and the outline of new environ-
mental policy instruments is not matched by the identification of concrete
policy tools/instruments and implementation mechanisms that could be
used by the regional level in order to achieve vertical policy integration.
In short, the move from policy generation to implementation is still
blocked.
Other strategic planning documents, like national development plans,
planning guidelines or Structural Fund programme, often prove to be more
important at the regional level for vertical policy integration. NSDSs
provide only general references to the need for stronger participation of
stakeholders. Furthermore, they provide only vague hints about how to
build sustainable development governance capacities in the regions.
Although many regions in the four selected countries seem to lack in-depth
knowledge, financial resources and institutional capacities for achieving sus-
tainable development, these critical regional capacities are hardly addressed
in the NSDSs.
An important impact of the Structural Fund programmes is that they
increased the capacities at the regional level. They particularly fostered the
establishment of institutional know-how and the development of new skills
for the implementation of projects in the regions. This has also led to an
increase in horizontal collaboration between regional stakeholders, which
seems to bring better results than vertical collaboration. Additionally, there
is a general tendency in the regions, often triggered by the Structural Funds,
to establish inter-regional and cross-border regional collaborations, as well as
direct contacts with the EU. However, even though Structural Funds now
include sustainable development objectives and have upgraded sustainable
development as a horizontal theme, the majority of the programmes and
projects under the Structural Fund regime are concerned with economic
development and social cohesion. Genuine sustainable development projects,
that involve the integration of environmental, economic and social issues,
are still the exception rather than the rule in European regions.
One can conclude that NSDSs are potentially important steering tools for
46 G. Berger and R. Steurer
nation states to coordinate policy-making processes horizontally and vertically.
However, as steering tools for vertical policy integration, NSDSs have severe
shortcomings. The NSDSs do not say much about new multi-level and
regional sustainable development governance arrangements. They offer con-
crete policy priorities for sustainable development but fail to outline policy
tools/instruments and implementation mechanisms for the regional level.
Therefore, a general move towards vertical policy integration triggered by
NSDSs cannot be witnessed. The picture of a rather weak role of the state in
regional sustainable development governance is confirmed by the fact that it is
often bypassed by EU initiatives, such as the Structural Fund programme.
Faced with NSDSs that are hardly getting through to the regional level, and
the concrete impacts of a powerful EU funding scheme not primarily aiming
at sustainable development, it can be argued that to fully understand regional
sustainable development governance we need to study both horizontal and
vertical policy integration within the EU multi-level governance system.

References
Allen, D. (1999) ‘Cohesion and Structural Adjustment’, in H. Wallace and W.
Wallace (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: University Press (3rd
edition), 209–233.
Austrian Federal Chancellery (2006) Arbeitspapier – Die Erfahrungen, das Know-how
und die Zukunft der Netzwerke: http://bundesregierung.at/Docs/2006/4/3/-
Kurzdarstellung_Know-how%20%202006.pdf (accessed 20 July 2006).
Bache, I. (1998) The Politics of the European Union Regional Policy: Multi-Level Gover-
nance or Flexible Gatekeeping?, Sheffield: Academic Press.
Berger, G. (2003) ‘Reflections on governance: power relations and policy making in
regional sustainable development’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5:
219–234.
Berger, G. and Narodoslawsky, M. (2004) Austria – National Report on Regional Sus-
tainable Development, REGIONET project report: www.iccr-international.org/
regionet/ (accessed 18 July 2006).
Bertrand, F., Larrue, C. and Heland, L. (2004) France – National Report on Regional
Sustainable Development, REGIONET project report: www.iccr-international.org/
regionet/ (accessed 18 July 2006).
Bertrand, F. and Larrue, C. (2005) ‘Regional Sustainable Development in France:
Assessing the Environmental Implications’, European Environment, 15: 282–293.
BMLFUW (Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water
Management) (2002) A Sustainable Future for Austria – The Austrian Strategy for
Sustainable Development, Vienna: BMLFUW.
Börzel, T. A. (2003) ‘Subsidiarity and the Constitutional Premise for “Regional
Governance” in Europe’, in W. M. Lafferty and M. Narodoslawsky (eds), Regional
Sustainable Development in Europe: The Challenge of Multi-Level Co-operative Gover-
nance, Oslo: ProSus, 19–48.
Brews, P. J. and Hunt, M. R. (1999) ‘Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn:
Resolving the Planning School/Learning School Debate’, Strategic Management
Journal, 20: 889–913.
 Sustainable development strategies 47
Brillet, E. and Féron, E. (2003) ‘The Emergence of French Regions as Political
Actors within the European Union’, in W. M. Lafferty and M. Narodoslawsky
(eds), Regional Sustainable Development in Europe: The Challenge of Multi-Level Co-
operative Governance, Oslo: ProSus, 49–67.
Callanan, M. (2002) ‘The White Paper on Governance: The Challenge for Central
and Local Government’, Administration, 50: 66–85.
Carius, A., Jacob, K., Jänicke, M. and Hackl, W. (2005) Evaluation Study on the
Implementation of Austria’s Sustainable Development Strategy, Vienna: BMLFUW,
English Summary.
Council of the European Communities (1999) Council Regulations (EC) No. 1260/1999
of 21 June 1999 Laying down the General Provisions on the Structural Funds, Luxem-
bourg: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 161/1, 26&7/1999.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2005a) Securing the
Future: The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, London: DEFRA.
DEFRA (2005b) One Future – Different Paths: The UK’s Shared Framework for Sustain-
able Development, London: DEFRA.
European Commission (2001a) European Governance: A White Paper, Brussels
COM(2001) 428 final.
European Commission (2001b) A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European
Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, Brussels COM(2001) 269.
European Commission (2004) National Sustainable Development Strategies in the Euro-
pean Union: A First Analysis by the European Commission, Commission Staff
Working Document http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/sustainable_develop-
ment_strategies.pdf (accessed 17 July 2006).
European Council (2001) Presidency Conclusions – Göteborg European Council, 15 and
16 June 2001: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00200-
r1.en1.pdf (accessed 17 July 2006).
Gamble, A. (2000) ‘Economic Governance’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance:
Authority, Steering and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–137.
Holec, N. (2001) Dynamiques Régionales de Développement Durable, Paris: Ministère de
l’amenagement du territoire et de l’environnement & 4D.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration,
London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Irish Ministry for the Environment (1997) Sustainable Development: A Strategy for
Ireland, Dublin: Government Publications.
Jänicke, M. (1997) ‘The Political System’s Capacity for Environmental Policy’, in
M. Jänicke and H. Weidner (eds), National Environmental Policies: A Comparative
Study of Capacity-Building, Berlin: Springer, 1–24.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., Zito, A. R. and Brückner, L. (2003) ‘European Governance
and the Transfer of “New” Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) in the
European Union’, Public Administration, 81: 555–574.
Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance, London: Sage.
Kriesi, H., Adam, S. and Jochum, M. (2006) ‘Comparative Analysis of Policy Net-
works in Western Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13: 341–361.
Lafferty, W. M. (2000) ‘Democratic Parameters for Regional Sustainable Develop-
ment: The Need for a New Demos with a New Rationality’, ProSus Working
Paper, Oslo: Centre for Development and Environment.
Lafferty, W. M. and Hovden, E. (2003) ‘Environmental Policy Integration: Towards
an Analytical Framework’, Environmental Politics, 12: 1–22.
48 G. Berger and R. Steurer
Loughlin, J. (2001) ‘Introduction: The Transformation of the Democratic State in
Western Europe’, J. Loughlin (ed.), Subnational Democracy in the European Union:
Challenges and Opportunities, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–33.
McEvoy, D. and Ravetz, J. (2004) UK – National Report on Regional Sustainable
Development, REGIONET project report: www.iccr-international.org/regionet/
(accessed 18 July 2006).
McGinnis, M. V. (1998) Bioregionalism, London: Routledge.
May, P., Burby, R. J., Ericksen, N. J., Handmer, J. W., Dixon, J. E., Michaels, S.
and Ingle Smith, D. (1996) Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovern-
mental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability, London: Routledge.
MEDD (French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development) (2003) National
Sustainable Development Strategy, Paris: Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Devel-
opment.
Meijers, E. and Stead, D. (2004) ‘Policy Integration: What Does it Mean and How
Can it Be Achieved?’, paper presented at the 2004 Berlin Conference on the
Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: ‘Greening of Policies –
Interlinkages and Policy Integration’, Berlin, 2–3 December 2004.
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for
Planning, Plans, Planners, New York: The Free Press.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998) Strategic Safari: A Guided Tour
Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, New York: The Free Press.
Mullally, G. (2003) ‘Tipping the Scales for Sustainable Development in Ireland:
Lessons from Local and Regional Agenda 21’, in W. M. Lafferty and M. Naro-
doslawsky (eds), Regional Sustainable Development in Europe: The Challenge of Multi-
Level Co-operative Governance, Oslo: ProSus, 90–114.
Mullally, G. (2004a) ‘Shakespeare, the Structural Funds and Sustainable Develop-
ment: Reflections on the Irish Example’, Innovation, 17: 25–41.
Mullally, G. (2004b) Ireland – National Report on Regional Sustainable Development,
REGIONET project report: www.iccr-international.org/regionet/ (accessed 18
July 2006).
ÖROK (Austrian Planning Conference) (2001) The Austrian Spatial Development
Concept, ÖROK, Vienna: www.oerok.gv.at/Publikationen/schriftenreihe/
schriftenreihe163b.pdf (accessed 20 July 2006).
Peters, B. G. (1998) ‘Managing Horizontal Government: The Politics of
Coordination’, Research Paper No. 21, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management
Development.
Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (1998) ‘Governance without Government? Rethinking
Public Administration’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8:
223–243.
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, London: Macmillan.
Salzburger Landeskorrespondenz (2006) ‘Salzburg auf dem Weg zur europäischen
Modellregion’, 21 June: www.salzburg.gv.at/lkorr-meldung?nachrid= 36798
(accessed 20 July 2006).
Schout, A. and Jordan, A. (2005) ‘Coordinated European Governance: Self-
organizing or Centrally Steered’, Public Administration, 83: 201–220.
SDC (Sustainable Development Commission) (2005) The Next Steps: An Independent
Review of Sustainable Development in the English Regions, London: Sustainable
Development Commission: www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/ downloads/
Full_report-final.pdf (accessed 20 July 2006).
 Sustainable development strategies 49
Smismans, S. (2006) ‘New Modes of Governance and the Participation Myth’, Euro-
pean Governance Papers (EUROGOV), No. N-06–01: www.connex-network.org/
eurogov/pdf/egp-newgov-N-06–01.pdf (accessed 11 July 2006).
Steurer, R. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005) ‘Towards New Patterns of Strategy Formation
in the Public Sector: First Experiences with National Strategies for Sustainable
Development in Europe’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23:
455–472.
Sutcliffe, J. B. (2000) ‘The 1999 Reform of the Structural Fund Regulations: Multi-
level Governance or Renationalization?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:
290–309.
Treib, O., Bähr, H. and Falkner, G. (2005) ‘Modes of Governance: A Note towards
Conceptual Clarification’, European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), No. N-05–02:
www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-newgov-N-05–02.pdf (accessed 11
July 2006).
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992)
Agenda 21, New York: United Nations: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/
agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (accessed 11 July 2006).
Walsh, J. (2001) ‘Catalysts for Change: Public Policy Reform through Local Part-
nerships in Ireland’, in M. Geddes and J. Bennington (eds), Local Partnerships and
Social Exclusion in the European Union: New Forms of Local Social Governance, London:
Routledge, 111–113.
Zingerli, C., Bisang, K. and Zimmermann, W. (2004) ‘Towards Policy Integration:
Experiences with Intersectoral Coordination in International and National Forest
Policy’, paper presented at the 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimen-
sions of Global Environmental Change: ‘Greening of Policies – Interlinkages and
Policy Integration’, Berlin, 2–3 December 2004.
2 Economic instruments and the
promotion of sustainable
development
Governance experiences in key
European states
Susan Baker and Katarina Eckerberg

Introduction
This chapter explores central government-funded programmes within
selected EU member states aimed at the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment at the sub-national level. It presents the results of research undertaken
from 2002 to 2005 and funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency (Eckerberg et al. 2005). Interest was confined to initiatives that had
an explicit aim of promoting sustainable development. These initiatives are
important as they signal a shift from declaratory intent to actual policy
commitment. The research aims at portraying an initial picture of the
emerging agenda of sustainable development – what sustainable develop-
ment is understood to mean in policy practice and which societal actors
become engaged in its implementation.
A considerable amount of research and policy attention is currently
focused on the use of ‘new’ instruments in environmental policy. The use of
these market-based instruments, in particular environmental taxes, tradable
permits and voluntary agreements, is designed to influence environmental
outcomes by changing the cost and benefits of alternative actions. They aim
to make the environmentally preferred action financially more attractive
(Clinch and Gooch 2007). Although the idea of using such tools is not new,
recent years have seen a considerable growth in the political demand for, and
use of, these ‘new environmental policy instruments’ (NEPIs) (Jordan et al.
2003). Such market instruments are typically regarded as being more flex-
ible and efficient than traditional ‘command and control’ regulation. As
such, they form part of government efforts to create a sense of partnership
and shared responsibility for the promotion of sustainable development. In
this context, their use is considered a product of, and simultaneously pro-
moting, the emergence of new forms of governance, as discussed in the
Introduction to this volume.
The focus of attention on NEPIs has, we argued, led to a neglect of the
 Promotion of sustainable development 51
role of more traditional economic instruments. Typically, NEPIs are con-
trasted with traditional command and control regulation, although tradi-
tional economic instruments continue to be in widespread use. Despite this,
little attention has been given to the potential for traditional economic
instruments to act as tools in the promotion of sustainable development.
This chapter analyses the use of traditional economic instruments in selected
EU member states, to ascertain whether and to what extent these instru-
ments act as important policy aids for states in their pursuit of sustainable
development. The chapter also explores whether, and in what ways, the con-
tinued and widespread use of such economic instruments is related to the
emergence of new governance.
Economic instruments may be either punitive or rewarding (Jacobs
1995). The punitive types, such as taxes, charges, levies and fines, are com-
monly debated, particularly in the literature exploring new instruments for
environmental policy. Rewarding economic instruments (such as grants, soft
loans, subsidies and tax allowances) receive less attention, but are in fact in
greater use among OECD countries (European Environment Agency 2004).
These rewarding economic instruments form the focus of attention in this
chapter.
While seeking to compensate environmentally appropriate behaviour,
rewarding instruments have two, sometimes competing, goals. First, they
can be designed to complement legal instruments, for example, to ensure
implementation of mandatory tasks. Typically, this investment aims at faci-
litating or improving implementation of central government policy. Second,
government investment programmes can direct funding towards capacity
building and innovation. Capacity building, in turn, is often directed at
Local Authorities, while innovation is typically seen as residing within the
private sector. Here a more flexible approach is adopted, which places
greater emphasis on communication with groups targeted for funding and
ensuring that funding criteria allow for varying initiatives, depending on
local circumstances and priorities. They can also offer greater choice in how
local actors respond to environmental tasks, as compared with traditional
regulation. Rewarding economic instruments can encourage, for example,
the development and adoption of environmentally friendly technologies or
foster competition by helping companies that employ, or sell, such technolo-
gies. They can also have redistributive goals, such as promoting regional
development, social equality and creating ‘green’ employment. Furthermore,
investments may be geared towards developing or enhancing basic infra-
structure that helps promote environmentally friendly behaviour, such as
cycle paths, public transport or recycling facilities.
These two forms of rewarding economic instruments imply different pat-
terns of governance. The first relies heavily on central government as the key
steering agent for the investment programme. Here the role of central
government is to spur on local government and non-government actors,
such as firms, to implement centrally defined goals, typically of a regulatory
52 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
nature. The second form can be characterised as a deliberative process,
involving various forms of governance procedures. These include a more par-
ticipatory, less reactive role for the sub-national levels of government and for
business and non-government organisations. This can extend to the con-
struction of public/private partnerships. This multi-level, multi-actor
engagement is often directed at more diffuse tasks than those related to reg-
ulatory compliance.
Thus, central government funded initiatives can be seen, on one hand, as
traditional governing tools, while, on the other, they can have new gover-
nance impact, drawing in a range of public and private actors, across differ-
ent levels of government, in more diffuse and less regulatory oriented tasks.
Thus, central government-funded programmes are of direct interest to the
themes of this book. Exploring the multi-faceted nature of economic instru-
ments, such as government investment programmes, brings us directly to
the respective roles of, and relationship between, on the one hand, tradi-
tional governing methods and, on the other, the new methods of governance
that are emerging among European states as they engage with the promo-
tion of sustainable development.

Empirical focus
Our research identified six programmes in five EU Member states that were
concerned with the operationalisation of national sustainable development
frameworks at the sub-national levels through major economic investments
programmes (Eckerberg et al. 2005). Five of the initiatives were in leader
environmental states, namely Sweden, Germany, Netherlands and Denmark.
Research also identified an interesting public–private collaboration in the
UK, using a novel funding source and presenting a highly developed under-
standing of (aspects of) sustainable development, and for these two reasons it
was included in the analysis.
The objectives, criteria for funding and target group(s) of each of these
initiatives were examined. The research identified who was eligible for
funding and to what extent they engaged different levels of government and
non-government actors. Whether initiatives included the three pillars of
sustainable development, that is, the social, economic and environmental
aspects, was also investigated. Having presented a summary of these empiri-
cal findings, this chapter analyses their significance for our understanding of
the relationship between traditional forms of central government steering
and the emergence of new governance patterns in the promotion of sustain-
able development.

Funding sustainable development in Sweden

The Swedish central government launched the Lokala Investeringsprogrammet
för Ekologiskt Hållbar Utveckling (LIP) (1998–2003) in 1998. It built on a
Table 2.1 Government investment programmes for promoting sub-national sustainable development

Country and name of initiative Period Programme costs Target group(s)

Sweden 1998–2003 6.200 million SEK Municipalities and local

Local Investment Programme for Ecological (≈ C670 million) partners
Sustainability (LIP)

Netherlands 1995–1997 270 million Dutch Municipalities only

Vervolgbijdrageregeling Ontwikkeling Gemeentelijk Guilders
Milieubeleid ((VOGM) (≈ C122 million)

Netherlands 1998+ 3.3 million Dutch Open to all

Gemeenschappelijk Initiatief Realisatie Duurzame Guilders
Ontwikkeling (GIDO) (≈ C1.5 million)

Denmark 1997–2002 265 million DKK up to Public institutions,

Den Grønne Jobpulje (The Green Job Fund) 2000 (≈ C35 million) municipalities and business

Germany 1990+ C1.3 billion Focus on SMEs but also public

Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) (German institutions
Federal Donation for Environment)

UK 1998+ £2 billion Open to all, local authorities

The New Opportunities Fund of the UK (≈ C2.800 million) main recipients
National Lottery
54 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
long tradition of Swedish central government environmental funding,
beginning in the 1950s with a programme addressing waste-water treat-
ment, targeting energy savings and renewable energy in the 1970s, and
recycling, Local Agenda 21 and green jobs in the early 1990s (Hanberger et
al. 2002: 8ff.). The purpose of LIP was to improve ecological efficiency at
the local level, while at the same time providing jobs (Government of
Sweden 1997/98). In this sense, it resembles the Danish Green Job Fund,
initiated at the same time, as discussed below. LIP originated from within
the leadership of the Social-Democratic Party, which was then in power. The
Left and the Green Party however, also supported it, as it was seen as part of
the wider Sustainable Sweden programme (Government of Sweden 2000).
LIP was by far the largest initiative within the Sustainable Sweden pro-
gramme. It allocated SEK 6.2 billion to 211 local programmes, which, when
local matched funding was added, amounted to an investment of around SEK
27.3 billion. These local programmes contained 1,814 environmental measures,
spread across 161 municipalities, representing over half of Sweden’s Local
Authorities. The substantial amounts of funding involved gave clear political
signals about the importance attached to the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment at the local level in Sweden (Baker and Eckerberg 2007).
Until 2002, LIP was managed directly by the Ministry of Environment,
although in Sweden such programmes would normally be managed by a
government agency (Lundqvist 2001). This gave the programme more flexi-
bility, while also opening up opportunities for dialogue with Local Authori-
ties in setting funding priorities.
At the time LIP was introduced, high unemployment rates and budget
deficits had brought cuts in public spending within municipalities (Ecker-
berg and Dahlgren 2005: 48). As a result, many municipal authorities were
experiencing difficulties meeting their welfare and environmental goals. In
this context, the claim that LIP could provide both ecological sustainable
development and create new jobs helped ensure political support for intro-
ducing such a large-scale government investment programme. In addition,
it was hoped that LIP would support new and innovative ways of thinking,
which would, in turn, spill over to local businesses and non-government
organisations. This would help create favourable conditions for new gover-
nance partnerships in pursuit of ecological conversion.
In particular, LIP was geared towards seven environmental objectives
(Swedish Ordinance 1998: 23; Swedish Ordinance 2000: 735): reducing
environmental loading; increasing efficiency in the use of energy and natural
resources; promoting use of renewable forms of energy; increasing re-use and
recycling; supporting biological diversity and cultural heritage; improving
circulation of nutrients in ecocycles; and improving indoor environment in
buildings. Undertaking concerted environmental measures based on these
seven objectives was understood to ‘strengthen (positive) environmental
effects and improve ecological sustainability’ (Government of Sweden 2000).
LIP has had some success in meeting these objectives, particularly in relation
 Promotion of sustainable development 55
to reducing emissions levels (Kåberger and Jürgensen 2005: 48), conversion
to renewable energy sources, energy savings and waste reductions (Wandén
2005: 18–20). However, through its emphasis on material environmental
objectives, LIP primarily promoted ecological modernisation rather than a
wider understanding of sustainable development. Here, LIP is similar to the
German DBU, as discussed below. Both tended to support measures that
require investments in physical infrastructure, rather than measures that
focus on the ‘softer’ side of the sustainable development agenda, such as
those that target value systems and lifestyle. In Sweden, this narrow focus
prevailed despite the broader sustainable development approach embedded
in other initiatives of the time, including LA21, the environmental code and
the work on regional development and growth agreements (Eckerberg and
Dahlgren 2005).
In relation to whether LIP paved the way for new governance methods,
research revealed that LIP supported very few activities that drew in actors
outside those of government. Only 14 per cent of all LIP measures were led
by business, and the remainder was led by the municipality itself or by
municipal subsidiaries (Marell and Wahlström 2005: 67). Companies built
on already existing cooperation, and only a limited number of new partner-
ship relations were created. Furthermore, collaboration with business tended
to last only for the life span of whatever measures received funding (Marell
and Wahlström 2005: 80). Involvement of NGOs and local citizens also
remained very limited (Berglund and Hanberger 2003: 55), mainly confined
to measures with low technical content and to supporting administration,
awareness raising and communication. Some of the building and housing
projects also attracted citizen engagement. In all, however, only 5 per cent
of all measures were headed by NGOs (Hanberger et al. 2002: 97). As we
will see, low citizen participation is common also for the other funding
initiatives investigated, with the sole exception of the Dutch GIDO.
The difficulties that businesses and NGOs had in participating in LIP were
partly a result of poor communication networks between them and the
government, both at the national and local levels. The regional level, that is,
the County Administration, was largely bypassed during the early days of LIP,
but over time, it acquired a consultative and meditating role between the
Ministry and the Local Authorities. However, NGOs were marginal at this
level. The limited involvement of business and NGOs can also be related to
the nature of the grant scheme itself. To qualify for funding, municipalities
had to present a comprehensive analysis of their local environmental problems
and conditions, and show how proposed projects were designed to address
them. The municipalities coordinated local actors both in the application and
implementation stages. This meant that municipal authorities retained overall
control and were held responsible to central government for the implementa-
tion and monitoring of all measures funded under the Programme. In short,
LIP actions relied largely on public authorities and LIP had only a limited
impact on the creation of new governance partnerships.
56 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Nevertheless, LIP proved successful in enhancing local environmental
activities and in encouraging shared responsibility across the different tiers
of government. However, this was more pronounced in larger, and better
resourced, municipalities that were already engaged in LA21. LIP, however,
did little to enhance co-operation across municipalities, or to increase citizen
participation. Nevertheless, the LIP initiative remains of deep symbolic
importance, not least because of the sheer size of the investment funds, the
large number of local programmes that it supported and, last but not least,
the political prestige attached to its location directly within the Ministry.
These factors helped LIP to keep sustainable development on the policy
agenda in Sweden, even in those municipalities not granted funding under
the scheme (Forsberg 2005: 21).

Funding sustainable development in the Netherlands

The Dutch central government has funded several environmental initiatives
aimed at implementation deficits, especially following the sharp rise in the
environmental responsibilities of local government during the 1990s (see
also Coenen, Chapter 8 in this volume). These initiatives were closely linked
with the country’s highly developed environmental planning tradition. The
First National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP-1) (1989), which forms
the cornerstone of Dutch environmental policy, is exemplary in planning for
sustainable development, giving the Netherlands environmental leader
status among the EU member states and globally.
The Bijdragenbesluit Uitvoering Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid (BUGM),
1990–1994 is a prime example of central government funding schemes
(Minister van Volkhuisvesting 1990). BUGM was designed to help munici-
palities implement the 1993 Environmental Management Act. Following
the success of BUGM, the Ministry launched the so-called Vervolgbij-
drageregeling Ontwikkeling Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid (VOGM) (94 million
guilders annually) to help municipalities implement their obligations, as set
out in the NEPPs (Minister van Volkhuisvesting 1995). VOGM was
designed to help operationalise the county’s strong commitment to the
promotion of sustainable development (Baker 2005).
Under VOGM, municipalities were to prioritise certain ‘actions points’ in
the NEPPs, including LA21, sustainable building projects, local mobility
plans, nature protection and education. Funding was also designed to
enhance co-operation between municipalities (Baker 2005). Over 150
municipalities chose LA21 as a specific VOGM task, which helped to diffuse
LA21 norms throughout the Netherlands (Coenen n.d.). However, VOGM
proved less successful in stimulating inter-municipal co-operation, even
though such co-operation is central to Dutch environmental planning.
Despite focusing on LA21 in particular, VOGM was based on a tradi-
tional ‘command and control’ approach towards environmental manage-
ment. It played a major role in helping municipalities reach NEPP
 Promotion of sustainable development 57
implementation targets and fulfil mandatory environmental tasks (Inspectie
Milieuhygiëne 1997, 1998, 1999; PriceWaterhouseCoopers 1999; Coenen
2000; Baker 2005). While the ‘command and control’ approach proved to
be quite effective in dealing with the most obvious pollution problems in
the Netherlands, central government remained the key steering agent. This
did little to encourage acceptance of shared, environmental responsibility
among stakeholder and local and regional government (Keijzers 2000).
VOGM was introduced at a time when more diffuse tasks, such as engag-
ing in LA21, increased the scope for autonomous behaviour at the municipal
level. This change took place alongside, and indeed may have contributed
to, the development of a more open style of environmental management and
planning (see also Coenen, Chapter 8 in this volume). This emphasised co-
operation, negotiation, facilitation and deliberation, and was particularly
directed at clusters of more or less homogeneous polluters, the so-called
‘target groups’. In short, environmental policy was influenced by the use of
interactive policy-making, which eventually led to a focus on bestuurlijke
vernieuwing, or political renewal, that is, the reactivation of political engage-
ment across all levels of government and within society (Kickert et al. 1997).
This new approach questions whether a national enforcement structure can
be realised and whether all regions need to respond in the same way at the
institutional, administrative and policy levels. In short, VOGM was intro-
duced at a time which saw moves towards the ‘dehierarchisation’ of political
and policy structures in the Netherlands. Despite this, the programme
adopted a traditional, top-down approach towards the promotion of sustain-
able development, building upon the success of previous, but no longer
valid approaches (Baker 2005). As a result, both the BUGM and VOGM
schemes, because they enhance central steering, can be seen as being at odds
with emerging principles of Dutch environmental planning.
The new way of thinking about how to promote sustainable development
is encapsulated in the Gemeenschappelijk Initiatief Realisatie Duurzame Ontwik-
keling (GIDO) initiative. GIDO provides an excellent example of local
partnership initiatives directed toward concrete projects aimed at the
promotion of sustainable development. GIDO is a small Stichting, or founda-
tion, established in 1998 by a group of civil servants, mostly involved in
environmental management at the local level, some local council members,
and private individuals drawn from social groups, business and academia.
GIDO places emphasis on inter-active, participatory policy-making,
working within municipalities to help define locally based, sustainable
development projects (Baker 2005).
GIDO aims ‘to make sustainability concrete at the local level’ (GIDO
2002). It aims to build upon the expertise of Local Authorities, seen as
having a more integrated policy vision than the highly specialised branches
of national government, which produce fractured approaches. Also under-
lying the GIDO initiative is the belief that participation is easier to achieve
at the local level, and it facilitates citizens to take shared responsibility for
58 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
environmental management. It is also highly critical of the narrow and
inflexible approach embodied in schemes such as VOGM and BUGM (Baker
2005).
GIDO operates by focusing on people’s use of a local area, promoting ‘sus-
tainable liveability’. There is strong emphasis on facilitating communities to
find collective solution to concrete problems (Baker 2005). This recognises
that, within a particular area, there are a variety of public and private inter-
ests and an equally varied number of public sector policies and management
strategies. Considering these is central to the sustainable use of an area, and
points to the importance of promoting sustainable development through
environmental policy integration (Baker 2005).
A particularly innovative aspect of GIDO’s work is the formation of
‘regional learning circles’ (GIDO 2004). These bring together municipali-
ties and stakeholders from several municipalities for exchange of information
and best practice. This horizontal learning mechanism is very much in
keeping with decentralisation trends in Dutch environmental policy man-
agement.

Funding sustainable development in Denmark

Like the Netherlands, Denmark has introduced several, large environmental
subsidy programmes, particularly in relation to cleaner technology, begin-
ning as early as 1986 (Remmen 1995). Denmark was an early pioneer in the
adoption of environmental management strategies and measures, adopting a
flexible, interactive approach that seeks to pass responsibility and policy
initiatives from the public to the private sector (Remmen 1995). This com-
plements the strong Danish tradition of participatory democracy (Chris-
tiansen 1996) and shares much in common with the contemporary Dutch
approach.
Den Grønne Jobpulje (1997–2000) (The Green Job Pool), was a major initi-
ative for the promotion of sustainable development in Denmark. Like the
Swedish LIP, it funded innovative projects to create green employment at
the local level. The scheme had a strong emphasis on small scale, grass-roots
initiatives (Den Grønne Jobpulje 2001; Baker 2005). This was in keeping
with the Danish tradition of emphasising the grass roots levels, including
local entrepreneurship, as engines of change (Christiansen and Lundqvist
1996; Jamison and Baark 1999). Danish civic traditions, combined with its
decentralised public administration, were served well within Den Grønne
Jobpulje.
The launch of Den Grønne Jobpulje owed much to the prevalence at the
time of LA21 initiatives (Baker 2005). LA21 was well advanced in
Denmark, building upon an environmental movement characterised by local
experiments and life style changes (Jamison and Baark 1999; Andersen et al.
1998). Den Grønne Jobpulje was seen as a way in which LA21 visions could be
translated into employment creating environmental projects (Danish Min-
 Promotion of sustainable development 59
istry for the Environment and Energy 2001; Den Grønne Jobpulje 2001). It
was to act as a complement to an existing scheme, Den Grønne Fond (The
Green Fund), which funded over 100 local, full-time-employed Green
Guides who acted as catalysts for LA21. The same officials who managed
Den Grønne Fond administered Den Grønne Jobpulje. Administrators used an
open, friendly management style (Baker 2005).
Den Grønne Jobpulje, as far as it aimed to create ‘green’ employment by
supporting innovative projects, had much in common with the Swedish LIP.
Initially, the programme had a broad focus, but following a mid-term evalu-
ation, government set more precise funding criteria (CASA 2000; Baker
2005). This reflected the desire to tie the instrument more closely into
government policies and priorities (Clement and Hansen 2002). The
changes also strengthened the social aspects of the scheme, allowing it to
contribute to all three pillars of sustainable development (Baker 2005).
Den Grønne Jobpulje is generally regarded as a funding success story (CASA
2000; 2002). In all, it granted subsidies to 574 projects, amounting to just
over DKK 265 million. The major of these (60 per cent) were from the
private sector, mostly from within small-scale local organisations and busi-
nesses (CASA 2002; Den Grønne Jobpulje 2001). While not primarily
directed at the public sector, municipalities were able to apply for funding
under Den Grønne Jobpulje. However, they could not receive funding for
statutory environmental tasks, making it difficult for them to benefit from
the scheme (Baker 2005). The scheme resulted in a thousand, full-time,
green jobs, mostly in private-sector SMEs, many of which would not have
been created otherwise. In addition, the level of subsidies per job was relat-
ively modest. It also had a multiplier effect, creating down-stream jobs.
However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the employment criteria
may have overshadowed the environmental dimensions of the scheme (CASA
2000, 2001, 2002).
Den Grønne Jobpulje was withdrawn when the Liberal and Conservative
coalition took office in 2001. One explanation for this is that the scheme was
closely linked to LA21, indirectly through its administrative association with
the Green Fund and directly through its focus on local, grass-roots environ-
mental initiatives. By the time the new government came to power, the spirit
of LA21 had somewhat waned in Denmark (Baker 2005). More generally, the
demise of the Den Grønne Jobpulje can be attributed to the steady enhance-
ment of the role of central government in Denmark, particularly in the
environmental policy arena. The deepening role of central government is also
a response to concerns that local authorities tend to give priority to economic
activity over environmental protection (Baker 2005). Thus, while Den Grønne
Jobpulje fitted with long-standing belief in the importance of bottom-up,
locally oriented approaches towards the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment, the approach is increasingly under pressure in Denmark.
Nevertheless, despite its demise, Den Grønne Jobpulje played an important
role in showing that job creation and environment protection measures are
60 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
compatible aims of policy. In addition, it supports the argument that pro-
moting ecological modernisation (for example, getting new green products
to the market) can bring long-term environmental benefit. The scheme also
demonstrated that grass-roots organisations can be the repository of feasible,
realisable innovation. Furthermore, it provides an example of central govern-
ment’s successful collaboration with local entrepreneurs. This lends credence
to the argument that traditional methods of governing, such as the use of a
traditional economic ‘rewarding’ instrument, can successfully combine with
new forms of governance to shaping a sustainable future.

Funding sustainable development in Germany

Initially, the study of central government-funded initiatives in Germany
proved rather problematic, as there is a widespread tendency for grants to
support ‘end-of-pipe’ infrastructure, such as sewage and waste disposal.
There is little evidence of federal programmes aimed at promoting sustain-
able development at the sub-federal level. In addition, many environmental
functions that are supported by central government tend to be in the form of
loans. Furthermore, while Germany has a highly complex regulatory system
for environmental management, a key role is assigned to voluntary agree-
ments and there is generally a close relation between polluters and the regu-
latory authorities. This is combined with minimal use of economic
instruments (OECD 2001: 19). The fact that Germany is a federal state also
explains the lack of case material on central government funded investment
initiatives targeted at the local level (see Chapter 5 in this volume). As a
federal state, the power to determine environmental policy is divided among
the federal, state (Länder) and local authorities. Almost all states have their
own Ministry and their own legislative framework and funds. Thus, much of
the German activity did not fit the criteria for inclusion in the research,
which investigated centrally funded, government investment programmes
aimed at the promotion of sustainable development at the local level.
However, the research identified a very interesting and, as it turned out,
important national foundation that promotes sustainable development at the
sub-federal level in Germany – the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU).
Although not strictly speaking a central government initiative, in the sense
that it operates as a foundation, it was chosen for several reasons. First, it is
listed in the REGIONET National Report as one of the main federal initi-
atives dealing with sustainable development (Nischwitz et al. 2003). Second,
among the many initiatives listed in the Report, it was the only one with a
general sustainable development focus. Third, it is a long-standing initiative
that has sponsored a large number of projects. Fourth, it shared two
characteristics in common with another of the case studies, the UK Lottery.
Like the Lottery, the DBU is a (semi-)private organisation distributing
government funds to promote sustainable development. In common with
the UK Lottery, another of our case studies, it operates with a very large
 Promotion of sustainable development 61
budget and sponsors a diverse range of significant programmes. Like the UK
Lottery fund, not much is known about the DBU, and even less so outside of
Germany. Fifth, the DBU makes an interesting comparison with the Dutch
GIDO initiative, as both are foundations receiving public funding, but
acting as private sector organisations.
Established in 1990, the DBU claims to be the world’s biggest environ-
mental foundation, placing itself on a similar scale to the WWF (Baker
2005). It was established with an initial capital of 2.5 billion DM (C1.3
billion) from the privatisation of the steel group, Salzgitter plc, owned by
the Federal government. Annual profits from the initial capital are used to
support innovative environmental projects. Since 1991, the Foundation has
distributed C1 billion to fund almost 5,500 such projects. As a (quasi-)
autonomous body, the DBU can overcome some problems federal systems
have in using federal funds to support state-level initiatives. Here, funding
has to be large enough to cover all states and to do so equally, while at the
same time risk being interpreted as interference with the legitimate and, in
many cases, exclusive competence of the state level. The DBU has escaped
these problems.
While the DBU can be compared to the better-known-German Volkswa-
gen Foundation, it remains unique. It is the only environmental foundation
founded by the federal state, a fact that makes the staff rather proud (Baker
2005). Although its work is not subject to direct political pressure, there
appears to be a very close relationship between the Ministry of the Environ-
ment and the DBU, a relationship that has helped counterbalance the weak-
ened state of the Ministry following reunification (Baker 2005). In turn, its
relationship with the Ministry has enhanced the position of the DBU within
the German environmental policy arena. In contrast to its positive relation-
ship with the Ministry, there appears to be some rivalry between the DBU
and the Federal Environmental Agency, which has intensified with Agency
budgetary cuts following German reunification.
The DBU is obliged to ‘promote activities geared towards the protection
of the environment, devoting special attention to small and medium size
enterprises’ (Foundation Law 1990: §2 in Stockmann et al. 2001, own trans-
lation). Its overall aim is to help the integration of environmental protection
measures into production within small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Funding priorities are divided into chapters (Förderleitlinie). In addition,
several ‘priority themes’ or ‘special programmes’ (Förderschwerpunkte or Son-
derprogramme) have, from time to time, been introduced. These include, for
example, environmental consultancy services for the new federal states
following reunification, funding to support the use of wood as construction
material and funding for the development of biotechnology (DBU 2001).
Funding is dependent on the contribution a project can make to reducing
environmental degradation. However, unlike the UK Lottery Fund, there is
considerable scope for initiatives stemming from applicants themselves. The
DBU is also flexible in its application process. This is because they believe
62 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
that SMEs find it hard to compete for grants that require complex applica-
tion forms (DBU 2001). This stands in marked contrast to the complex and
rather daunting application process of the UK NOF, discussed below. In
terms of funding, projects tend to be relatively small (Baker 2005).
In the initial period of DBU operations, the term ‘sustainability’, while
much in use, referred merely to the permanency of programme effects. It was
not until the revision of the ‘guidelines of support’ in September 1998 that
sustainable development, understood in the more usual sense, was used as a
central guiding principle (DBU n.d.). Here, sustainable development requires
three key steps: (1) minimising consumption rates of natural resources
through improvements in resource use; (2) preventing the consumption rates
of renewable resources from exceeding their rate of reproduction; (3) prevent-
ing emissions from exceeding the regeneration and absorption capacity of
environmental media (DBU 2001 DBU www.dbu.de/364.html (accessed
January 2008)). This interpretation is closer to that of ecological modern-
isation, rather than sustainable development.
The state level appears to have no role in the operations of the DBU, or
its projects. However, the role of municipalities varies from programme to
programme, as does the involvement of community groups, the public
sector and other actors. The focus of attention on SMEs (in particular
environmental technology firms) has also been at the expense of the engage-
ment of civil society groups, including trade unions.
While SMEs represent the main target group of the DBU, the Founda-
tion nonetheless aims to increase understanding and acceptance of the
guiding principle of sustainable development at the local level. To this end,
in 1998 the DBU created a new priority topic, ‘Information about and
Implementation of Sustainability at the Local Level’ (DBU 2001, own trans-
lation). Municipalities are included among the target group for this activity,
especially given their role in LA21. However, while the DBU did initially
fund LA21 activity, this seems to have waned, in line with the general
decline in enthusiasm for LA21 in Germany (Baker 2005).

Funding sustainable development in the UK

In contrast to the Dutch, Swedish and Danish approaches, direct central
government funding for sustainable development is not in keeping with
‘new public management’ strategies adopted in Britain since the 1980s. The
coming to power of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 heralded the start of a long
period of neo-liberal policy, with strong emphasis on deregulation in all
policy fields. There was also a move away from government provision of
public services to provision from the private and voluntary sectors. This
‘new public management’ approach to governance reduced the power of local
authorities to provide strategic direction to local public services. In this
context, it is no surprise to find that UK funding for the promotion of sus-
tainable development reflects the importance given to the private and volun-
 Promotion of sustainable development 63
tary sectors. However, the source of funding is surprisingly novel, with the
UK National Lottery Fund a major sponsor of environmental projects and
playing a major role in funding the promotion of sustainable development
in the UK. This fact is not generally recognised either abroad or in the UK
itself.
The introduction of state-sponsored gambling is often accompanied by
spending on ‘good causes’ (Pickernell et al. 2004). The UK National Lottery
spends around 28 per cent of its revenue on such causes. As a result, the
Lottery has been able to make large sums of money available for major,
nationally important, demonstration projects, including within the environ-
mental arena. The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) of the National Lottery
is particularly interesting from an environmental perspective. The NOF was
created in 1998 to distribute grants for health, education and environment
initiatives. In 2005, the NOF was merged with other Funds into a new
body, the Big Lottery Fund. It is a public body ‘sponsored’ by the Depart-
ment for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The NOF receives about one-
third of Lottery resources going to ‘good causes’.
The NOF funds several types of Initiatives in England and Wales, includ-
ing the Transforming Communities Initiatives. Within these, there are
several programmes, each of which can in turn fund a wide range of projects.
Included within the Transforming Communities Initiatives are the Green
Spaces and Sustainable Communities, the Transforming Waste, the Trans-
forming Your Space and the Renewable Energy Projects programmes.
The ‘Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities’ programme was the
first NOF environmental programmes. It is designed to improve the quality
of life for people and communities, encourage community participation and
complement government strategies (NOF n.d.). It represents a major
government investment in the environmental sector (Baker 2005). It
exhibits a highly developed understanding of the social dimension of sus-
tainable development. In particular it makes clear links between the creation
of ‘green spaces’, such as parks and play areas, and the promotion of social
inclusion and community cohesion (Baker 2005). In this sense, it forms part
of the enhancement of social capital, discussed by Evans et al. in Chapter 3 of
this volume. However, the programme is weak on the environmental and
economic aspects of sustainable development. The understanding of sustain-
able development is limited to the social and environmental pillars, with
only a minority pursuing the economic pillar. Within that, the environ-
mental aspects are narrowly understood and poorly applied (Baker and Mill-
ward 2003). This emphasis on the social pillar of sustainable development is
in contrast to that found in Sweden and Germany, where strong emphasis on
the economic aspects of sustainable development (ecological modernisation)
often outweighs consideration of the social dimensions.
The skewed treatment of the three pillars of sustainable development can
be explained, at least in part, by the lack of direction from the NOF on the
broader meaning of sustainable development. It was not until 2003 that the
64 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
NOF published Taking forward Sustainable Development: A Policy Statement
(NOF 2003). This commits the NOF to promote sustainable development
as a grant giver by investing in programmes that specifically support sus-
tainable development principles. It also commits the NOF to working with
other local and regional initiatives to help create and maintain sustainable
communities (NOF 2003). However, the NOF has been slow to apply this
commitment in practice (Baker 2005).
The strong focus on the social pillar of sustainable development may also
reflect the expertise of the Award Partners. Award Partners are composed of
groups, including from the private, voluntary and local government sectors,
that come together specifically to distribute grants. This is in keeping with
the UK ‘new public management’ principles. Many of the Award Partners
have more experience in dealing with social exclusion and poverty, particu-
larly of children and the elderly. These findings are also in keeping with the
direction of central government steering, which has tended to prioritise the
social aspects of the ‘good causes’ stream. The advantage is that such steer-
ing creates strong synergy between central government priorities and
funding allocation. However, having spending tied too tightly to govern-
ment priorities can reduce the potential of the Lottery to support bottom-
up, locally generated innovation. In this sense, the NOF differs sharply from
the Danish and Dutch initiatives. More generally, it also means that NOF
spending reflects the low priority given to environmental considerations in
the present-day UK. This is consistent with the lack of dedicated attention
to the formulation and implementation of a sustainable development strat-
egy, as witnessed by the reluctance to set national environmental standards.
In addition, the perceived wisdom and established practices of Award Part-
ners can act as a barrier to the funding of innovative ideas. Award Partners
tend to fund few, but large, projects, which can hamper the participation of
small, local groups. In turn, locally based, more informal groups are less
likely to have the expertise to administer large scale projects. The sheer scale
of the size of project funding had made Local Authorities and well-
established charities and community organisations the main recipients of
funds.
The NOF has also seen limited bottom-up civic engagement, which is in
keeping with the fact that, unlike the other countries discussed in this
chapter, the UK does not have a strong tradition of public participation in
policy-making (Foley and Martin 2000; Lowndes and Wilson 2001). While
the British Local Government Act of 1999 introduced an obligation for
broad consultation and community involvement, this has proved difficult to
implement in practice (Akkerman et al. 2004). The experience with the dis-
tribution of Lottery Fund proves to be no exception, where most schemes
introduced under the NOF have proved to be top-down, at the project
development stage, with a subsequent, but slow, drawing in of the wider
community. Local Authorities have had, in many instances, to over-rely
upon a limited number of selected groups to help in programme delivery,
 Promotion of sustainable development 65
with a tendency to target previous grant holders for repeat grants. In this
context, there is a danger that using a top-down initiative to enhance
community inclusion can result in a negative perception of participation,
particularly where traditions of participation are already weak.

Analysis of research findings

In this section, the research findings are compared, both in relation to how
sustainable development is understood in our case studies, and in relation to
whether sustainable development has been promoted using traditional
methods of governing or through the use of new governance practices.

Sustainable development
The Dutch BUGM and, to a lesser extent, VOGM initiatives were driven by
a narrow, legislative approach towards promoting sustainable development.
Emphasis was placed on ensuring that local government reached national
sustainable development targets, as articulated in the NEPPs. These were
primarily concerned with reaching ecological targets, while the social and
economic pillars of sustainable development were not stressed. A very
similar approach was found with LIP in Sweden, where ecological goals
dominated. The current focus in the Netherlands, however, as evident in
GIDO, is on people’s use of a local area, where the interrelationships between
all three pillars of sustainable development are increasingly stressed. In con-
trast to the Dutch case, the dual focus in the Danish initiative on environ-
ment and employment helped to link the economic, social and
environmental pillars of sustainable development from the onset. Its success
supports the argument that job creation and environment protection meas-
ures are compatible aims of policy.
The UK case proved to be the exception, given the highly developed
understanding of the social pillar of sustainable development (social inclu-
sion, community involvement) within the NOF. More typically, however,
we have found that the strong emphasis on the economic aspects of sustain-
able development (ecological modernisation) often outweighs consideration
of the social dimensions. In the UK, while there is also a clear focus on the
local level as a site for promoting sustainable development, this was not
matched by strong participatory practices. In sharp contrast to the UK
understanding of sustainable development, the DBU has an ecologically ori-
entated approach more in keeping with the Swedish notion of ‘ecological
sustainability’ as witnessed in LIP.

Role of the different levels of government

Examples of both types of rewarding economic instruments were revealed in
our research. The first type, it will be recalled, uses central funding as a
66 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
means whereby the state enhances the capacity of local authorities and their
partners to implement nationally defined sustainable development strat-
egies, preferably both at a faster rate and with greater impact. The second
type aims at empowering the local level to act as an independent agent pro-
moting locally relevant sustainable development strategies.
The Swedish LIP provides a prime example of the first type of funding
instrument. The LIP, while supporting ‘bottom-up’ engagement with the
promotion of sustainable development, can more accurately be described as a
top-down initiative with bottom-up consequences. LIP did not help to over-
come some of the historically rooted environmental management weaknesses
present at the municipal level in Sweden. For example, LIP did not help
weaker municipalities to strategically position their sub-national actions
within the context of wider national policy and plans. Nor did it lead to
innovative, or autonomous, activity at the sub-national level. Nevertheless,
LIP did pave the way for limited multi-level government (albeit not gover-
nance) decision-making. The fact that the LIP unit within the Ministry was
not directly linked to the national expert agencies enabled a balance between
local and national priorities to be struck during programme delivery. Never-
theless, the Ministry’s control made the programme more of a top-down
initiative than had been initially envisaged by some.
The UK case provides the strongest examples of central government
steering. The strong link between the distribution of awards and govern-
ment policy has left little scope to influence the principles and funding
priorities, that is, the design stage of this initiative. In addition, the sheer
size of funding given to particular projects has tended to limit recipients of
funding to either Local Authorities and, or well-established charities and
community organisations. This has tended to diminish innovative and
independent actions, as was also the case in the German DBU. As in the case
of the UK, the German initiative devoted a high proportion of its funding
to government authorities.
In the Dutch case, the VOGM programme turned out to be a top-down
initiative geared towards the closure of implementation gaps at the bottom.
One of the surprises of this research was the discovery that central
government-funded schemes are seen as increasingly at odds with present
day principles of Dutch environmental planning. Here more attention is
given to the exercise of policy freedom and innovation at the local level in
pursuit of a sustainable future, as evident in the recent GIDO initiative,
albeit within a nationally constructed planning framework. In contrast, the
Denmark initiative was viewed more favourably at the local level. This was
largely because it was highly decentralised, in terms of programme design,
administration and delivery. The scheme fitted well with prevailing, Danish
beliefs in the importance of bottom-up, locally oriented approaches towards
the promotion of sustainable development. Central government steering was
at a minimum. The Danish initiative, despite attempts to impose central
steering mid-way through the programme, remained too decentralised to be
 Promotion of sustainable development 67
able to act as an agent of central government. With the exception of the
Danish case, it would appear that funding programmes have only been able
to stimulate local government to promote central strategies for sustainable
development.

Promoting new governance processes

All of the initiatives placed a great deal of emphasis on the need to develop
new ways of sharing responsibility for the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment, across multi-levels of governance and through multi-actor participa-
tion. All initiatives included a role for the business sector, public/private
partnerships, non-governmental organisations and the public.
Within the LIP initiative, engagement of non-governmental actors and
business proved to be limited at all levels. In the Netherlands, only the more
recent GIDO initiative provided a contrasting example. In the Danish case, a
flexible and open style of collaboration developed between those charged with
the administration of the scheme and those funded by it. The programme
funded grass-roots organisations, which proved to be a repository of feasible,
realisable innovation. Such local entrepreneurs were able to make a direct con-
tribution to shaping a sustainable future. Here, co-operation with other
bottom-up environmental initiatives, such as LA21, was also shown to be
important for programme success. While the UK has also made use of
public–private partnerships, they play a different role. By and large, these
partnerships are confined to the programme delivery (distributing funding). In
contrast, in the DBU there was considerable scope for initiatives stemming
from applicants themselves, particularly in the earlier years. Nevertheless, the
focus of attention on SMEs was largely at the expense of community-based
organisation, and groups. This can be explained, at least in part, by the tend-
ency in Germany to keep civil society at arm’s length from the policy process,
not least because of fears that the development of a participatory policy culture
can be at the expense of traditional forms of democratic practice.
Table 2.2 below summarizes the different approaches to the promotion of
sustainable development found in the case studies.
While the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK appear to emphasise a
broader spectrum of the three pillars of sustainable development, Sweden
and Germany remain focused on ecological modernisation. As for the
decision-making procedures and the role of central government, only
Denmark allows for substantive local discretion while both Sweden and the
UK can be characterised as mainly top-down initiatives. The other cases lie
somewhere in between. Finally, in relation whether new patterns of gover-
nance have emerged in the implementation of programmes, we argue that
similarities are found between the Netherlands and Denmark in creating
new opportunities for businesses and NGOs to become involved, whereas
Sweden, Germany and the UK follow more traditional paths of government
engagement and control.
Table 2.2 Patterns of engagement with the promotion of sustainable development

Sweden NL Denmark Germany UK

Sustainable Ecological Moving from All three pillars Primarily Strong on social pillar
development modernisation and ecological to all present from outset ecological
some employment three pillars modernisation

Central steering Strong in relation Moving from Highly Independent Strong central
to programme strong to weaker decentralised administration; government policy
design and initial steering over time initiatives close links to direction and steering
administration government policy,
especially following
reunification
New governance Limited use of new Increasing use of Strong bottom-up Limited use of Limited civil society
patterns patterns of governance partnerships and new engagement/weak new patterns of participation;
localism links to central governance involvement of
government or its established voluntary
policies sector; New Public
Management
 Promotion of sustainable development 69
Conclusion
The use of economic instruments tends to give central government a strong
and continuing role in the promotion of sustainable development. Yet, con-
tained within these instruments is a great deal of emphasis and indeed faith
in the mobilisation of sub-national, regional and local actors in pursuit of
sustainable development. The comparative analysis across the five countries
shows that some of the programmes remained central initiatives, formulated
by central government and implemented at sub-national level, while a con-
trasting approach was applied in the others with more emphasis on capacity-
building at the local level. Here, local-level actors provided sources of
expertise, embedded in small local firms, grass-roots organisations and
community groups, which enhanced efforts to facilitate the transition to a
more sustainable future. In this latter case, there was more room for the
practice of new forms of governance. The ‘catalysing’ effect of economic
instruments was also found to work best when their target groups are
allowed an active role in setting priorities, where the policy style and politi-
cal culture encourages active participation and where government efforts are
linked to on-going initiatives, particularly those related to LA21. When
comparing these findings, we are aware that account has to be taken of the
fact that the power of local government differs greatly from one state to
another, and as a result participatory opportunities may be present in one
country that are unrealisable given the administrative structures and policy
culture of another country.
The findings of our research point to the interconnections that exist
between the use of traditional governing tools, such as economic instru-
ments, and the use of new processes of governance, including multi-level
and multi-actor participation in policy processes. Even in those initiatives
subject to the strongest central government steering, the expectation of
government and indeed the practice of implementation relied upon a
complex mixture of actors, drawn from across different levels of government
and from the public and private sectors. In the UK case, the use of economic
instruments to promote sustainable development was influenced by new
public management approaches towards governance. This is also reflected in
the German case, in that the funding of sustainable development was
devolved to a quasi-private agency, albeit with strong links to federal
government through the environment Ministry. The Dutch, Danish and
Swedish cases showed evidence of a different model of ‘new’ governance
practice, one that relies more upon co-ordinating activities to promote sus-
tainable development through networks, partnerships and deliberative fora,
typically found at the micro and meso levels of municipalities, cities,
regional and industrial sectors. This turns our attention to on-going debates
about the most appropriate balance between central control and local auto-
nomy in the transition to a sustainable future.
In conclusion, we have found that governments’ use of traditional policy
70 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
tools, such as rewarding economic instruments, is closely linked with the
construction of new forms of partnership and shared responsibility. As such,
we caution against the tendency in the literature, particularly the research
on new instruments for environmental policy, to treat the rise of new gover-
nance as if it existed in isolation from the continued use of traditional policy
instruments. Indeed, we argue that so-called ‘old’ governance tools can be
used to promote new governance practices. In short, both forms of gover-
nance, traditional and new, are valued tools for the promotion of sustainable
development, especially given the belief that the development of new soci-
etal practices, such as partnership and shared responsibility, are essential
prerequisites for this task. Traditional government may even prove essential
to catalyse new efforts, in particular through the provision of economic
instruments that can reward investment in the pursuit of sustainable devel-
opment, be these investments directed at narrow consideration of efficiency
in resource use or broader aims of changing societal practices.

References
Akkerman, T., Hajer, M. and Grin, J. (2004) ‘The Interactive State: Democratisa-
tion from Above?’ Political Studies, 52: 82–95.
Andersen, M. S., Christiansen, P. M. and Winter, S. (1998) ‘Denmark: Consensus
Seeking and Decentralisation’, in K. Hanf and A.-I. Jansen (eds), Governance and
Environment in Western Europe, Harlow: Longman, 40–59.
Baker, S. (2005) ‘Project 3: LIP in Comparative Perspective’, in K. Eckerberg, K.
Dahlgren, A. Marell, N. Wahlström, S. Baker and A. Morley (eds), Understanding
LIP in Context: Central Government, Business and Comparative Perspectives, Report
5454, Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Baker, S. and Eckerberg, K. (2007) ‘Governance for Sustainable Development in
Sweden: The Experience of the Local Investment Programme’, Local Environment:
The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 4: 325–342.
Baker and Millward Associates (2003) Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities: Pro-
gramme Evaluation on Behalf of the New Opportunities Fund, first annual report,
March.
Berglund, E. and Hanberger, A. (2003) LIP och lokalt miljöarbete: en jämförande studie
mellan kommuner som fått och inte fått statligt investeringsstöd (LIP and Local Environ-
mental Work: A Comparative Study of LIP-supported and Non-supported
Municipalities), Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research, Evaluation Reports No.
12, Umeå: Umeå University.
CASA (2000) Ny grøn beskæftigelse i Danmark: Midtvejsevaluering af Den Grønne
Jobpulje, Copenhagen: CASA.
CASA (2001) Sociale Aspekter i Grønne Job, Copenhagen: CASA.
CASA (2002) Grønne Job i Danmark: Evaluering af Den Grønne JobPulje 1997–2000,
Copenhagen, CASA.
Christiansen, P. M. (1996) ‘Denmark’, in P. M. Christiansen (ed.), Governing the
Environment: Politics, Policy and Organisation in the Nordic Countries, Copenhagen:
Nordic Council of Ministers, 29–101.
Christiansen, P. M. and Lundqvist, L. J. (1996) ‘Conclusion: A Nordic Environ-
 Promotion of sustainable development 71
mental Policy Model?’, in P. M. Christiansen (ed.), Governing the Environment:
Politics, Policy and Organisation in the Nordic Countries, Copenhagen: Nordic
Council of Ministers, 337–363.
Clement, K. and Hansen, M. (2002) Environmental Incentives for Nordic SMEs, Stock-
holm: Nordregio.
Clinch, J. P. and Gooch, M. (2007) Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy:
http://www.economicinstruments.com (accessed 11 April 2007).
Coenen, F. (n.d.) Doelbereiking en Effectiviteit van de VOGM: Concept-arctergrondrapport
t.b.v.her evaluatied onderzoek van de VOGM (unpublished).
Coenen, F. (2000) ‘The Diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in the Netherlands’, paper
presented at the international workshop, ‘Diffusion of Environmental Policy
Innovations’, Berlin, December.
Danish Ministry for the Environment and Energy (2001) Årsberetning 2001: Den
Grønne JobPulje: www.mst.dk/gronjob.
DBU (n.d.) Preamble to Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, Osnabrück: DBU.
DBU (ed.) (2001) Innovationen für die Umwelt: 10 Jahre Deutsche Bundesstiftung
Umwelt, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Den Grønne Jobpulje (2001) Årsberetning 2000 – Den Grønne Jobpulje, Copenhagen:
Danish Ministry for the Environment, Den Grønne Jobpulje – Miljøstyrelsen.
Eckerberg, K. and Dahlgren, K. (2005) ‘Project 1: LIP in Central Government
Perspective’, in K. Eckerberg et al. (eds), Understanding LIP in Context: Central
Government, Business and Comparative Perspectives, Report 5454, Stockholm: Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency.
Eckerberg, K., Dahlgren, K., Marell, A. Wahlström, N., Baker, S. and Morley, A.
(eds) (2005) Understanding LIP in Context: Central Government, Business and Compar-
ative Perspectives, Report 5454, Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency.
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2004) Energy Subsidies and Renewables, Brief-
ing No. 2, Copenhagen: EEA.
Foley. P. and Martin, S. (2000) ‘A New Deal for the Community? Public Participa-
tion in Regeneration and Local Service Delivery’, Policy and Politics, 28, 4:
479–491.
Forsberg, B. (2005) I skuggan av lokala investeringsprogrammet (In the Shadow of LIP),
Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research, Evaluation Reports No 16, Umeå: Umeå
University.
GIDO (2002) Duurzaam Stedelijke Vernieuwing, Naarden: Gido Stichting.
GIDO (2004) Idereen op Kop: Basisstructuur: Rapportage van de zoektoch naar duurzaam
‘doen en leren’, Naarden: Gido Stichting.
Government of Sweden (1997/98) Ecological Sustainability, Stockholm: Government
Communication 1997/98: 13.
Government of Sweden (2000) Framtidens miljö – allas vårt ansvar (The Future
Environment – Our Common Responsibility) SOU 2000: 52, Committee on
Environmental Objectives, Stockholm: Cabinet Offices.
Hanberger, A., Eckerberg, K., Brännlund, R., Baker, S., Nordström, A. and Nor-
denstam, A. (2002) Lokala Investeringsprogram – en förstudie inför utvärderingen (LIP
– A Pre-Evaluation Study), Centre for Evaluation Research, Evaluation Report,
No. 10, Umeå: Umeå University.
Inspectie Milieuhygiëne (Inspectorate of Environmental Hygiene) (1997; 1998;
1999) Stand van Zaken Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid, in 1996/1997, 1998 (Status of the
72 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Municipal Environmental Policy in Respective Years), The Hague: Inspec-
tiereeks.
Jacobs, M. (1995) ‘Financial Incentives: The British Experience’, in R. Eckersley
(ed.), Markets, the State and the Environment: Towards Integration, Hong Kong:
Macmillan Press.
Jamison, A. and Baark, E. (1999) ‘National Shades of Green: Comparing the
Swedish and Danish styles in Ecological Modernisation’, Environmental Values, 8:
199–218.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. and Zito, A. R. (2003) ‘Comparative Conclusions –
“New” Environmental Policy Instruments: An Evolution or a Revolution in
Environmental Policy?’, Environmental Politics, 12, 1, Spring: 201–224.
Kåberger, T. and Jürgensen, A. (2005) LIP ur ett samhällsekonomiskt perspektiv (LIP
from an Economic Perspective) Report 5453, Stockholm: Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency.
Keijzers, G. (2000) ‘The Evolution of Dutch Environmental Policy: The Changing
Ecological Arena from 1970–2000 [sic] and Beyond’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
8, 179–200.
Kickert, W., Klijn, E.-H. and Koppenjan, J. (eds) (1997) Managing Complex Net-
works: Strategies of the Public Sector, London: Sage.
Lowndes, V. and Wilson, D. (2001) ‘Social Capital and Local Governance; Explor-
ing the Institutional Design Variable’, Political Studies, 49, 1: 629–647.
Lundqvist, L. J. (2001) ‘Implementation from Above: The Ecology of Power in
Sweden’s Environmental Governance’, Governance, 14: 319–337.
Marell, A. and Wahlström, N. (2005) ‘Project 2: The Role of Industry and Business
within LIP’, in K. Eckerberg et al. (eds), Understanding LIP in Context: Central
Government, Business and Comparative Perspectives, Report 5454, Stockholm: Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency.
Minister van Volkhuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM)
(1990) Bijdragenbesluit Uitvoering Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid (BUGM), The Hague:
VROM, 5 December, 601.
Minister van Volkhuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM)
(1995) Vervolgbijdrageregeling Ontwikkeling Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid (VOGM), The
Hague: VROM, 2 May, 256. See also: www2.nijmegen.nl/mmbase/attach-
ments/197374/R2006–003uitvoeringsprogramma_2006_Nijmeegs_milieubelei-
dsplan.pdf.
Nischwitz, G., Molitor, R., Bäumer, H. and Garthe, C. (2003) National Report:
Regional Sustainable Development (Germany. Institute for Ecological Economy
Research/Regionet, ftp.iccr-international.org/regionet/nr-germany.pdf.
NOF (2003) Taking Forward Sustainable Development: A Policy Statement, London:
NOF.
NOF (n.d.) Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities: Achievements and Challenges,
London: NOF.
OECD (2001) Making Growth More Environmentally Sustainable in Germany, Eco-
nomics Department, working paper no. 276, Paris: OECD.
Pickernell, D., Brown, K., Worthington, A. and Crawford, M. (2004) ‘Gambling as
a Base for Hypothecated Taxation: The UK’s National Lottery and Electronic
Gambling Machines in Austrialia’, Public Money and Management, 24 (3):
167–174.
 Promotion of sustainable development 73
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (1999) De VOGM en de ontwikkeling van het gemeenteijke
milieubeleid, Utrecht: CIP/SCM-3/AS/99542.
Remmen, A. (1995) ‘Pollution Prevention, Cleaner Technologies and Industry’, in
A. Rip, T. Misa and H. Schot (eds), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of
Constructive Technology Assessment, London: Pinter, 199–224.
Stockmann, R., Meyer, W., Gaus, H., Kohlmann, U. and Urbahn, J. (2001) Nach-
haltige Umweltberatung. Evaluation eines Förderprogramms der Deutschen Bundesstiftung
Umwelt, Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Swedish Ordinance (1998) Förordning (SFS 1998: 23) Om statliga bidrag till lokala
investeringsprogram som ökar den ekologiska hållbarheten i samhället, Stockholm: Min-
istry of the Environment.
Swedish Ordinance (2000) Förordning (SFS 2000: 735) Om ändring i förordningen
(1998: 23) om statliga bidrag till lokala investeringsprogram som ökar den ekologiska
hållbarheten i samhället, Stockholm: Ministry of the Environment.
Wandén, S. (2005) Vad kan vi lära av LIP? (What Can We Learn from LIP?),
Report 5478, Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
3 Institutional and social capacity
enhancement for local
sustainable development
Lessons from European urban settings
Bob Evans, Marko Joas, Susan Sundback and
Kate Theobald

Introduction
One of the key propositions of Chapter 28 of the 1992 Rio Declaration is
that the process of ‘good governance’ is a precondition for achieving sustain-
able development at the local level. The logic behind this proposition is
twofold. First, it is based upon the belief that the changes required to
achieve sustainable development are of such magnitude that they cannot be
secured by governments acting alone. It will be necessary to mobilize the
energies and initiative of citizens, interest organizations and stakeholders –
‘local communities’ – if changes in attitudes, values and behaviour are to be
secured. Second, the governance process is regarded as a key mechanism to
involve and incorporate citizens and local organizations into the decision-
making process, thereby increasing political engagement and levels of accep-
tance of decisions and policies for sustainable development.
Drawing upon the findings of the DISCUS (Developing Institutional and
Social Capacity for Sustainable Development) research project (Evans et al.
2005) this chapter considers whether the existence of governance processes at
the local level (in terms of local government capacity and civil society capacity)
are a prerequisite for policy capacity in relation to sustainable development. It
also considers the nature and influence of institutional and social capacity in the
development and implementation of sustainable development policies, through
an in-depth study of 40 European towns and cities.

Local governance for sustainable development

The rationale behind LA21 was that the changes implied in a move towards
more sustainable social developments are so immense that government alone
cannot impose them. It will also be necessary to mobilize the energy, cre-
ativity, knowledge and support of local communities, stakeholders, interest
organizations and citizens across the world. Fundamental to this ideal is the
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 75
assumption that open, deliberative processes, which facilitate the participa-
tion of civil society in making decisions, will be required to secure this
involvement.
Christie and Warburton succinctly argue the standpoint that governance
is central to the discourse on sustainable development:

the fundamental driver of sustainable development must be democratic

debate – decisions reached through open discussion, consensus based on
shared goals and trust. Sustainable development needs representative
democracy that is trusted and vibrant, and new forms of participatory
democracy to complement it that can inspire greater engagement by cit-
izens in creating a better world.
(Christie and Warburton 2001: 154)

Local governments can exercise legitimate authority – legal, financial and polit-
ical – within their defined geographical spheres. They can regulate, control,
invest and promote within their legal and political remit and responsibilities;
with effective leadership, both political and administrative, they may achieve
objectives well beyond their formal duties. These achievements may only be
realized through consultation, dialogue and participation (the process of local
governance) whereby local governments act to promote knowledge and under-
standing, to promote dialogue, and to mobilize resources and energy. It is
through such activities that local policies for sustainable development can gen-
erate public consent and support. It is this relationship between local govern-
ment and civil society, and specifically the relationship between institutional
capacity and social capacity, which forms the focus of this chapter.

Institutional and social capacity for sustainable

development
The internal patterns of behaviour and ways of working, as well as the
collective values, knowledge and relationships that exist within any organ-
ized group in society, may be referred to as institutional capacity. Institu-
tions that have high levels of such capital might reasonably be expected to
act effectively and efficiently and to demonstrate institutional vigour, initi-
ative and responsibility. In the context of sustainable development it might
be expected that such institutions would be proactive and enthusiastic in the
adoption of sustainable development initiatives. Actions can be taken to
support and nurture this process of learning, which is of crucial importance
for sustainable development because of the innovation that is required to
address the complex challenges faced. Indeed, as Nilsson and Persson (2003)
have pointed out, this course of institutional learning may be best under-
stood as a ‘double-loop’ process. The first ‘loop’ involves technical, or instru-
mental, learning within existing frameworks, whereas the second ‘loop’ of
learning involves conceptual changes across those frameworks.
76 B. Evans et al.
The complex ways in which sectors of civil society build and maintain
capacity (economic, social and mutual support) for action to promote the
needs of different groups is encompassed in the concept of social capital. The
concept has achieved wide usage in social science since it was popularized by
James Coleman (1988) and Pierre Bourdieu (1986), and further developed
by Robert Putnam (1993, 2000) and Francis Fukuyama (1995, 2001). Social
capital in this context refers to the collective capacity that has been built or
exists within a local context.
Putnam (2000) makes an important distinction between what he terms
‘bridging (inclusive) social capital’ and ‘bonding (exclusive) social capital’.
Bonding social capital is good for ‘getting by’. However, bridging social
capital is crucial for ‘getting ahead’– that is, making links between
groups/organizations in a more collective and co-operative sense. More
recently, Rydin and Holman (2004), reflecting on social capital in the
context of sustainable development, propose an extension of Putman’s cat-
egories by suggesting a third, that of ‘bracing’ social capital, which ‘is pri-
marily concerned [with strengthening] links across and between scales and
sectors, but only operates within a limited set of actors. It provides a kind of
social scaffolding’ (Rydin and Holman 2004: 123). In this scenario, Rydin
and Holman suggest that strategic links are formed between business actors,
local actors interested in sustainable development, and national level actors.
This ‘bracing capital’ could ‘reinforce the bridging capital between the
micro levels of state and society and the micro–macro linkages between local
and state government’ (p. 130), which in turn could present opportunities
for greater sustainable development policy capacity.

The interplay between institutional and social capacity

and its relevance for sustainable development
Commentators such as Maloney et al. (2000) and Lowndes and Wilson
(2001) have emphasized the role played by government institutions in the
creation and function of social capital. Furthermore, Rothstein (2001: 207)
notes that social capital can, in fact, ‘be caused by how government institu-
tions operate and not by voluntary associations’. Lowndes and Wilson
(2001) propose four interacting dimensions of what they term ‘institutional
design’ within local governance which shape the creation and mobilization
of social capacity. These provide a useful way of considering the interplay
between social and institutional capacity:

1 Relationships with the voluntary sector: this relates to the ways in which
local government supports and recognizes voluntary associations, and
whether the relationship is instrumental or underpinned by a demo-
cratic approach to local authority/voluntary-sector relationships.
2 Opportunities for citizen participation: well-designed political institutions
are crucial to fostering civic spirit as they provide the ‘enabling’ con-
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 77
ditions for this to develop. However, local authorities may, in practice,
rank service improvement as the main purpose of participation, ahead of
a broader agenda of citizen development and building social capital.
3 Responsiveness of decision-making: even where there are institutional
arrangements to involve citizens and groups in policy formulation,
social capital can only have an impact on democratic processes where
policy-makers have the capacity and willingness to involve civil society
in these processes.
4 Democratic leadership and social inclusion: extending participation can mean
more power for those already in advantaged positions. The relationship
between social capital and democracy is therefore shaped by the capacity of
governing institutions to listen to, and channel, the range of interests.

Based on the four points above, this interplay between local government and
civil society organizations should ideally result in tangible benefits both to
those involved in the policy process, and in terms of policy capacity. These
dimensions are considered in the discussion of the DISCUS research below.

Developing institutional and social capacities for urban

sustainability (DISCUS)

Methodology and research framework

The DISCUS research project was funded by the European Commission over
a three-year period (2001–2004). Eight partners from across Europe under-
took an in-depth investigation of local policies and practices for sustainable
development in 40 European towns and cities referred to from herein as
‘cases’. Thirty of these cases were drawn from local governments that had
demonstrated progress in local sustainable development. This was
demonstrated in two ways. First, they were previous winners of the Euro-
pean Sustainable Cities and Towns Award. This Award was designed by the
networks of the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign. Its
purpose has been to recognize the significant progress made by local authori-
ties in their sustainable development activities, raise awareness and mobilize
support for sustainable development, to highlight good examples and
encourage exchange of experiences and networking. Second, local authorities
had been identified as ‘good practice’ cases in earlier research by the same
consortium (see Evans and Theobald 2001 and Joas et al. 2001 for details).
These cases were selected on the basis that they showed evidence both of
tangible results in sustainable development policies and of governance
processes for sustainable development, such as an LA21 programme. The
remaining ten cases were chosen as a control group. These cases had no
explicit programme for local sustainable development, no known LA21
process and were not members of the European Sustainable Cities and
Towns Campaign or of other local sustainability networks (such as ICLEI).
78 B. Evans et al.
The selected cases were also considered in terms of their geographical
spread across Europe, and 21 countries are represented in the 40 cases. The
40 cases were divided between four ‘regions’ in Europe. These ‘regions’ were
devised for the purpose of the selection of towns and cities, and also as a
device for analysis of the data. The countries in brackets are those in which
there is at least one case.

Northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway)

Western Europe (UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France)
Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece)
Eastern Europe (Estonia, Russia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria,
Romania, Croatia).

The focus of the research was to analyze capacity for sustainable develop-
ment at the local level, and it is difficult to generalize on the national influ-
ence on this, from just one or two cases within a country. However, clearly
the national context was an influencing factor in many of the cases, and this
is noted in the analysis where appropriate.
Table 3.1 lists the 40 cases, divided into their ‘regions’.
The project research questions were:

1 What constitutes ‘success’ in urban sustainable development policy and

practice?
2 What are the factors and conditions that permit or obstruct ‘success’ in
local sustainable development policy and practice?
3 What constitutes ‘good governance’ for urban sustainable development?

The principal proposition of the research was that there is a relationship

between institutional capacity and social capacity within any society. This
interaction is a condition for democratic government, and even more so
where a society moves beyond the traditional mode of democratic rule, in
terms of engaging with modes of participatory democracy.
A related assumption in the research was that different forms of institu-
tional structures lead to different levels of institutional capacities for sustain-
able development policy-making. In a societal setting where (local)
government capacities are generally at a high level, one could also expect
that this would be the case in the sustainable development sector. This
approach builds upon the work of Jänicke and Weidner (1995), who list five
factors that explain environmental policy success:

1 structures: political, economic and cultural framework conditions for

policy action;
2 situations: specific situations steer the policy action;
3 actors: proponents and opponents of policy action;
4 strategies: capacities for planned and oriented policy action; and
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 79
Table 3.1 The 40 cases

Northern Europe Eastern Europe

1 Fredrikshavn, Denmark 1 Tallinn City, Estonia
2 Alberstlund, Denmark 2 Kuressaare, Estonia
3 Gotland, Sweden 3 Korolev, Russia
4 Falkenberg, Sweden 4 Anyksciai, Lithuania
5 Växjö, Sweden 5 Dunajska Luzna, Slovakia
6 Lahti, Finland 6 Gdansk, Poland
7 Stavanger, Norway 7 Veliko Turnovo, Bulgaria
8 South-west Finland Agenda, Finland 8 Orastie, Romania
9 Tampere, Finland 9 Baia Mare, Romania
10 Vantaa, Finland 10 Dubrovnik, Croatia

Western Europe Southern Europe

1 Durham County Council 1 Calvià, Spain
2 London Borough of Redbridge, UK 2 Granollers, Spain
3 Stirling, UK 3 Santa Perpetua de Mogoda, Spain
4 Dungannon and South Tyrone, 4 Barcelona, Spain
Northern Ireland, UK 5 Celle Ligure, Italy
5 Ottignes-Louvain la Neuve, Belgium 6 Province di Modena, Italy
6 Haarlem, The Netherlands 7 Fano, Italy
7 Munich, Germany 8 Ferrara, Italy
8 Hannover, Germany 9 Thessaloniki, Greece
9 Valenciennes, France 10 Beja, Portugal
10 Dunkerque Urban Community, France

5 time: important for investment and learning processes.

An assumption could also be made that a high level of social capital can be a
basis for a high level of sustainable development capacity within civil
society. Within civil society it is also possible to find independent capacity-
building measures, but we would expect this activity to be less important.
However, it is expected that joint capacity-building measures with (local)
government may have a greater likelihood of leading to sustainable develop-
ment policy outcomes or policy capacity.
Within the DISCUS research framework there were four different com-
ponents under consideration: institutional capacity, social capacity,
capacity-building, and sustainable development policy ‘success’, or policy
capacity. Using these components four governance scenarios were
developed, as a basis for undertaking the fieldwork in the 40 cases, and for
analyzing the findings.

1 ‘Dynamic Governing’ for sustainable development describes a situation

where the higher the levels of both social and institutional capacity, the
greater the likelihood of sustainable development policy capacity.
80 B. Evans et al.
2 ‘Active Government’ is where the local government institutional struc-
tures have clearly included the goals of sustainable development within
their activities. This kind of government can, from a theoretical point of
view, be viewed as (eco-)efficient in that it is making clear attempts to
implement sustainable development policies but it may not be engaging
in any meaningful way with civil society.
3 ‘Passive Government’ would, in practice, mean policy failure for sustain-
able development policies at the local level, although local governments
may be successful in implementing some environmental policies as
required by national government. Local action and innovation in the
environmental arena (and more broadly sustainable development pol-
icies) would however be restricted. This situation is likely to remain
unchanged, as there seems to be low pressure from civil society for
change due to low levels of social capacity.
4 ‘Voluntary Governing’ is where the functions of local government are only
meant for routine tasks, although there could still be low positive outcomes
for sustainable development. Capacity building for sustainable develop-
ment would tend not to be carried out by local governments, and instead
distributed by and through civil society actors. There may be high levels of
social capacity, but, without the support and capacity of local government,
the policy capacity for sustainable development would be very low.

Table 3.2 Arranges these categories of governance.

Table 3.2 Relationship between social and institutional capacity, capacity-building

measures and sustainable development policy capacity

Social capacity Institutional capacity for sustainable development

for sustainable
development Higher Lower

Higher Dynamic governing Voluntary governing

→ Active sustainable → Voluntary sustainable
development capacity- development capacity-building
building → Low possibility for sustainable
→ High possibility for development policy capacity
sustainable development
policy capacity

Lower Active government Passive government

→ Medium level of → Low/no sustainable development
sustainable development capacity-building
capacity-building →Sustainable development policy
→ Medium or fairly high failure
possibility for sustainable
development policy capacity
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 81
Data collection and analysis
This section provides an overview of the methods employed for the research,
in order to provide the necessary context to the findings (for a more detailed
description of the methodology see Appendix A in Evans et al. 2005).
In order to address the research questions, the following approaches to
data collection were employed within the 40 cases:

• Questionnaires to ascertain local government officers, politicians and

stakeholder organizations’ perceptions of local progress with sustainable
development.
• Semi-structured interviews with local government officers and politi-
cians, and representatives of stakeholder organizations, to assess the
types of institutional and social capacity existing in the locality.
• Document analysis (in conjunction with questionnaires and interviews)
to assess the levels of policy capacity and capacity-building for sustain-
able development.

A maximum of eight interviews were conducted in each case, split between

local government and civil society organizations. Local government cat-
egories were:

1 A leading politician (representing the majority party – for example, the

Mayor).
2 An opposition politician to gauge the opinions of a politician in a differ-
ent role
3 A senior officer dealing with strategic issues – for example, the chief
executive or city manager.
4 A senior manager with responsibility for sustainable development policy.

For the interviews with civil society organizations, fieldworkers identified

respondents who were actively engaged in the sustainable development
policy processes. Fieldworkers were required to select from the following
groups (and to cover at least two of these categories):

1 Groups or organizations ‘active’ in the local community – for example,

young people’s organizations, ethnic minority groups, women’s groups,
religious/faith groups and parents associations.
2 Local business or industry (or organizations representing these sectors).
3 Environmental or social NGOs.
4 Semi-official or formal organizations – for example, the local media,
universities, police, health organizations and trade unions.

Following analysis of the data, the 40 cases were then ranked, within
their ‘region’, on their levels of institutional capacity, social capacity and
82 B. Evans et al.
capacity-building and policy capacity. Their ranking was based on the evid-
ence provided in the interviews (and from the fieldworker case report) on the
existence of these different components. The findings presented below on
the policy capacities of local governments, and on the nature and extent of
institutional and social capacities, are also discussed within the framework of
the two reporting protocols for this book: sustainable development, and new
forms of governance.

Policy capacity for sustainable development

The main areas of policy capacity for sustainable development are set out in
Table 3.3.
Those cases with the highest levels of policy capacity were spread across
the Western, Southern and Northern regions, with Hannover, Munich,
Calvia, and Gotland judged to have the highest levels out of all the 40 cases.
The sector where progress was most evident (in all cases, even the ‘top’
scoring ones) was environmental policies. The environmental emphasis is to
be expected as it relates to local authorities having the most freedom and
opportunity to act on environmental issues. In some instances, the environ-
mental arena may be seen as the most urgent, for example in terms of man-
aging risk, or mitigating the effects of industrial pollution, or in other cases
environmental sustainability is seen as the route through which to tackle

Table 3.3 Areas of policy capacity for sustainable development

Environment Climate protection

Energy efficiency
Renewable energy
Transport
Nature protection
Water management
Waste management
Improving environmental practices within local government
and its institutions
Environmental policy tools

Social equity Mobility

Education
Services for vulnerable groups
Employment initiatives

Economy ‘Greening’ business and industry

Regulating business and industry
Local production
Fair trade
Local environmental taxes (for tourists and citizens)
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 83
social equity and economic development issues. However, there are examples
of towns and cities that are moving to an integrative approach to sustainable
development, incorporating the social and economic dimensions, in a range
of innovative policies and projects.
Environmental policy tools or initiatives that prioritize the environment
were evident in a number of cases. For example several local authorities were
using the Environmental Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) approach.
The province of Ferrara was involved in the Ecobudget initiative (developed
by ICLEI). Other local authorities were adopting schemes around the notion
of ‘eco-profit’ and ‘eco-Audit’. The use of ecological footprinting as a frame-
work for policy development was also evident in several cases. While these
tools and initiatives are focused on the environment, it appears that they
were not operating in isolation from other policies for sustainable develop-
ment, and were part of a broader context of promotion and integration of
sustainable development principles within local authorities.

Enhancing institutional capacity for sustainable

development
The research identified a number of areas of institutional capacity that were
associated with high levels of policy capacity for sustainable development.

Role of key individuals or groups

The findings from the 40 cases emphasized the role of key individuals
(acting alone or within a team) driving a local sustainable development
process forward. Examples were Falkenberg’s Local Agenda 21 officer
(Sweden), a team of dedicated staff, as in Dunkerque Urban Community
(France); and elected senior politicians (including Mayors – Ferrara (Italy),
Barcelona Province (Spain), Valenciennes (France), Calvia (Majorca in the
Balearic Islands), and Dunajska Luzna (Slovak Republic). In cases such as
these, both officers and politicians were prepared to prioritize long-term sus-
tainable development goals and to take often unpopular decisions in support
of this. In one particular case (Calvia in Majorca), there was strong political
commitment to sustainable development from the former Mayor (whose
party was in power for 20 years until the 2003 elections), and the local
authority had been proactive in driving forward sustainable development
policies and actions. There was evidence of mainstreaming of sustainable
development into the culture of the local authority, yet, with the shift to a
different political party in 2003, it was unclear whether this momentum
would be continued.
Those cases with higher policy capacity also tend to have committed
senior staff and politicians, who are prepared to prioritize long-term sustain-
able development goals and are linked to the political commitment and
vision necessary to take often unpopular decisions. Committed politicians
84 B. Evans et al.
and officers were also found to be important in terms of capacity-building
for sustainable development, as they are often the link between local govern-
ments and civil society organizations, helping to bring in outside expertise
and new ideas to local government policy processes. The findings strongly
indicated that those local governments with capacity-building processes in
place tended to also be proactive in establishing and maintaining partner-
ships and alliances both within their own organizations, and with external
organizations.

Mainstreaming a sustainable development ethos

There was evidence of a mainstreaming of sustainable development prin-
ciples in several of the case studies (many of which also had evidence of high
policy capacity). One of the main indicators of this was the establishment
of a ‘horizontal’ organizational structure aimed at encouraging cross-
departmental working and a stable environment for sustainable development
policy-making; and the adoption of sustainable development principles for
internal practices, such as eco-procurement. In Ferrara (Italy), the local
authority had integrated ‘green’ purchasing across all departments. Vantaa
in Finland had developed an environmental budget, and in Hannover
(Germany), environmental services were networked between all the Direc-
torates, indicating a commitment to integrating the environment across all
areas of policy-making. In Fano (Italy), there was evidence that their LA21
had been instrumental in the development of greater cross-departmental
links. There were several examples of training programmes for sustainable
development for both officers and politicians. For example in Haarlem
(Netherlands) and Dunkerque (France) specific budgets had been allocated
for training initiatives on sustainable development.
The impetus for sustainable development innovation may be lost, or at
least slowed, when a key individual leaves a local authority. The process of
mainstreaming a sustainable development ethos within institutional cul-
tures is quite slow, usually extending far beyond a normal electoral term of
office. Much of this process is about institutional learning, whereby organi-
zations do not have to continually ‘reinvent the wheel’. This ensures that, as
personnel change, knowledge and practices remain locked within the insti-
tution and can be built upon as circumstances change.

Multi-level networking
Given the high proportion of ‘good practice’ cases in the project, it is not
surprising to find that most of these 30 cases were active in city networks for
sustainable development and that they tend not to have deeply parochial
attitudes. The towns and cities that are consistently high in achievement are
those that have worked in European networks, such as the Climate Alliance,
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and Eurocities, or cross-
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 85
national networks such as the Scandinavian Green Flag initiative. Involve-
ment in such networks, the attendance of politicians and officers at national
and international conferences and other events arranged by these organi-
zations, and participation in initiatives such as the European Sustainable
Cities and Towns Award presents examples of good practice and experience
across Europe which can, in turn, be interpreted and implemented locally.
Examples of multi-level networking in the cases were Tampere (Finland) and
Thessaloniki (Greece) which are both members of Eurocities. Eurocities was
one of the city networks involved in the European Sustainable Cities and
Towns Campaign, and represents a number of larger cities within Europe.
Thessaloniki is a member of Medcities, a regional city network of Mediter-
ranean coastal cities created in 1991. Its main focus is to strengthen the
environmental management capability of local governments and to identify
areas where collaborative working between local governments could improve
regional environmental conditions. Medcities is also one of the networks
involved in the Campaign. A further area for networking is through partici-
pation in European conferences on local sustainable development, for example
those organized by the Campaign, such as ‘Aalborg plus 10’ in 2004, regional
conferences, national or cross-national conferences and workshops arranged by
LA21 associations, or conferences disseminating the results of European
research projects (for example in Gdansk and Lahti). A number of the cases
had adopted high-profile marketing or ‘badging’ strategies – for example,
becoming a ‘fossil fuel-free city’ or ‘eco-city’ (Växjö, Gotland and Falkenberg
being examples of the latter). This indicates a level of self-confidence and it
provides an opportunity for a city to showcase itself and its achievements. In
addition to any marketing advantages that this might achieve (such as
tourism or attracting employers), such strategies can also foster ongoing
achievement because expectations, both within local government, and civil
society, have been built up and need to be maintained.
The inference here is that outward-looking local governments recognize
that their responsibilities extend beyond their local areas, and that there are
clear advantages to actively involving themselves in initiatives at national
and European levels. However, there are some exceptions to this – for
instance in countries with strong centralized national governments local
governments may not feel that it is to their advantage to participate in
international initiatives.

Interaction with other levels of government

Local authorities’ engagement with regional, national and European levels of
government is an opportunity for local government to influence future
funding and programmes for sustainable development, and to find support
for the introduction of sustainable development principles within legisla-
tion. National legislation and policy priorities are key drivers in the sustain-
able development field, and although local governments may pursue
86 B. Evans et al.
innovative and adventurous policies without central government support,
policy capacity may be greater when this support is present. In particular
the research indicates that the intensity of institutional capacity at local
level is, in large part, related to the level of autonomy granted by the
national level to local governments (and/or to the regional/provincial level).
This is particularly evident in the Nordic cases, and those in Italy and Spain.
The relationship with regions – for example, the Province level in Italy and
Spain – appears to be strong in many of the higher achieving case studies,
and here there also tends to be strong links to the European level. Even in
those countries where national government is acting in support of sustain-
able development – for example Sweden – the sustainable development links
that local governments have are mainly with the regional and European
levels and are less strong with national government. These findings on the
complex nature of the relationship between the local and national levels of
government reflect the discussion by Baker and Eckerberg in Chapter 2.
They refer to the role of government investment programme in directing
funding for capacity-building to local government, and in promoting a less
reactive role for the local level in developing their governance procedures. In
addition, Berger and Steurer in Chapter 1 suggest that there is a shift in
focus in national sustainable development strategies towards stronger inclu-
sion of the sub-national levels of government – described as ‘vertical policy
integration’.

Institutional capacity in relation to the two reporting

protocols
The level and scope of institutional capacity identified in many of the cases
suggests the existence of several of the characteristics listed under the sus-
tainable development and new forms of governance reporting protocols, pro-
vided in the Introduction.
The research findings show that interaction with other levels of govern-
ment is important for sustainable development policy capacity. However,
the strong relationship is often between the regional and the local level and
not between the local and national level. This is evident even where the
commitment at the national level to sustainable development appears to be
high. In relation to the long-term nature of sustainable development policy-
making, the research shows that that there is a recognition of the long-term
approach required, but that policy-making tends to still be linked to the
political cycle.
The use of environmental policy instruments is evident in many of the
cases. This increased use of such instruments could indicate a move away
from a purely sectoral approach to policy-making, with local governments
starting to address broader sustainable development concerns through these
instruments. However, it is also possible that in some cases (those with
weaker institutional capacity) the environment was still the main focus,
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 87
with a lack of integration with economic development and social equity
issues.
The policy capacity of local governments is related to the financial
resources, but also to the legal and financial powers that local governments
are given, including flexibility to make decisions on how to allocate
resources. Local governments that retain the political and administrative
capacity to act in the interests of sustainable development, appear to be
more confident and proactive in their policy decisions for sustainable devel-
opment. In addition, the research indicates that effective functioning local
government is important in the development and maintenance of institu-
tional capacity for sustainable development, particularly in terms of cross-
sectoral working and the integration of sustainable development across
departments.
Where we have ranked institutional capacity as high (based on interview
responses from both civil society organizations and local government), there
is evidence in these cases of policy transfer and learning. This is occurring in
terms of multi-level networking, both between local governments, but also
between local government and civil society. These findings concur with
Kern’s analysis (in Chapter 5) of local governing for sustainable development
through policy transfer and diffusion.

The ‘regional’ and national perspective on enhancing

institutional capacity
At the level of the four ‘regions’, Table 3.4 shows the number of cases in
each region with low, medium, and high levels of institutional capacity
identified.
The findings suggest that government capacity level is low in the cases in
Eastern Europe. The highest levels of institutional capacity were evident in
the Northern Europe cases, particularly those in the Nordic cases. In both
the Southern and Western European cases we found a diversified picture

Table 3.4 Institutional capacity (qualitative assessment)

Number of cases Local government capacity Total

Low Medium High

Northern Europe 2 4 4 10
Southern Europe 5 2 3 10
Western Europe 6 0 4 10
Eastern Europe 10 0 0 10
Total of cases for each category 23 6 11 40
% 57.5 15.0 27.5 100.0
88 B. Evans et al.
with cases showing high levels of capacity but also cases that lacked capac-
ity. There may be a number of reasons for these variations, such as the matu-
rity of a representative democracy, the level of support by national
government for sustainable development policies, and the powers and
resources provided to local governments.

Social capacity for sustainable development

In considering the nature of social capacity within the 40 cases, the research
focused particularly on stakeholder organizations representing key sectors of
local society. This decision was based upon the premise that it is these
organizations that constitute the ‘engaged actors’ in sustainable develop-
ment policy-making, rather than individual citizens. The findings suggest
that in those cases that have high sustainable development policy capacity
there are high or medium levels of civil society organization activity and
knowledge regarding sustainable development issues within the locality.
Particular sectors that were found to be supportive of and involved in sus-
tainable development policy processes across the 40 cases were:
The local media: this was mainly in the form of local newspapers, with
examples of a supportive press being found in Albertslund (Denmark),
Gotland (a Swedish island), Stavanger (Norway), and Korolev (Russia).
Universities and the education sector: examples of this were in Tampere
(Finland), Växjö (Sweden); Korolev (Russia), and Santa Perpetua de Mogoda
in Spain.
Business and industry: there was a number of cases where there was a strong
relationship between this sector and local authorities, in support of sustain-
able development. The ‘expansive Växjö’ initiative was aimed at linking the
local authority and business in promoting and delivering sustainable devel-
opment. Another of the cases – the city of Fredrikshavn in Denmark – was
working with businesses on energy saving initiatives. In Italy, Modena
Province was involved in promoting the adoption of EMAS to small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and Calvia in Majorca was working closely
with the hotel industry to improve the local environment.
In several cases there was evidence of the local authorities having a high
profile in the locality, both in terms of demonstrating the importance of pol-
icies for sustainable development, and in taking policy decisions that were
not the ‘easy’ option, but which made explicit the municipality’s commit-
ment to sustainable development and to taking actions to achieve this.
These local authorities were also engaged in providing relevant and ‘user-
friendly’ information to citizens on local sustainable development issues and
policies. In summary, those cases showing clear evidence of sustainable
development policy capacity are also those with evidence of sustainable
development capacity-building initiatives and approaches, aimed at making
civil society aware of the progress and policies that are being implemented.
The research findings show that where there was evidence of strong gov-
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 89
ernance processes for sustainable development and where there was also evid-
ence of policy achievement in this field, those local governments also tend to
have a high level of fiscal, legal and political autonomy. This includes active
engagement of civil society in local decision-making processes, for example
in the cases of Ferrara in Italy, Calvia in Majorca, and also some of the
Scandinavian cases.
There were a number of examples of projects involving the local authority
working with the private sector, for instance co-operation between local
authority and car-sharing agency (Hannover); co-operation between local
authority and industry on creating green spaces (Haarlem); working with busi-
nesses and public utilities on climate energy initiatives (Southwest Finland
Agenda); working with business on recycling projects (Dubrovnik); promotion
of environmental practices in business and industry (Durham County Council);
working with business on sustainable tourism (Calvia); eco-profit initiative for
farmers and for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) (Falkenberg, Han-
nover). There are a number of examples of local authorities supporting and pro-
moting the development of other civil society sectors, for instance through the
initiatives such as ‘Green Daily Life’ and ‘Greenday’ in Stavanger (Norway),
and also its ‘Green City’ initiative. In the majority of those cases where there is
a university in the municipality: Korolev (Russia), Tampere, Santa Perpetua
de Mogoda (Spain), Växjö – there also seems to be a strong link between the
local authority and individuals within the university. The university often
supports the local authority in developing the sustainable development agenda
through providing expertise and advice on policy development, being
involved in the relevant forums, as well as including sustainable development
aspects in their teaching curriculum.
The research findings show that where policy capacity is higher, there
also appears to be a greater ‘buy-in’ to, and involvement with, local govern-
ment policy-making and action by sectors in civil society such as the local
media, universities, business, and industry, and environmental and social
NGOs. In such cases it appears that local government recognizes the contri-
bution that civil society organizations can make to the sustainable develop-
ment process, and, in turn, those groups recognize that they can have some
influence. These findings reinforce the idea of ‘bracing’ social capital (Rydin
and Holman 2004), where a strong relationship is formed between a limited
group of actors with an interest in local sustainable development issues.

Social capacity in relation to the two reporting protocols

The findings detailed above, on the nature of social capacity for sustain-
able development provide evidence of the existence of more formalized
links between local government, private sector organizations, industry,
NGOs, universities, and the local media specifically geared towards the
implementation of local policies for sustainable development. Such co-
operative relationships may have already existed in many areas of local
90 B. Evans et al.
Table 3.5 Civil society capacity (qualitative assessment)

Civil society capacity Total

Low Medium High

Northern Europe 5 3 2 10
Southern Europe 7 2 1 10
Western Europe 6 3 1 10
Eastern Europe 8 2 0 10
Total 26 10 4 40
% 65.0 25.0 10.0 100.0

policy-making, without the impetus of the sustainable development

agenda. However, the findings suggest that the development of practices
to enhance decision-making processes, and strengthen the relationship
between civil society and local government, has in many instances been in
response to the Local Agenda 21 principles. One aspect of this appears to
be a greater awareness by local governments of the relevance and import-
ance of adopting effective participatory processes within decision-making
processes.
Table 3.5 presents the ranking of civil society capacity (in terms of
organizations), split into the four regions.
The research team found only four cases with high levels of civil society
capacity. In 65 per cent of cases the capacities of civil society to successfully
participate in local policy-making processes for sustainable development
were limited, both in terms of the capacities of organizations and the
options for co-operative policy-making efforts. The level of capacity in the
Eastern European cases was lower than in the other three regions. Neverthe-
less, the capacity level in general was found to be low.
However, it is important to emphasize that in many of the cases there is
evidence, both within the local authorities and in civil society organizations,
of a willingness to activate or engage in a range of capacity building initi-
atives within the local setting. In more than half of the cases there were
examples of capacity building in relation to sustainable development.

The relationship between institutional, social and policy

capacity
Based on their ranking in terms of institutional, social and policy capacity,
as well as capacity-building, these cases were then located in one of the four
categories of governance, as Table 3.6 shows.
Ten cases (25 per cent) fell into the category of Dynamic Governing, seven
cases (17.5 per cent) fell into the category of Active Government; 19 cases
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 91
Table 3.6 Categories of governance

Governance categories Total in each category %

Dynamic governing 10 25.0

Active government 7 17.5
Passive government 19 47.5
Voluntary governing 4 10.0
Total cases 40 100

(47.5 per cent) fell into the category of Passive Government, and four cases (10
per cent) fell into the category of Voluntary Governing.
The research found that to a large extent, the group of ‘reference’ case
studies fell under the passive government category, while the majority of
‘good practice cases’ fell into the dynamic governing category. This suggests
an association between sustainable development policy capacity at local
level, and the existence of capacity-building measures for sustainable devel-
opment by local governments.
The highest levels of policy outcomes are evident in cases that were catego-
rized as ‘dynamic governing’. This is where there is a local government with
high or fairly high level of capacity to act for sustainable development
working together with a civil society that is not only permitted to participate
but which also has a fairly high level of capacity to act. The highest level of
policy outcome is to be found in those cases that show patterns of dynamic
governing or at the least, active government. Effective or dynamic governing
for sustainable development is most likely to occur when governments work
closely with civil society agents in a process of governance, whether this is by
stimulated by Local Agenda 21 or some other process. Moreover, ‘success’ or
policy capacity is also directly related to the inventiveness, leadership, know-
ledge and skills of local government politicians and officials.
Results (but to a lower extent), can also be achieved if local government is
active in terms of developing its own capacity for delivering sustainable
development – but not taking civil society fully into account. Passive gov-
ernments, only carrying out routine tasks, are clearly lagging behind in
terms of policy capacity for sustainable development. Active civil society
organizations and interest groups can, to some extent, help this process; but
progress may still only be marginal.

Conclusions
The research findings show that where there is evidence of strong gover-
nance processes for sustainable development (including active engagement of
civil society in local decision-making processes) and where there is also evid-
ence of policy achievement in this field, those local governments also tend to
92 B. Evans et al.
have a high level of fiscal, legal and political autonomy. However, this is not
simply a case of equating autonomy with achievement. What appears to be
happening is that when local governments are granted higher levels of auto-
nomy and independence, they respond to this by being more proactive and
adventurous in their policy-making and implementation. Self-confidence,
conviction and self-awareness seem to increase in line with levels of
autonomy.
It is clear from this research that local government is the primary ‘mover’
for local level policies towards sustainable development. Our research has
shown that in order to achieve policy outcomes we must always expect an
active government. This can lead the way towards greater cooperation with
civil society – creating possibilities for civil society stakeholders to partici-
pate in the policy process. Capacity-building measures will, in addition,
enhance their capability in participating in the policy-making process. This
process does not replace the traditional representative democratic process.
Instead it appears that it adds an intensity dimension to the political
representation.
As the discussion above has emphasized, the key agency for initiating
change is local government itself, and, as the history of LA21 in Europe over
the last decade has clearly shown, very little would have happened without
the energy, leadership and commitment of local government politicians and
officials (Evans and Theobald 2001, 2003).
The current emphasis upon governance within the sustainable develop-
ment discourse serves to conceal more than it reveals. The DISCUS research
clearly demonstrates that governance and government are the two inter-
twined but distinct elements of the process of governing. ‘Governance’ alone
cannot adequately convey the substance of the process of governing which,
when it is effective, involves both the active involvement of local civil
society and the leadership and commitment of local government. ‘Gover-
nance’ underplays the essential role that local governments have to play in
innovating, supporting and nurturing sustainable development (and for that
matter most local policies). In our terminology, ‘governance’ alone is
unlikely (for it needs government to stimulate and support it), and ‘govern-
ment’ without ‘governance’ cannot generate the local resources, support and
energy needed to deliver outcomes in the complex policy environment of the
early twenty-first century. As the DISCUS research has indicated, the two
elements together can create a process of governing which can promote and
sustain real policy progress.
The research also supports the proposition of Lowndes and Wilson (2001)
and others, that governmental action, or the application of institutional
capital, can support the creation of social capital, and as argued by Rydin
and Holman (2004). By the same token, it seems likely that the reverse is
also true – that activity and action within civil society can support the
building of institutional capacity. Thus, as with governance and govern-
ment, institutional capital and social capital can exist in a symbiotic rela-
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 93
tionship, although, as has been seen above, this is not inevitably so. Never-
theless, in the case of sustainable development policy, the intensity of tan-
gible policy achievement is almost always linked to a high level of dialogue
between local government and civil society.
According to Agenda 21, local government is ‘the level of governance
closest to the people’ and it is therefore best placed to pursue the sustainable
development goal of local action within a global context. To a large extent,
the DISCUS research substantiates this position. Local governments in
Europe have been remarkably proactive in their pursuit of sustainable devel-
opment – in many cases, in the face of national government apathy or even
opposition. Certainly, on the basis of the 40 towns and cities studied, it is
possible to conclude that local government has been the principle motor for
change, mobilizing local agencies and resources to secure objectives.
Although other local actors have also been active, little can be achieved
unless local government is supportive, and in most cases, it is from here that
the initiative has come.
The main point is that those local governments who show the widest
range and greatest intensity of achievement are also those who have recog-
nized their central role in promoting and taking action on sustainable devel-
opment issues. These local governments are setting the agenda and being
proactive in establishing and maintaining partnerships and alliances both
within the local authority itself and with external organizations. Local
government may be able to achieve change on its own. However, those cases
where there are high levels of achievement are also those where some level of
social capacity and a relationship between local government and civil society
organizations exists. Governance is certainly central to sustainable develop-
ment but only as one part of a process of governing.
The discourse of sustainable development – from the Brundtland Report,
through Rio and Agenda 21 on to the Johannesburg World Summit – has
undoubtedly changed the context and content of local political activity, in
Europe at least. The processes of local government and governance have been
significantly influenced by this discourse. Although it is easy to dismiss this
as mainly comprising rhetoric – ‘capacity building’, ‘empowerment’, ‘parti-
cipation’, and ‘partnership’ – the evidence of this research strongly suggests
that the discourse of sustainable development has promoted a ‘new way of
working’ for many local governments in Europe and elsewhere. In many
ways the key and dominant message of Local Agenda 21 has been governance
– an emphasis upon changing process and practice in the relationships
between local governments and their citizens, interest organizations and
stakeholders.
The discourse of sustainable development has helped to open up a new
political space within many European local governments, legitimized
through the vocabulary contained in Agenda 21 and promoted implicitly
and explicitly by researchers in the field, by practitioners and policy-makers,
and changes in the values and priorities of the wider society during the last
94 B. Evans et al.
decade and a half. This new way of working is not and will not be confined
to the sphere of sustainable development policy-making. It may be ambi-
tious to ascribe to the sustainable development discourse – and specifically
the proclamations of Local Agenda 21 – the role of ‘driver’ of these new ways
of working and new governance arrangements. Nevertheless, these initi-
atives and the associated political imperatives together have provided a
rationale and legitimation for such changes. Sustainable development may
not be the only driver, but has undoubtedly been a key force in promoting
change in governance arrangements at the local level in Europe.

Note
The DISCUS research project was co-funded by the European Commission’s
Directorate-General for Research Fifth Framework Programme, 1998–2002,
Thematic Programme: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Key
Action: ‘City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage’, Contract Number EVK-
4–2001–00103.

References
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
241–258.
Christie, I. and Warburton, D. (eds) (2001) From Here to Sustainability: The Politics of
the Real World, London: Earthscan.
Coleman, J. S. (1988) ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American
Journal of Sociology, 94, Issue Supplement: ‘Organizations and Institutions: Soci-
ological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure’: 95–120.
Evans, B. and Theobald, K. (2001) Local Authorities’ Self Assessment of Local Agenda
21 (LASALA): Accelerating Local Sustainability – Evaluating European Local Agenda
21 Processes, Vol. 1, Freiburg: ICLEI.
Evans, B. and Theobald, K. (2003) ‘LASALA: Evaluating Local Agenda 21 in
Europe’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 46, No. 5:
781–794.
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S. and Theobald, K. (2005) Governing Sustainable
Cities, London: Earthscan.
Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New
York: The Free Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2001) ‘Social Capital, Civil Society and Development’, Third World
Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1: 7–20.
Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (eds) (1995) Successful Environmental Policy: A Critical
Evaluation of 24 Cases, Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Joas, M., Grönholm, B. and Måtar, T. (2001) Local Authorities’ Self Assessment of Local
Agenda 21 (LASALA): Accelerating Local Sustainability – Evaluating European Local
Agenda 21 Processes, Vol. II: Identification of Good LA21 Processes, Freiburg: ICLEI.
Lowndes, V. and Wilson, D. (2001) ‘Social Capital and Local Governance: Explor-
ing the Institutional Design Variable’, Political Studies, Vol. 49: 629–647.
Maloney, W., Smith, G. and Stoker, G. (2000) ‘Social Capital and Urban Gover-
 Institutional and social capacity enhancement 95
nance: Adding a More Contextualized “Top-down” Perspective’, Political Studies,
Vol. 48, No. 4: 802–820.
Nilsson, M. and Persson, Å. (2003) ‘Framework for Analysing Environmental Policy
Integration’, Environment Policy and Planning, Vol. 5, No. 4: 333–359.
Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rothstein, B. (2001) ‘Social Capital in the Social Democratic Welfare State’, Politics
and Society, 29, 2, June: 207–241.
Rydin, Y. and Holman, N. (2004) ‘Re-evaluating the Contribution to Social Capital
in Achieving Sustainable Development’, Local Environment, 9, 2, 117–133.
Part II
Engaging in governance
for sustainable
development
4 Institutional capacities for
sustainable development
Experiences with Local Agenda 21 in
Spain
Kenneth Hanf and Francesc Morata

Introduction
It is not enough to ‘want’ sustainable development; it is also necessary to
have the capacities to do the kinds of things that are required to realize sus-
tainable development. In addition to asking what sustainable development
means, it is necessary to consider the procedural and organizational ques-
tions raised by a serious commitment to this path of societal development. If
sustainable development is not an ‘end state’ or a set of characteristics of a
‘sustainable society’, attention has to be addressed to the process by which
communities collectively decide what sustainable development means for
them and how they are going to proceed in promoting such a pattern of
development (Baker 2006). Consequently, not only the ‘what is’ question,
but also the ‘how to’ question needs to be addressed. From this perspective,
sustainable development is not a ‘thing’ but rather it is a way of doing
things, which will need to become the normal and natural way of ‘arranging
our “affairs” at the local level’ (Evans et al. 2005). This raises questions
regarding necessary changes in the institutional arrangements and manage-
ment practices of a local authority. There are a number of things that must
be done (functional requirements) in order to produce the kinds of policies
and actions necessary for moving a community along more sustainable paths
of development. Taking these kinds of actions – both on the collective,
group and individual levels – is likely to require us to adapt existing institu-
tional arrangements (and ways of doing things) or develop new organizations
and procedures, as well as ways of thinking and acting.
In this chapter, the experiences with sustainable development in a
number of local authorities in Spain are examined to determine to what
extent they possess the institutional capacities for this purpose. We are espe-
cially focusing on the measures taken to institutionalize political commit-
ment to the objectives of sustainable development. In the following section,
the analytical concepts of ‘institutionalization’ and ‘institutional capacities’
for sustainable development are elaborated. These are then applied to data
100 K. Hanf and F. Morata
gathered from a recent survey of Spanish local governments regarding their
efforts to organize the transition to sustainable futures.1 On the basis of this
information, the chapter concludes with some general comments regarding
the institutionalization of sustainable development in these communities.

Governance for sustainable development: a question of

institutional capacities

Functional imperatives and institutional prerequisites

Whether or not a given political community has adequate institutional
capacities for pursuing effectively a policy of sustainable development will
depend on the extent to which it possesses institutional arrangements and
procedures for performing these functions. Discussions of state capacity tend
to focus on generic capabilities of government to make and enforce policy.
In particular, this means looking at the presence and quality of effectively
functioning legislative and administrative institutions, appropriately trained
staff, adequate financial and technical resources, as well as mechanisms for
gathering, analysing and communicating information. Also of importance is
the legitimacy of these institutions in the eyes of the citizens. In his discus-
sion of ecological modernization, Jänicke (1997) stresses the importance of
‘environmental capacity’ as a precondition for addressing environmental
problems effectively. When Evans et al. (2005) analyse institutional capacity
at the local level, they examine ‘the factors and conditions for sustainable
policy achievement’ (2005: 65; see also Chapter 3, this volume). What is at
issue here is a specific case of the more general phenomenon of institutional-
ization of a new policy commitment in an organization, including proce-
dures and management practices of the local government system. This also
entails the mobilization of support and involvement of the relevant social
and economic actors, together with the more general public.
In recent research on sustainable development at the local level in Spain,
the concept of capacity was related specifically to the institutional prerequi-
sites implied by the ‘logic’ of this particular policy. This means that the
institutional capacities can be derived from the functional prerequisite of
effective governance for sustainable development. A list of the functional
imperatives that need to be met by the policy process for sustainable devel-
opment can be extracted from the discussion in the literature of the precon-
ditions for ‘getting the process right’ through which collective decisions on
sustainable development are taken and carried out. In the research reported
on here the focus is on the several key aspects of the institutionalization of
governance for local sustainable development.
First, of crucial importance is the nature of the political commitment to
sustainable development in the local authorities. This involved getting the
commitment onto the local political agenda and situating this commitment
in relation to established policies and plans. It is clear that sustainable devel-
 Capacities for sustainable development 101
opment, as a new policy area, does not enter an empty policy and institu-
tional space. What this new policy commitment means, the place it comes
to occupy in the institutional framework and relationships among actors will
be the result of its confrontation with already existing organizations, ways of
doing things, habits of mind and power relationships.
Second, we explore the different types of instruments that these local
authorities are using in order to implement their commitment to sustainable
development within their jurisdictions. We are particularly concerned with
efforts to stimulate the integration of environment considerations into social
and economic policy. Such instruments encourage taking into consideration
the environmental impacts in strategic and operational decisions by making
evident the costs or benefits (monetary or otherwise) of such decisions. In
this way, actions detrimental to the environment can be discouraged and
those that cause less environmental impacts promoted.
One instrument of particular significance in this regard is strategic plan-
ning by municipal authorities. The focus of this third part of the survey was
on determining to what extent such plans articulated an explicit vision of
local sustainable development and, thereby, formed an integrated framework
for defining and co-ordinating medium-term programmes and operational
activities to achieve the objectives of these plans.
Fourth, the research was aware that, at the heart of all versions of sustain-
able development is the requirement that decisions on environmental pro-
tection, economic development and social progress be taken in an
‘integrated manner’. We were therefore interested in whether policy action
in each separate sphere was decided and undertaken under explicit
consideration of the impact of actions in one area on activities and develop-
ments in the others. Local governments need to have a capacity for develop-
ing integrated policies of this kind, where a premium is put on joint action
to combine the specific resources and action possibilities behind a co-
ordinated effort.
Another functional imperative of the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment on which there is general agreement is that the decision process should
provide opportunities for extensive participation by stakeholders and the
general public. In this sense, the system of governance for sustainable devel-
opment needs to provide multiple access points for extra-governmental
actors. In addition to the patterns of external participation, the survey also
gathered information on the extent and modes of internal participation by
administrative officials from the local government.
There is also general agreement on the importance of two aspects of the
system of multi-level governance for sustainable development. First of all,
there is the crucial position that local government takes in the overall
process. At the same time, it is necessary for local authorities to be able to
establish and manage their relations with other levels of government, as well
as with governmental actors at the same level. The roles played by actors
from different levels of government and the patterns of inter-governmental
102 K. Hanf and F. Morata
relations joining one level with the others will vary with the characteristics
of the general political systems within which local authorities operate. This
issue formed the sixth focus of concern in our research.
Finally, our research was premised on awareness that the promotion of
sustainable development is a long-term process. As such, it needs to
combine the stability of long-term strategic planning with the flexibility
required to respond to changes in the socio-economic and technological
context, collective understandings and preferences and emerging opportun-
ities. Communities require a capacity for managing the dynamic evolution
of the relationships between long-term objectives, medium-term pro-
grammes of implementation and short-term decisions for daily governing. A
precondition for the successful co-ordination of different time horizons of
governance is a capacity for social learning.

Research methods
The research reported on here gathered and analysed data on the institu-
tional framework of local authorities in Spain, in order to draw conclusions
as to how adequate these organizational arrangements, procedures and prac-
tices are for the implementation of a strategy of sustainable development at
this level. Of particular interest were those intra-organizational and inter-
organizational changes that had been introduced as a result of attempts to
develop and implement a Local Agenda 21 (LA21) initiative in the munici-
palities.
The data was collected from two sources. First a questionnaire, consisting
of both closed and open questions, was mailed to the official responsible for
the environment of all Spanish municipalities with a population of 50,000
or more inhabitants.
Approximately 50 per cent of the total Spanish population lives in towns
and cities of this size. Of the 122 questionnaires sent in the winter of
2000–2001, 63 were returned, a response rate of roughly 56 per cent. The
results from this survey commented upon in the following sections are
particular relevant for those Autonomous Communities in which 50 per cent
or more of the municipalities surveyed responded. Many of the non-
respondents are found in Autonomous Communities which are, on other
measures, less active with regard to environmental issues. It should be kept
in mind that, while earlier studies of LA21 in Spain looked at experiences in
a limited number of municipalities of all sizes (Font and Subirats 2000), our
project considered municipalities of 50,000 inhabitants and above. This
makes it difficult to compare the results of the different studies.
A second source of information was a set of case studies examining the
experiences of eight Spanish municipalities with the integration of a sustain-
able development perspective in their strategic planning activities. The cases
were selected from the survey sample as examples of municipalities that had
finished their LA21 Action Plans and had embarked on the implementation
 Capacities for sustainable development 103
of these strategic programmes. At the time of the survey, 10 local authori-
ties – of the 38 municipalities that had already undertaken some action with
regard to LA21 – had already completed a LA21 Action Plan and had begun
implementation. From these, eight cases were selected that scored high on
both a political commitment to sustainable development and actions taken
to translate this commitment into a strategic plan. These municipalities
represented a sub-set of ‘best practices’ (or at least ‘most advanced’) with
regard to LA21. Five of these are located in Catalonia, with four in the
province of Barcelona.

Institutional capacities: the case of Spain

Sustainable development and the local political agenda

A basic prerequisite for the implementation of a strategy for sustainable
development at the local level is the establishment of a political commit-
ment at the highest level of local government in order to make clear that the
path to local development gives a central role to the environment. In this
regard, 80 per cent of the local authorities surveyed claim that sustainable
development occupies a place on the local political agenda. As can be seen
from Table 4.1, the same percentage affirms that they are parties to some
kind of document committing them formally to this objective.
The formal incorporation of sustainable development as an objective on
the local political agenda is something that has occurred since 1996 and in
large part is related to accession to the Aalborg Charter. Signing this
Charter represents a voluntary commitment on the part of the local actors
with the intention of giving an impulse to the integration of the environ-
ment into local policies, especially by means of launching the LA21 process.
However, the inclusion of sustainable development on the local political
agenda will not, by itself, have serious practical implication unless it is
accompanied by decisions which set concrete objectives or targets together
with deadlines for achieving them. As can be seen from Table 4.2, 43 per
cent of the formal commitments mentioned above were not accompanied by
the setting of such targets and deadlines. Even those with such objectives
did not always specify a deadline for achieving them.
Another indicator of the degree of importance that municipal govern-
ments attach to sustainable development in local policy is the provision of
funds to undertake actions to realize this policy. Table 4.2 indicates that, of
municipalities setting concrete targets (although not necessarily concrete
deadlines for reaching them), only 22 mentioned having specific financing
for these sustainable development activities. Even in those cases, however,
this financing referred primarily to sectoral activities of environmental pro-
tection and the execution of environmental audits of the municipality.
The data also suggests that some confusion exists among a group of
respondents who equate financing of activities directed toward sustainable
Table 4.1 Documents signed in connection with formal political commitment of local authorities to sustainable development

Item on local Formal statement Municipal Signed Aalborg Local agenda Incorporated into
political agenda on sustainable environmental Charter 21 documents local strategic
development declaration or charter plan
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

48 12 53 11 4 48 41 11 29 23 17 35
Note
Multiple answers are possible.
 Capacities for sustainable development 105
Table 4.2 Budgetary allocations for sustainable development in municipalities

Targets and deadlines for realization Budgetary allocations have been made for
of sustainable development sustainable development

Yes No Totals

Neither concrete targets nor 8 18 26

deadlines
Concrete objectives 9 7 16
Concrete objectives and deadlines 13 5 18

development with budgetary resources for the unit of environmental admin-

istration. More than 10 per cent of the respondents assumed that the mere
existence of environmental unit and its activities was equivalent to pursuing
sustainable development.
In sum, in light of the information collected, the data indicates that there
is growing support for sustainable development though, for the most part,
Spanish local authorities are still in the preliminary phases of such a process.
There exists a formal commitment to the objective of sustainable develop-
ment in the majority of municipalities responding to these questions.
However, these formal commitments frequently are not accompanied by
concrete actions and the allocation of financial resources to pursue the
objectives of sustainable development.

Instruments of local environmental policy

Progress toward sustainable development at the local level requires the use
of instruments that stimulate the integration of the environment into eco-
nomic and social decisions. The environment has to become ‘visible’ in the
economic and social spheres, both public and private. This section presents
information on the types and scope of the predominant instruments used by
local authorities in their attempt to promote environmental policy integra-
tion and sustainable development.
In the majority of the municipalities that responded on this point, the
instruments most often used were those that had a strong training and infor-
mational component (environmental education for citizens, for the munici-
pality’s employees, or advising of business firms). A large number of
municipalities use environmental indicators in connection with their stra-
tegic planning activities, especially with regard to the LA21 initiatives.
Indicators are developed to guide the audit and diagnostic work preliminary
to the formulation of LA21 Action Plans. They also play a central role in the
monitoring and evaluation of implementation efforts.
Another set of prominent instruments is connected with initiatives that
seek either to co-ordinate or to integrate social objectives (for example,
106 K. Hanf and F. Morata
integration of marginal social groups, access to paid work for long-term
unemployed) with the development of activities related to the maintenance
or protection of environmental quality (such as, reconditioning of river
channels, selective collection of urban waste, recycling facilities, and street
clearing). A large number of respondents indicated that they use measures
aimed at ‘creating employment in environmental activities or with a high
environmental profile’.
The incorporation of environmental criteria into the activities and man-
agement of municipal enterprises, agencies or services, the provision of
environmental advice to firms, and the location of environmentally-friendly
firms in the community, can be qualified as ‘emerging instruments’. That is
to say, these instruments are not yet widely used but there is growing
interest in them. Green purchasing is seldom applied even though there is
much talk of introducing it in the medium term. Internal environmental
audits and environmental management systems in the local administration
are not used to any significant degree in the communities studied.
More ‘classical’ economic instruments have proven more difficult to intro-
duce. These include: economic incentives (either financial or fiscal) directly
related to environmental criteria; funds of risk capital for promoting
environmentally-friendly projects; the development of eco-industrial parks;
signalling and rewarding good environmental practices in firms; eco-taxes;
and linking economic support for firms to conditions to be met with regard
to environmental quality. It is unlikely that such instruments will be used
in the medium term.
The local authorities in our group of respondents do not use any formal
instrument for strategic environmental evaluation of the policies for eco-
nomic development. Those that mention this sort of evaluation were merely
referring to assessments of the environmental impact of concrete projects
(not policies) in compliance with existing sectoral legislation.
The propensity to use instruments for environmental education and
information and for the creation of environment-related employment, can be
largely explained by the short-term economic costs associated with their use.
By contrast, training and information instruments are easier to implement
because they do not involve trade-off between economic and environmental
objectives in the short run. Moreover, environmental education and training
are considered to be fundamental for generating attitudes, opinions and
behaviours more supportive of sustainable development. However, the ulti-
mate impact of such instruments will be slight, unless they are accompanied
by economic instruments that affect in a more direct manner the dynamics
of production and consumption.

Local sustainable development and strategic planning

There are signs that environmental quality is beginning to be taken into
consideration as an objective either of local developmental strategies or as
 Capacities for sustainable development 107
one parameter among others that is considered when developing such strat-
egies. This can be a sign of the increasing importance of the environment in
local discourses on development. It is an indication of a certain awareness of
the need to define visions of local development in terms of combining goals
of economic development and environmental quality. However, the evidence
obtained from the survey on this point suggests that the environment is still
a peripheral issue as far as strategies for local development are concerned.
The answers given by the respondents as to which priorities should be
satisfied by local development we find, in the first place, social objectives
(such as the improvement of social services and the creation and mainte-
nance of employment) followed by economic goals (stimulation of invest-
ment) with environmental objectives (environmental protection) bringing
up the rear. Those factors directly related to economic growth were con-
sidered to be of highest strategic importance (in either positive or negative
terms) for local development by the majority of respondents. In order of
importance, these included price and availability of land and buildings,
transportation infrastructure, image of the area, and the quality of the labour
force. Environmental quality was not considered to be a relevant strategic
factor for local development.
The sectoralized strategic vision is not surprising if we take into considera-
tion the way in which the kinds of problems faced by the municipalities are
perceived. A large majority (73 per cent) of the respondents defined the most
important problems from a departmental perspective. When environmental
problems were mentioned, the respondents defined them in terms of the
impacts that were visible, without raising questions as to the socio-economic
causes of such impacts. To the extent that problems were defined in terms that
related one sphere of action to another, these linked the economic and the
urban development sectors, on the one hand, and urban planning and the
environment, on the other. Traditionally there have been strong political and
administrative relations between economic growth and urban growth, and
between urban planning and environmental quality (green zones, noise,
declining or run-down neighbourhoods). In this sense, inter-sectoral problem
definitions tend to follow channels of communication and procedures already
in use with respect to traditional patterns of local development.

Urban strategic plans

The relatively marginal position of the environmental problematique in con-
trast to the central position of the objective of economic growth in the local
political agenda can also be observed in the extent to which the environment
is taken into consideration in strategic instruments for planning local devel-
opment. The Strategic Plan of a municipality and its LA21 Action Plan are
instruments for making manifest the vision that the local actors (public as
well as private) have for the future of their community. This vision is
expressed as a shared medium-term project consisting of more or less
108 K. Hanf and F. Morata
concrete objectives, together with the measures and deadlines for achieving
them. Local Strategic Plans are firmly rooted as instruments of urban gover-
nance in Spain and have traditionally been used to articulate objectives of
economic and social development. In recent years, the growing visibility of
the environment in the urban debate, principally in relation to the commit-
ment to sustainable development, has led to the incorporation of environ-
mental concerns as a strategic objective in these plans. Still, however,
environmental issues have been added as a separate set of considerations
alongside – and even at the margins of – the fundamental objectives and
measures of economic development.
By 2001–2002, 28 of our 63 responding municipalities had a local Stra-
tegic Plan (in preparation, in force or under revision), but only 12 of them
contained a strategic line of action dealing with the environment. Two had
evaluated the environmental impact of the other socio-economic strategic
lines of action. In other words, environmental problems tend to be con-
sidered primarily as aspects related to concrete traditional issues of local
environmental management, such as the management of municipal, indus-
trial and dangerous wastes, the treatment of waste water, and the control of
atmospheric emissions. Very few treat the environment as a strategic value
or factor of local development.

Local Agenda 21 initiatives

In general, the response to LA21 by the different levels of government in
Spain has been slow and uneven. Central government has remained at the
margin, leaving these initiatives in the hands of the regional and local
authorities. While some autonomous communities have adopted measures
designed to give an impulse to LA21 within their territories, they have not
played a significant role in the take off of LA21 in Spain (Mezo 2005). The
responses of municipalities of different sizes have also been uneven: some
have done nothing while others have played a dynamic role. Nevertheless, it
has been the local level that has been most active (Font et al. 2001).
As of 2001, 53 per cent of the responding municipalities were engaged,
to some extent, in the LA21 planning process. The majority of these local
authorities were still in the preliminary diagnostic phase. Only 14 authori-
ties were either busy with preparing the Local Action Plan or engaged in
implementing it. It is interesting to note that of the 14, the Catalan munici-
palities included in the group of respondents, eight were already busy with
implementing their LA21 Action Plan.
The LA21 Plan of Action is supposed to serve as a strategic plan for sus-
tainable development, integrating economic, social and environmental
dimensions of community development. In practice, however, in the major-
ity of cases we find a sectoral plan of action – an environmental plan of
action – alongside plans dealing with social and economic matters, instead
of an integrated plan for a transition toward sustainable paths of develop-
 Capacities for sustainable development 109
Table 4.3 Location of municipalities in different phases of the LA21 process

Preliminary phase of process 24 53%

Elaboration or approval of LA21 plan of action 4 9%
Implementation and monitoring 10 22%
No answer 7 16%
Total 45 100%

ment. In Catalonia (and elsewhere) the very title of the LA21 plan, Environ-
mental Action Plan, gives the game away. In some cases, there exists a
complementary relation between the strategic plan and the environmental
plan of action produced by the LA21 process. However, this clearly does not
mean that the degree of required integration has been achieved. In general,
our data reinforce the conclusion drawn by other researchers that most
municipalities do not view LA21 as an instrument of strategic planning that
incorporates the concept of sustainable development. On the contrary, the
majority have used it to identify environmental needs or simply to paste the
etiquette ‘sustainable’ on pre-existing environmental interventions (Font et
al. 2001: 108). In the initial round of LA21 planning, attempts to produce a
more ‘integrated’ plan involved little more than incorporating already-
existing or anticipated social and economic programmes and projects into
the Action Plan.
As far as the introduction of LA21 initiatives at the local level is con-
cerned, the Catalan municipalities occupy a clear position of leadership vis-
à-vis the rest of Spain, with the exception of those municipalities located on
the Canary Islands and, to a lesser degree, in the Communities of Valencia
and the Basque Country. In fact, 94 per cent of the municipalities in Catalo-
nia that responded to the questionnaire are engaged in an LA21 process.
There are 21 cities in Catalonia with a population of more than 50,000
inhabitants. Of these 17 responded to the questionnaire and 14 were under-
taking LA21 initiatives.
In large part this ‘Catalan phenomenon’ can be accounted for by the co-
operation and exchange of resources between these local authorities and the
Department of the Environment of the government of the Province of
Barcelona. Municipalities in this province have received economic and tech-
nical support from the provincial government (Diputació de Barcelona) for the
development of their Agenda 21. In this sense, one can speak of a ‘Diputació
méthode’ which these cities (and later many others) have followed, even
though this general methodology has been adapted to the characteristics of
the particular local situation. In this context, the provincial Department of
the Environment has served as an important mechanism of policy transfers –
together with the appropriate techniques – with regard to promoting LA21
in the province. Together with the inter-municipal network for the
exchange of information and experiences set up by the provincial environ-
110 K. Hanf and F. Morata
mental unit, this programme of support has been a crucial channel of policy
transfer between these two levels of government (See also Kern, Chapter 5 in
this volume).
This ‘Diputació méthode’ looks a lot like the eight-phase model produced
in connection with the Aalborg Charter. However, in contrast to the Euro-
pean model, in practice it structures the municipal audit and problem diag-
nosis almost completely in environmental terms. The process of strategic
planning for sustainable development thus becomes defined as environ-
mental management.
The other (non-Barcelona province) cities in our case study have under-
taken LA21 processes very different from one another, even though they
have in common that these actions have emerged from – or are based on –
the strategic plans of the city. Regardless of this close relation with more
general strategic planning, the LA21 action plans have tended to place
emphasis on environmental quality and the protection of natural sur-
roundings.

Participation in strategic planning and the implementation of

LA21 action plans

External participation
In the municipalities located in the Province of Barcelona, a crucial factor in
the LA21 planning process was the role played by external experts (consult-
ing firms). These experts set out the technical aspects of the eco-audit and
diagnosis, with some input from the administrative staff of the municipal-
ity. The external consultants were also responsible for formulating the draft
action plan which served as the focus for the subsequent debates and discus-
sions among government officials and the community.
Despite the central role of these experts, the municipalities varied with
respect to the role played by governmental and societal actors in the prelimi-
nary phases of the planning process. In some cases they participated in the
diagnostic activity and in the formulation of the draft plan. In other cases,
they reacted to the finished planning document prepared by the technical
experts. In both cases, commissions and public forums were established to
structure the debate over the draft plan and to achieve consensus on the
vision of sustainable development for the community. This process of con-
sultation usually had two elements. First, it involved some kind of mixed
commission for representatives of city government and key stakeholder
groups in the community, which worked closely with the external experts
and provided channels of communication and input during the drafting
phase. Second, an Environmental Forum provided an arena for more general
public consultations on the draft plan. Here, in the plenary meetings and
sessions of working groups, interested citizens (and groups) had an
opportunity for debate and deliberation on the LA21 Action Plan.
 Capacities for sustainable development 111
Internal participation
The case studies make clear the importance of including the different
departments or administrative units in the problem diagnosis and formula-
tion of the draft action plan. Also participation of the officials who will ulti-
mately have to implement the strategic plan is crucial for its success. Such
participation serves as a way to channel local expert input into the analysis
underlying the strategy. It also serves a number of other functions in prepar-
ing the ground for its successful implementation: familiarization with the
problems of sustainable development and the impact of this policy on their
own sectoral tasks; practice in the habits of co-operation and co-ordination
across sectoral lines; and generation of feelings of ownership as a result of
close and active involvement in the planning process. It appears from the
case studies that this internal participation paid off in preparing some of the
staff for the changes in work habits and attitudes required for efforts to
achieve integrated and cross-cutting results in the implementation phase.

Mechanisms for co-ordinated and integrated action

When undertaking local initiatives to link economic development and the
environment, Spanish municipalities confront a series of obstacles. Respon-
dents stressed the importance of effective communication and co-ordination
between the different functional units within the local authority. They
pointed to shortcomings in the internal organization of local administration.
Of course there were problems with competing priorities and the pressure
meeting the demands made upon personnel and financial resources. Another
important obstacle was the perceived absence of support from supra-local
actors. This suggests critical gaps in the system of multi-level co-operation
and collaboration. This complaint was less likely to be voiced by Catalan
municipalities, which profited from active support from the provincial
government.
Given the limits of budget and competences of local units, elaboration
and implementation of strategies for local sustainable development require
the support, both financial and technical, of higher levels of government.
Other data shows, in this regard, that the principal sources of external
financing for local projects of this kind are European funds. Of the 47
municipalities responding on this point, 38 have received financial assistance
from the EU as well as from their own Autonomous Community. There has
been scarcely any financial support from either the central government or
the provincial governments. An important exception to this has been the
province of Barcelona, which has set up an inter-municipal network to
provide technical and financial support for processes of LA21 in the munici-
palities located within its territory.
The sectoral perception and the lack of centrality given to environmental
problems on the local political agenda have already been noted. This is not
112 K. Hanf and F. Morata
Table 4.4 Perceived obstacles to the integration of the environment and economic
development

Important/very important % of Obstacles of less or % of

obstacles responses little importance responses

Internal organization 76 Lack of time 64

Lack of habit of co-ordination 72 Lack of information 61
Other, more important priorities 71 Lack of necessary
political consensus 59
Lack of supra-local support 66 Lack of qualified
administrative staff 55
Lack of financial resources 65

surprising when the limited degree of inter-departmental co-ordination

within local administrations is taken into consideration. Municipal technical
officials signal the characteristics of internal organization and the absence of
habits of co-ordination as the principal obstacles at the moment to develop-
ing local initiatives to join economic development and the environment. As
will be seen below, even where such co-ordination is found, it tends to be
irregular and focused on specific concrete issues or actions.

Inter-departmental co-ordination
Local sustainable development requires a systematic and integrated vision of
the local problems. It needs a vision in which, on a local scale, the relations
are identified between social, economic and environmental factors, objectives
and impacts, as well as the development of integrated strategies dealing
with the symptoms as well as the causes of the local problems. This integ-
rated approach has to be taken on board in the institutional design and func-
tioning of the local administration. Traditionally, the structure of local
administration in Spain, as in most other countries, has been characterized
by vertical hierarchy, departmentalization and the thematic segregation of
function into watertight boxes. In this sense, there are departments of eco-
nomic promotion, urban development, social affairs, cultural affairs and so
forth. During the decade of the nineties, the large majority of municipalities
were restructured organizationally in order to provide institutional support
for the new policy commitments to environmental protection. This restruc-
turing in general has taken the form of a new sectorally organized technical
department and a councillor for the environment appointed at the executive
level. Consequently, in the responding municipalities the large majority
have separate departments of economic promotion, environmental protection
and urban development.
Efforts to pursue the objective of sustainable development have subse-
quently been grafted on to this pre-existing system, with only marginal
 Capacities for sustainable development 113
changes. In this context, the integration of the environment in the separate
sectoral departments and the existence of mechanisms that favour such inter-
departmental integration (for example, interaction, communication, co-
ordination and collaboration) are necessary elements of internal organization
for putting a local policy of sustainable development into effect. The
research project put particular emphasis on examining the type of relations
that have been established between the departments of the environment,
economic promotion and urban development in the local authorities studied.
The responses show that the predominant form of relationship is that of
‘inter-departmental relations’. These interactions can be characterized as
‘occasional collaboration’ (in at least 33 per cent of the cases) and ‘continu-
ing co-ordination with regard to concrete topics’ (in 25 per cent of the
cases). This suggests that the relations between the departments mentioned
are characterized by two-way communication and collaboration, although
not necessarily formalized by means of some mechanisms of co-ordination.
The contacts develop around concrete actions or topics. It is worth noting,
however, that there exists a large degree of integration between the depart-
ments of environment and urban development in light of the fact that one
quarter of the municipalities indicate that they maintain at least a relation of
‘continued policy co-ordination’ between both departments. This can be
explained, in large measure, by the fact that in many municipalities the
political executive responsible for the environment also has urban develop-
ment in her portfolio. Nevertheless, the two departments remain separate at
the technical level.
Inter-departmental relations are often managed through more or less
institutionalized mechanisms of internal co-ordination. Of the 59 local
authorities that responded to this question, 30 affirmed that they had
mechanisms of co-ordination (informal or formal) for issues related to sus-
tainable development. Of these, only 22 municipalities possessed formal
mechanisms of internal co-ordination. A good part of this co-ordination is
due to the advanced position of the Catalan communities in this regard. In
the majority of the 22 cases with formal mechanisms, these are of a mixed
character, involving both political and technical officials. They tend to meet
periodically and the co-ordination involves four or more departments. In the
majority of cases, it is the department of the environment that acts as the
lead actor in the group. It establishes the agenda, convenes the meeting, and
introduces the topics to be discussed. This ‘chairing role’ explains the sub-
stantial influence of this department in the decisions taken through these
mechanisms.

Social learning and institutional change

At various points, the sectoral perceptions and the lack of centrality of the
environmental problems in the local political agendas have been noted.
Municipal technical officials point to features of the internal administrative
114 K. Hanf and F. Morata
organization and the lack of habits of co-ordination as the principal obstacles
when it comes to undertaking local initiatives that inter-relate economic
development and the environment. Inter-departmental co-ordination, while
present, has also not been highly developed.
However, there is also evidence that the implementation of the LA21
process and the elaboration of the local Strategic Plans have contributed pos-
itively to the development of more extensive patterns of inter-departmental
co-ordination and the development of habits of inter-sectoral co-operation.
Indeed, roughly 60 per cent of the institutionalized mechanisms of internal
co-ordination found in the local authorities studied can be attributed to
LA21 and the Strategic Plans. Of the 22 (out of 53 answering this set of
questions) local authorities that mentioned having institutionalized mechan-
isms for internal co-ordination in connection with questions of sustainable
development, in nine cases these had been set up as a result of the LA21
processes. Two cases were developed in connection with the formulation of
the municipal Strategic Plan. Experiences with the implementation of both
plans had led to establishing such mechanisms in four other cases.
The data also indicate that over time, as the process of LA21 develops, the
degree of inter-departmental integration increases. In those local authorities
that are still in the early phases of the process the relations between adminis-
trative units predominantly takes the form of ‘occasional collaboration’
between the department of economic promotion and the department of the
environment. In contrast, where Plans of Action have been formulated or are
being implemented the dominant relation is ‘continuing co-ordination on
specific issues’. As far as the relations between the department of urban
development and the department of the environment are concerned, in local
authorities just starting the LA21 process, relations of ‘continuing co-
ordination on specific issues’ predominate, followed by relations of ‘occa-
sional collaboration’. In those local authorities in more advanced stages of
the process, the relations between these two departments tend to be charac-
terized by ‘continuing co-ordination on specific issues’ followed by relations
of ‘continuing co-ordination of policies’ and ‘integration of policies’.
It would seem that, as more and more municipalities complete the
formulation of their LA21 Action Plans and enter the implementation
phase, organizational changes stimulated by these initiatives will result in a
greater capacity for co-ordinated and even integrated action with regard to
local development strategies.

Implementing LA21 action plans

Up until now little work has been done on the actual implementation of
LA21 Action Plans. Especially in the case studies, this project probed the
initial experiences of translating these plans into concrete administrative
actions. Incorporating the objectives and principles of the Action Plans into
the operational work programmes of the local administration has proven to
 Capacities for sustainable development 115
be difficult. This is due to organizational fragmentation, problems of inter-
departmental co-ordination, administrative culture and mentality of the sec-
toral policy units and the weak organizational position of the Offices of
LA21, which are primarily responsible for monitoring whether the object-
ives of the plan are effectively carried out. Despite the opportunities for
internal participation and the strengthening of inter-departmental co-
ordination, during the implementation of the LA21 Action Plan the exist-
ing fragmented nature of organization and functioning of administrative
institutions in Spain continues to make itself felt as an obstacle to co-
ordinated action. It would appear that internal participation has not been
extensive or intensive enough to overcome the barriers related to the tradi-
tional sectoral organization of local administrations and the attitudes of the
officials working in these different functional areas.
The first step in implementing strategic plans is the incorporation of
particular projects into the medium-term legislative or action programme
of the government in office. In the Barcelona Province this occurs by means
of the Municipal Action Programme which contains the priority actions that
will guide the period in office of the current government. In some cases the
strategic objectives of the LA21 Action Plan have been incorporated into
municipal programmes governing a legislative period, or included in the
governing agreement between parties, thereby effectively serving to frame
municipal decision-making and administrative activity. An important factor
here is the extent to which the mayor and the political executive assume
effective leadership. To the extent that the major impulse comes from the
councillor responsible for the environmental area, the Action Plan has less
weight as a focus for integrating the activities of the different policy sectors.
Implementation of these tasks is monitored and measured by means of a
set of sustainability indicators. These are initially based on the indicators
developed during the municipal environmental audit and problem diagno-
sis, usually by the consulting experts managing this part of the LA21 plan-
ning process. Local authorities differ in the way in which these indicators are
used to follow and evaluate the progress achieved by the different adminis-
trative units in carrying out their responsibilities for parts of the Action
Plan. In some cases systems of ‘benchmarking’ are being developed by means
of which the relative success of a given unit can be measured (as a percentage
of the assigned plan tasks accomplished) and compared with the perform-
ance of other administrative units. These indicators and the comparative
scores of the different actors are also used to inform the public as to the
performance of its government in meeting its sustainable development
goals. The indicators themselves are under continuous revision and exten-
sion. Administrative responsibility for this is in the hands of the Office of
Sustainable Development, attached to the environmental administration.
Strategic planning is an iterative and rolling process. On the basis of feed-
back from goal achievement and effectiveness of programmes and measures,
the original plans are revised and adjusted given past experiences and new
116 K. Hanf and F. Morata
conditions. This process becomes institutionalized, building upon the
arrangements that had been used during the original LA21 planning
process. The monitoring and evaluation activities of the Office of Sustainable
Development serve as the point of departure. It provides the inputs for the
Commission 21, which brings together representatives of different local
administrative units and services. It is the arena for deliberation and consen-
sus forming within the local authority. This body is charged with the co-
ordination and oversight of the implementation of the LA21 Action Plan.
The Municipal Environmental Council is a vehicle for institutionalizing
continued public participation after the initial consultation process has
ceased. Such commissions are used for other policy areas as well. Seldom is
there any effort to co-ordinate the activities of these different sectoral bodies.
During the implementation phase and the revision of the plan, various
instruments are used to encourage and facilitate public participation on
issues of sustainable development. Apart from the Municipal Environmental
Council, the local authority communicates information regarding sustain-
able development to the citizens. Web pages offer a vehicle for two-way
communications between the government and the public. Sectoral adminis-
trative units maintain their own sets of contacts with both the general
public and stakeholders particularly interested in or involved in their activ-
ities. Concern – and disappointment – was expressed with respect to the dif-
ficulties of mobilizing the public. Sustainable development does not ‘live’ as
an issue that activates the citizens.

Local initiatives and the system of multi-level governance

On their own, despite their best intentions, local authorities are unlikely to
possess the information, economic and technical resources necessary to
undertake a serious LA21 planning process. A crucial factor for success in
mobilizing local action on sustainable development is the institutional
capacity building efforts of supra-local actors, as well as the networking
activity of the local authorities themselves. However, one must be careful
not to assume that multi-level governance always involves a top-down
sequence of steps aimed at ‘implementing national strategies of sustainable
development’. This cannot be confined to local level or to a single munici-
pality within a given territory. Both analysts and practitioners need to step
beyond the local as the frame of reference and to engage with processes
which shape local capacity and political will for sustainable development at
multiple sites and scales of government. Moves at local levels reflect mul-
tiple moves by societal and governmental actors at higher (more comprehen-
sive) levels. Consequently, it is necessary to describe the ways in which local
sustainability is constructed and contested at a variety of scales of gover-
nance and through multiple political spaces.
Discussions of multi-level governance often assume that lower levels are
doing something within the framework of, and in order to execute, national
 Capacities for sustainable development 117
policy strategies. In Spain, however, this has not been the case; we do not
have here a case of implementing LA21 as part of a sequence of top-down
moves through which national strategies for sustainable development are
being carried out. The central government still does not have a national
strategy for sustainable development.
Moreover, it has not taken any significant action to encourage, stimulate
or guide regional and local actions on this matter. Consequently, there is no
‘central government framework document’ which structures how sustain-
ability is to be achieved at the different levels of governmental action.
Even though the local level cannot be treated as a discrete and separate
scale of political authority and action, there will be cases where local author-
ities have been more or less abandoned, due to the absence of framing and
supporting action by higher levels of government. There can be essential
gaps in the network of relations between levels of government action, which
results in a lack of national guidance and the relative neglect and independ-
ence of local planning systems. Policy and planning do not necessarily move
in linear fashion from higher levels to the detailed action plans of regional
and local governments. Therefore, the experiences in Spain with LA21 tell
us nothing about how implementation strategies for national sustainable
development policy engage sub-national, regional and local actors at the
sub-national level. On the contrary, the research shows that local authorities
have themselves taken the initiative in action with regard to sustainable
development within the context of LA21 initiatives. Sometimes this has
been with the assistance of provincial and regional governments – but not in
the sense that these provide a general normative framework within which
local authorities work out and co-ordinate their initiatives.
There is also an important horizontal level to multi-level governance. This
involves the relations between the local authorities themselves. It is interesting
to note that there is little evidence, from the case studies, that inter-municipal
development planning plays any role in framing the decisions taken by the
individual local communities. When asked about such contacts, reference was
made to the exchanges and co-operation within the Barcelona provincial LA21
network.2 This network served as an important mechanism for informational
and technical support and for the exploration of common problems. It pro-
vides structured arena and administrative support for continuing interaction
and interchanges among municipalities – of all sizes – in the province. There
is, however, no supra-local normative or problem-defining framework that
would locate the plans of individual municipalities in a more overarching
context and co-ordinate their separate plans against the background of a
region-wide vision of sustainable development.

Concluding comments
The data presented here describe the situation in Spanish municipalities
in the initial stages of implementing their commitment to sustainable
118 K. Hanf and F. Morata
development. There continues to be a number of obstacles to integrated
planning at the local level. Among them is the tendency to equate LA21
with ‘improved’ environmental management. Of course this ‘misinterpreta-
tion’ (not limited to local authorities) is reinforced by the tendency to locate
responsibility for promoting and managing LA21 processes in the hands of
those responsible for the environment. These officials are inclined to view
the problem in sectoral environmental terms and, to the extent that they
have a wider vision of sustainable development, are faced with the difficult
task of overcoming the habits of mind and action that have developed
around the different functional units and responsibilities. Added to this is
the relative weak political and administrative position of the environmental
units in local administration. This imbalance can be seen in the choice of
instruments to introduce environmental considerations into economic and
social policies. It is difficult to introduce measures that would impact
directly on economic activities, thereby raising the question of trade offs and
allocation of costs.
The data warns us to look behind the label ‘LA21 Action Plan’ because
such plans may contain a good deal less sustainable development than the
formal designation of the initiative would lead us to believe. In fact, in the
Spanish case, the majority are called Environmental Action Plans. The
integrative, trans-sectoral logic of sustainable development is often at log-
gerheads with the sectoral organization, habits of mind and focus of tradi-
tional systems of local administration. Although LA21 initiatives obviously
have to respect (and find their place within) existing planning procedures
and financial commitments, this fact of politico-administrative life appears
to push LA21 Action Plans, at least in the initial round of planning and
implementation, toward sectoral environmental planning and to leave more
or less intact the traditional economic development oriented strategic plan-
ning. Nevertheless, there is some evidence, especially from the case studies,
that over time more consideration is being given to making the environ-
mental plan a more integral part of the overall strategic planning of the
community. In this sense, while not immediately leading to ‘real’ sustain-
able development planning, the longer term impact of LA21 can be to con-
tribute to a gradual reorientation of traditional sectoral planning.
In this connection it should be kept in mind that some of the case studies
suggest that second – and subsequent – rounds of development planning
tend to make an effort to integrate the social, economic and environmental
strands of local development. This would indicate that local communities
gradually come to understand more clearly what sustainable development
‘means’ and to apply this understanding to the planning of their communit-
ies. It seems that changes in traditional local government planning processes
occur only gradually.
Furthermore, as we have seen, there is evidence of a gradual institutional-
ization of a potentially more integrative perspective in the administrative
organization and management practices of some local authorities. The dis-
 Capacities for sustainable development 119
cussion on the relations between the separate administrative departments of
more direct relevance for sustainable development suggests that, as a result
of interaction and co-operation with respect to strategic planning and LA21
actions, closer and more continuous contacts are developing. Likewise, some
municipalities, later in the LA21 process, are setting up units for either
LA21 or specifically sustainable development in an effort to develop a capa-
city for more cross-cutting or ‘transversal’ action. Promoting and assisting in
these efforts could be an important focus of a second generation of exchange
and for support from higher administrative or governmental actors (for
example, provincial governments or the regional government of an
autonomous community). The same would hold for the work of the various
networks of local authorities. After an extended round of information
regarding what sustainable development is, and how to initiate LA21
processes, more attention will need to be given by all facilitating actors to
helping local authorities build the capacities needed to overcome the obs-
tacles set by traditional ways of doing government business. Such changes
appear to be linked to the gradual operationalization of a system for moni-
toring progress in carrying out the tasks assigned to the different policy
sectors, and to a stronger and more visible commitment of political leader-
ship to LA21 as an overarching and integrative frame of reference for the
political and administrative work of the municipality.
The experience with LA21 in Spain makes clear that local government
continues to play the central role in giving the impulse for organizing and
managing the LA21 planning process and then ensuring that the resulting
action plans are implemented. Governance for local sustainable development
continues to be carried by the political leaders and administrative officials of
the municipal government. Most of the instruments and actions involved are
familiar modes of government action connected with public planning and
administration. Of course, all of this has been complemented by a serious
effort to mobilize societal energies and resources, especially by means of
extensive public participation in both the planning and implementation
phases. An important point to remember, however, is that government
needs to play a key role in creating an informed and interested public that
can, subsequently, be mobilized for the realization of local sustainable devel-
opment. It is not as though there is a public out there beating on the doors
to be allowed in, to make known and to push their demands for sustainable
futures.
New policy commitments do not enter an empty policy and institutional
space. They must struggle to establish their own niche and to assert their
claim for attention, support and resources. Effective implementation
requires that existing institutions be adapted or reorganized. Nevertheless,
despite the consensus of meanings and institutional requirements at the
macro level, in order to establish itself at the local level, sustainable develop-
ment has to contend with the local context-defining effects of pre-existing
discourses, policy space and institutional arrangements. Neither the intrinsic
120 K. Hanf and F. Morata
importance of the policy nor the functional logic of its effective implementa-
tion will, in themselves, determine its fate as it seeks to penetrate already
existing structures, ways of thinking and working and relationships among
different governmental and societal actors.
New policies are often seized by political and administrative actors on the
lookout for a way to advance their claims and to strengthen their position
relative to other policy domains and actors. In many of the Spanish munici-
palities, sustainable development was ‘captured’ by environmental policy
actors and put in the service of both anchoring and extending this still relat-
ively new field of action within local administration.
Moreover, in responding to the peculiar functional imperatives of sustain-
able development, institutional responses tended to be ‘path dependent’.
Sustainable development will be fitted onto already-existing structures, pro-
cedures, patterns of interaction and ways of doing things. Consequently, in
the first round sustainable development initiatives were interpreted through
institutional filters that had developed to process other policy commitments
and developmental objectives. Only gradually, would a process of institu-
tionalization reflecting the logic of sustainable development begin to take
shape.
For the public, too, doing sustainable development is something that
needs to be learned – the objective itself acquires priority and saliency that
can be translated into active participation in and support for the planning
and realization of more sustainable local development. Citizens are not out
there wrestling with the hard decisions regarding the direction of sustain-
able development. As has been noted, it is not a question of providing
opportunities for participation and then sitting back to wait for the crowd to
come.
It should be clear that a transition toward paths of sustainable develop-
ment is not only a question of institutional reforms (even though such
changes are necessary). If the political will is lacking to support or even
demand actions designed to achieve a more sustainable local development,
this objective will be difficult if not impossible to achieve, irrespective of the
appropriateness of the institutions of local administration.
Effective institutionalization will be, therefore, a complex series of insti-
tutional developments, social mobilization and political leadership. Getting
these things right is something that can be learned. It remains, however, a
process of gradual approximation towards practices more in line with the
logic of the policy.

Notes
1 This chapter is based on the research project Governabilidad y Medio Ambiente: las
Agendas 21 Locales en España (SEC99–1243) which was funded by the Spanish
Ministry of Education and Culture. The case studies were updated in 2004–2005.
2 Xarxa de Pobles i Ciutats Cap a la Sostenibilitat (www.diba.es/
xarxasost/cat/index.asp).
 Capacities for sustainable development 121
References
Baker, S. (2006), Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S. and Theobald, K. (2005), Governing Sustainable
Cities, London: Earthscan.
Font, N. and Subirats, J. (eds) (2000) Local y Sostenible, Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Font, N., Gomila, F. and Subirats, J. (2001) ‘Spain. LA21: A Question of Institu-
tional Leadership?’ in W. M. Lafferty (ed.), Sustainable Communities in Europe,
London: Earthscan 245–265.
Jänicke, M. (1997) ‘The Political System’s Capacity for Environmental Policy’, in
M. Jänicke and H. Weidner (eds), National Environmental Policies: A Comparative
Study of Capacity Building, Berlin: Springer.
Mezo, J. (2005) ‘Think Locally and Act Slowly: Spanish Regions Stumble on Sus-
tainable Development’, paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Work-
shops, Granada, 15–19 April.
5 Sub-national sustainable
development initiatives in
federal states in Germany
Kristine Kern

Introduction
Although Germany has earned the reputation of being a pioneer in many
areas of environmental policy (Andersen and Liefferink 1997: 26–27) it was
clearly a latecomer in crafting a national sustainable development strategy.
Despite its inclusion on the national political agenda since the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, no
strategy was adopted in Germany until 2002 (Bundesregierung 2002). The
consideration of this issue from a national perspective, however, neglects the
fact that Germany is a federal state. Several Länder (federal states), such as
North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, had
launched sustainable development initiatives before the national govern-
ment took action. The Länder governments also supported Local Agenda 21
(LA21) initiatives from the outset. While the first agenda transfer agencies
were set up in 1996 in NRW and 1997 in Bavaria, the National Service
Agency for Local Agenda 21 (Bundesweite Servicestelle Lokale Agenda 21) was
not established until 2002.
These initiatives show that the analysis of sustainable development in a
federal state like Germany needs to start from a comprehensive perspective
that includes the Länder governments and their initiatives. This chapter
aims to develop an appropriate framework for the analysis of sustainable
development initiatives in multi-level systems. It concentrates on new forms
of governance for sustainable development which were developed and
applied in the Länder to implement Agenda 21. The second section of this
chapter focuses on sustainable development initiatives in multi-level systems
in general and on the position of the Länder in the German and European
multi-level system in particular. New forms of governance for sustainable
development are presented in the third section, taking the Länder’s compe-
tences in the German federal system into account. Section four considers
selected Länder programmes and ranks the initiatives of the Länder in the
area of sustainable development, while section five discusses three pioneers
in greater detail: Bavaria, NRW and Thuringia. The main question here
aims at the Länder’s commitment to sustainable development: is it restricted
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 123
to a declaratory level or does it also contain commitments in policy context
and policy contents? This question also refers to the discussion by Con-
naughton et al. in Chapter 6 of this book, which explores ‘rhetoric or reality’
in Irish policy for waste management. The sixth and final section contains a
summary of the analysis and findings and discusses the preconditions for
sustainable development and the different models which have developed in
the German federal states to promote this goal.

Governance for sustainable development in the German

and European multi-level system
The Länder are part of the German federal system as well as the European
multi-level system. The EU has developed into a system with multiple
levels or spheres of governance, including European, national and sub-
national policy arenas (Hooghe and Marks 2001, 2003; Bache and Flinders
2004). The concept of multi-level governance deals with shifting competen-
cies between institutions at these different levels. Authority has been trans-
ferred from the national to the supra-national but also to the sub-national
level (Pierre and Peters 2000: 77; Rosenau 1997: 31). Furthermore, the
concept comprises not only direct state regulation but also the whole range
of actions and institutions which supply order. This means that authority
has not only become dispersed across multiple territorial levels but also
among a variety of private and public actors (Rosamund 2004: 121). Bound-
aries between different policy arenas have been blurred because many policy
actors may become active at different levels and pursue multi-level strategies
such as venue shopping (Rosamund 2004: 120; Baumgartner and Jones
1993). Länder competences have been restricted rather than extended in the
process of European integration. However, Länder use formal channels such
as the Committee of the Regions as well as informal channels to lobby EU
institutions and influence decisions which have direct impacts on the
regional level such as the distribution of Structural Funds. The German
Länder are among the most powerful regions in Europe and among the very
few regions which gained direct access to the Council of Ministers meetings
as part of Germany’s delegation, at least if their competences are directly
affected by Council decisions (Hooghe and Marks 2001: 83). All German
Länder have opened offices in Brussels to represent their interests at the
European level more effectively.
In the area of environmental policy, authority has shifted mainly
upwards, from the local to the European level. Before environmental policy
was institutionalized at the European and national level, the Länder took the
initiative in such areas as air or water pollution. The first air pollution laws
were enacted in 1962 in NRW, followed by Baden-Württemberg (1964),
Lower Saxony, and Bavaria (both in 1966). Furthermore, these Länder-level
initiatives exercised a broader impact. The first federal air pollution law
(Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz), which was enacted in 1974, was drafted on
124 K. Kern
the experiences of the Länder (Hansmann 2001: 771). At present the Euro-
pean and the national government dominate environmental policy-making
in many areas, including air pollution control, noise abatement, waste man-
agement, chemicals, genetic engineering and nuclear safety. The Länder have
legislative powers in other areas (Hansmann 2001: 770–772; Peine 2001)
such as nature and landscape conservation and water management and are
also responsible for the implementation and enforcement of environmental
laws and regulations. Since 2003 a reform of German federalism has been
discussed. For environmental policy, the proposal has been to strengthen the
competences of the federal government in the areas of nature and landscape
conservation and water management but grant the Länder extensive rights to
depart from federal legislation (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen
2006).
The most prominent form of institutionalized co-operation and co-
ordination between the Länder governments and the federal government is
the Umweltministerkonferenz (UMK) (Conference of Environmental Ministers).
The UMK, which was established in 1973, convenes twice a year. Its main
goal is to facilitate the exchange of information between the federal govern-
ment and the Länder and to ensure the harmonized implementation of
federal laws and regulations. It has eight working groups, including a
working group on sustainable development (Bund-Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Nachhaltige Entwicklung, BLAG NE). This working group is in charge of sus-
tainable development strategies both at the federal level and in the Länder.
It is further tasked with the development of criteria for core indicators for
sustainable development, Local Agenda 21 and climate protection policy.
Although the BLAG NE collects and publishes information, its work seeks
to harmonize implementation rather than to spread best practices.
There is no clear separation of power between the federal government and
the Länder in the area of sustainable development. The Länder not only
implement federal sustainable development policies but have the authority
to complement these policies and carry on their own initiatives, which can
differ from national initiatives. This means that the federal government as
well as the Länder governments are engaged in policy-making, including
different funding schemes for sustainable development programmes.
Traditionally, the analysis of environmental policy in federal systems has
dealt primarily with the question of how federal state structures influence
policy-making and policy implementation (environmental federalism). In
the German debate on federalism, there is a strong emphasis on the veto
power of sub-national governments. Thus, it is necessary to take a broader
view and include general reflections on policy learning and policy transfer
within federal structures. Two dimensions of environmental federalism are
of special interest in this regard: (1) federal–state relations which determine
the opportunities for policy learning between the states and the federal
government; (2) the horizontal relations between the states which can foster
the spread of innovations among the Länder governments. Both processes are
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 125
intertwined as horizontal learning between states can lead to the develop-
ment of similar policy innovations at federal level. Such forms of policy dif-
fusion have already been studied in the US where federal structures act as
‘laboratories of experimentation’ (Rabe 2004; Scheberle 2004; Kern 2000;
Gray 1994). Successful innovations are adopted subsequently by other states
or the federal government.
In Germany, the discussion on policy transfer has not yet fully reached
the Länder level. The relationship between the federal government and the
Länder has traditionally been shaped by hierarchy, although there is some
evidence that Länder initiatives can trigger discussions at the federal level.
Moreover, competition between the Länder and institutionalized forms of
policy learning and transfer is not as developed in Germany as in other
multi-level systems like the US. This phenomenon is due to the fact that the
states in the US are free to set higher standards than the federal minimum in
many policy areas. Thus, the states in the U.S. have greater regulatory power
than the Länder. However, whether or not the Länder exploit their potential
and learn from each other or tend to ignore best practices developed in other
Länder remains an open question.

New forms of governance for sustainable development

Sustainable development initiatives developed at Länder level draw on three
different concepts. First, it is founded on the principles of Agenda 21, such
as the strengthening of the role of major groups and its strong emphasis on
participation and consultation. References to Agenda 21 and the Brundtland
Commission’s Report can be found in most Länder programmes. Second, the
development of such strategies is influenced by changing concepts on global
governance which focus on various forms of governance beyond the tradi-
tional forms of inter-governmental co-operation, such as global policy net-
works or private–public partnerships. These new forms of private authorities
do not substitute but complement state-centred concepts on governance for
sustainable development. Third, the debate on new environmental policy
instruments, which predates the discussion on sustainable development,
focuses primarily on national environmental policy, the deficiencies of
command-and-control approaches and alternative policy instruments which
may solve such problems (for example eco-taxes, eco-labels or voluntary
agreements).
For the analysis of governance for sustainable development at the Länder
level four different types of governance for sustainable development appear
as highly relevant: (1) governing through policy integration in multi-level systems
concerns the structure of policy programmes and the institutional set-up
that implements them; (2) governing through participation and representation is
an approach that is oriented towards actors and procedures, dealing with the
involvement of stakeholders and citizens in decision-making and implemen-
tation; (3) governing through partnerships and voluntary agreements is a form of
126 K. Kern
stakeholder involvement (state–business co-operation) which is not limited
to decision-making but can also include implementation; and (4) governing
through benchmarking and policy transfer relates to inter-organizational policy
learning and transfer, often fostered by external transfer agencies.

Governing through policy integration in multi-level systems

The necessity of policy integration (Jacob and Volkery 2003: 13; Lafferty
and Hovden 2003: 12, 20; Jordan and Lenschow 2000), also referred to in
Chapter 8 of Agenda 21, has been discussed at different levels of govern-
ment. Policy integration has both a vertical dimension (within a particular
governmental sector) and a horizontal dimension (cross-sectoral policy
integration) (Lafferty 2004: 205–206; see also Chapter 1, this volume). At
the European level the debate on policy integration was triggered by the
Cardiff Process launched in 1998, which aims at the integration of environ-
mental policy at the sectoral level. It led to the development of environ-
mental integration strategies for all sectors which are relevant for sustainable
development such as energy or agricultural policy (Baker 2006: 148–154).
Environmental policy integration at European and national level is an
important precondition for the successful implementation of sustainable
development strategies at sub-national level. The need for policy integration
is most obvious when analyzing the debate on sustainable development in
the Länder. As at national level, a transition from discussions focusing on
environmental policy to debates on sustainable development can be found.
Thus, policy integration plays a central role in the creation of sustainable
development plans and strategies. Moreover, policy integration is essential
in the development of climate action plans and strategies because climate
change policy affects such different areas as energy, transport or agriculture
policy.

Governing through participation and representation

The term participatory governance has both a normative and descriptive
dimension (Geißel 2004; Grote/Gbiki 2002; Heinelt et al. 2002; Schmitter
2002). Four elements appear to be fundamental to engagement with sustain-
able development: (1) adequate representation of stakeholder interests; (2)
deliberative engagement among the stakeholders; (3) the application and
integration of different forms of knowledge to decision-making; and (4) the
promotion of societal learning (Meadowcroft 2004: 166–167). This general
discussion has played a major role in the debate on the implementation of
Agenda 21. The participation of stakeholders and citizens is one of the key
issues of Agenda 21 which, among other things, aims to strengthen the role
of major groups (Agenda 21, section 3). Thus, new forms of both stake-
holder and citizen participation became one of the most relevant issues con-
cerning the development of Agenda 21 at different levels of government.
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 127
Consultation processes were organized at the European, national, regional
and local level and changed the dominant state-centred type of governance
from the global to the local level. In some German Länder, such as Berlin or
NRW, extensive consultation processes were started which aimed at the
development of a sustainable development strategy for the Land (Landes-
Agenda 21).

Governing through public–private partnerships and voluntary

agreements
Voluntary agreements are new environmental policy instruments which first
emerged in Germany in the late 1980s. They can be interpreted as a specific
form of stakeholder participation combined with self-governance in the
implementation phase. Agreements between government, on the one hand,
and business/industry, on the other, play an important role in the imple-
mentation of Agenda 21 – from the local to the global level. They are a form
of public–private partnership. Such agreements were first introduced at the
national level but later also promoted by the EU. They are preferred, and
often demanded, by business but also heavily criticized by environmental
NGOs because of a lack of monitoring and enforcement. The first-
generation agreements targeted special environmental issues in the steel or
chemical industry and were, therefore, sectoral in nature. Within the Länder,
the first ‘environmental pact’ (Umweltpakt) between the business sector and a
state government emerged in Bavaria in 1995 and became a model for many
other Länder. It follows a comprehensive approach and is not restricted to a
specific environmental policy issue or economic sector.

Governing through benchmarking and policy transfer

Finally, both benchmarking and best practice transfer have become import-
ant issues. A discussion on benchmarking has begun, but such tools have not
yet been applied systematically to environmental policy and sustainable
development. Internationally, the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development’s (OECD) Environmental Performance Reviews or the
Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy and Center for International Earth Science Information Network
2006) can be regarded as a first step towards benchmarking national
environmental policy. Benchmarking has also become a new form of gover-
nance in the European Union, where it is known as ‘Open Method of
Coordination’ (OMC), although it has been primarily applied on policy areas
where the EU’s competences are rather limited, such as employment policy.
Furthermore, voluntary policy transfer has always played an important role
in federal systems, especially in the US, where policy diffusion among the
states has become a well-known phenomenon. The underlying idea here
is that states can learn from one another and policy innovations can be
128 K. Kern
transferred between jurisdictions. Although this new form of governance
appears to be less important for the German federal system, similar tendencies
can also be found in Germany, for example the UMK discussion on core indi-
cators of sustainable development. This would allow a more systematic com-
parison of the performance of the German Länder. Finally, benchmarking and
best practice transfer have already become an important driver for the spread
of LA21, which improves when agenda transfer agencies are established.
Today, in most Länder such transfer agencies exist (Kern et al. 2004).

Sustainable development initiatives in the German

Länder
Based on this overview of new forms of governance for sustainable develop-
ment, selected Länder initiatives will now be studied in more detail. Four
policy areas were chosen: (1) plans and strategies in the area of environ-
mental policy and sustainable development; (2) climate change action plans
and strategies; (3) environmental pacts between Länder governments and
the business sector; (4) programmes supporting local sustainable develop-
ment strategies. These four areas encompass cases, such as climate change
policy, where Germany was an international pioneer, as well as cases, such
as the development of a national sustainable development strategy and the
support of local sustainable development strategies, where Germany lagged
behind other countries. Furthermore, all four areas include new forms of
governance and policy instruments. While policy integration and participa-
tion are relevant for sustainable development strategies and climate change
action plans, environmental pacts are a special form of voluntary agree-
ments and the support of local sustainable development strategies by the
Länder includes the establishment of agenda transfer agencies at the Länder
level. The analysis of the four policy areas will lead to a twofold compari-
son: first, in terms of the vertical dimension, the activity levels of the
federal government and the Länder will be compared. It can be assumed
that both levels influence each other and that the Länder become most
active when the federal government is least active and vice versa. Second, in
terms of the horizontal dimension, the Länder will be compared and ranked
according to their activity in the four areas. It is expected that the historical
patterns, wherein the most populous and richest Länder are the most active,
will reappear.

Environmental plans and sustainable development strategies

When national sustainable development strategies in OECD countries are
analysed, the conclusion to be drawn is that Germany has never been within
the group of pioneers in this field. The approach involving strategic, goal-
oriented environmental planning spread very rapidly in the 1990s not only
among established industrial countries, but also in newly industrialized and
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 129
developing countries. Within a decade of the adoption of the first national
environmental plans in Denmark, Sweden, Norway (1988) and the Nether-
lands (1989), over two-thirds of OECD countries had adopted national
environmental plans or sustainable development strategies (Jänicke and
Jörgens 1998; Kern et al. 2000). Germany had not yet enacted a national
sustainable development strategy when a coalition of the Social Democratic
Party (SPD) and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Green Party) came in power in
1998. Sustainable development was formally incorporated as a goal in its
coalition agreement and the government took definitive steps toward achiev-
ing this goal, including the assembly of a ‘Green Cabinet’ within the
government and the establishment of the German Council for Sustainable
Development (Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung, RNE). The first proposal for
a national sustainable development strategy was presented in December
2001; following some modifications, the final version was adopted in April
2002, and a comprehensive progress report was published in 2004 (Bun-
desregierung 2002, 2004).
Today, 11 out of 16 Länder have developed an environmental plan, a
Landes-Agenda 21 or a sustainable development strategy (Table 5.1). The
Bavarian government introduced the ‘Bayern-Agenda 21’ in 1997. Bavaria’s
leadership show the greater advantage in comparison with the red–green
government’s national sustainable development strategy, which was only
introduced in 2002, when the Bayern-Agenda 21 had already been revised.
All of the Länder that have such a plan in place use similar approaches, but
their specific strategies varied considerably. The general tendency was
toward integrated sustainable development strategies and the definition of
qualitative and quantitative goals in the plans. Most Länder initiated broad
public consultation processes. Another tendency was to establish advisory
councils whose members usually represent stakeholder groups (Bun-
desregierung 2004: 31–36).

Climate protection strategies and climate action programmes

In marked contrast to its inactivity in national sustainable development
policy-making, Germany was in the vanguard of international efforts to
enact climate change policy prior to the 1998 federal elections. An ambi-
tious CO2 emissions reduction programme was introduced as early as 1990.
From an international perspective, Germany was the most successful country
regarding the reduction of CO2 and the other greenhouse gases, although it
must be noted that almost 50 per cent of this reduction was caused by the
collapse of the East German economy after reunification, in particular by the
mid-1990s (Scheich et al. 2001: 364, 378). In their coalition agreement of
1998, the SPD and the Green Party stressed the national climate protection
target to reduce CO2 emissions by 25 per cent until the year 2005 (com-
pared to 1990 levels). A primary impetus towards the fulfilment of this goal
was the decision to launch a national climate protection programme in
Table 5.1 Sustainable development in the German Länder

Länder (1) Environmental plan, (2) Climate protection strategy, (3) Voluntary agreement (4) Support of local Overall
sustainable development strategy Climate action programme (‘environmental pact’) sustainable development activity level
(Landes-Agenda 21) initiatives
■ ■ ■
Adoption/ Activity Adoption/ Activity Adoption/ Activity Adoption/ Activity
revision in level revision in level revision in level revision in level

Bavaria 1997/2002 high 2000/2003 medium 1995/2000/2005 high 1997/1998 high high
Berlin 2006 high 1994/2000 medium 1998 medium 1997 high high
Baden-Württemberg 2000 medium 1994/2000 medium 1997 high 1998/1999 high high
Thuringia 2000 medium 2000/2002 medium 1999/2004 high 1999/2000 high high
North Rhine-Westphalia (2005) medium 2001/2005 high – – 1996 high high
Hamburg 2001/2003 medium 1990/2002 medium 2003 medium (2002) medium medium
Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania 2006 medium 1997/2002 medium 2001 medium 1999/2000 medium medium
Hesse 2002 low (2004) medium 2000/2005 medium 1998 medium medium
Bremen – low 1994/2001 medium 2003 medium 1997 medium medium
Lower Saxony 1998 medium (2000) medium – – 2001 low medium
Schleswig-Holstein 2000/2004 medium 1995/2004 medium – – 1997/1999 low medium
Saarland 2003 low 1998 low 2002 medium – – low
Saxony Anhalt – – 1998/2003 low 1999 low 1997 low low
Brandenburg – – 1996/2002 low 1999/2005 low 2001 low low
Saxony – – 2001/2004 low 1998/2003 low 1998 low low
Rhineland-Palatinate 1999 low – – – – 1996 low low
Federal Government 2002 high 1990 high 2000 medium 2002 low high
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 131
October 2000. The programme confirmed the ambitious 25 per cent reduc-
tion target and divided the responsibility for the remaining reduction
among private households, buildings, energy, industry and transport.
Although the re-elected red–green coalition agreed in 2002 to continue
their efforts and to maintain Germany’s pioneer status in this area (Kern,
Koenen and Löffelsend 2004), the ambitious national goal for 2005 was
eventually not reached. In the revised national climate protection pro-
gramme of 2005 (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reak-
torsicherheit 2005) it is not even mentioned. Instead the Kyoto goal and
Germany’s target under the EU’s burden-sharing agreement (21 per cent
reduction for the period 2008 to 2012) have become the point of reference
for federal climate change policy.
As Table 5.1 shows, almost all Länder have adopted energy programmes
and climate protection strategies (Bundesministerium für Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit 2005: 29–33). Most of these pro-
grammes were revised after the red–green government came in power. This
means that most Länder reacted to the policy of the red–green government
and the debate on the national climate protection programme. North Rhine-
Westphalia explicitly supported the ambitious reduction goal of 25 per cent
set in the national climate protection programme. In contrast, Bavaria opted
for a lower target at state level because CO2 emissions per capita are 30 per
cent below national average in Bavaria (Klimaschutzkonzept der Bayerischen
Staatsregierung 2000: 5) – due to the high share of nuclear energy in the
power generation (about 60 per cent). Most Länder provide financial support
for energy savings or other measures related to climate protection. In Baden-
Württemberg and Bavaria, ‘environmental funds’ (Umweltfonds) cover
climate protection measures, providing financial support of local invest-
ments. In general, support is limited to a certain percentage of the overall
cost of climate protection.

Environmental pacts between state and industry

The first voluntary agreements between national governments and industry
emerged in the 1960s in Japan. Today, all OECD countries have established
voluntary and co-operative agreements between firms and regulatory author-
ities (Ruud 2004: 232–233). In Germany, voluntary agreements first
appeared in the late 1980s, but these early versions were restricted to spe-
cific industries such as the automobile or chemical industry (Bundesverband
der Deutschen Industrie 2004: 8–9) and can be labelled ‘unilateral commit-
ments’ (Jordan et al. 2003: 11) because they did not directly involve the
state. Among the member states of the EU, Germany and the Netherlands
have adopted the largest number of voluntary agreements. Today, around
130 voluntary agreements exist in Germany. This may be attributed to a
coalition agreement adopted in 1994 by the then-conservative government
which stated a general preference for voluntary agreements above traditional
132 K. Kern
regulatory instruments and led to the increasing importance of voluntary
agreements. An agreement between the government and the business sector
regarding the reduction of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emis-
sions was first adopted in 1995, supplemented in 1996 and updated in 2000
(Wurzel et al. 2003: 129–130).
The Länder also adopted a considerable number of voluntary agreements.
In 1995, Bavaria became the first state to negotiate an environmental agree-
ment with industrial umbrella organizations, the so-called ‘environmental
pact Bavaria’ (Umweltpakt Bayern), which was funded by the Bavarian
government. This pact served as a model for many other Länder, which
negotiated similar agreements. Today, agreements have been reached in 12
Länder (Table 5.1); however, some Länder opted for a less comprehensive
version and adopted only specific parts of the Bavarian model. Apart from
Bavaria, the most comprehensive agreements exist in Baden-Württemberg
and Thuringia (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie 2004).

Support of local sustainable development initiatives

In the European context, Germany is one of a group of countries that were
relative latecomers in implementing Local Agenda 21 (Eckerberg et al.
1999: 243; Lafferty and Coenen 2001: 272–273). Due to the fact that the
national government did not support LA21 initiatives, local sustainable
development was mainly left to the Länder. They sought to catalyze the dif-
fusion of LA21 through specialized agenda transfer agencies and developed
funding plans for local sustainable development initiatives. The first agenda
transfer agency was Agenda-Transfer in North-Rhine Westphalia, which
was established in 1996 as an independent agency apart from government.
This development was followed in 1997 by the creation of ‘KommA 21
Bayern’, which is the LA21 headquarters for Bavarian municipalities and
part of the Bavarian government. This state of affairs did not change
fundamentally until 2002 when the National Service Agency for Local
Agenda 21 (Bundesweite Servicestelle Lokale Agenda 21) was finally established.
This agency was merely an expanded version of the transfer agency set up in
NRW in 1996. It acted as a platform for dialogue and as a service provider
for all those involved in the Agenda process and for the media and other
interested parties.
Funding programmes for the promotion of sustainable development at
the local level were primarily established by Länder governments (Table
5.1), and these plans appear to constitute a decisive factor in the spread of
LA21 throughout the Länder (Kern et al. 2004). Thus, the Länder (funding)
programmes are crucial for the dynamics of local sustainable development in
Germany. Almost all Länder have developed activities to support local sus-
tainable development strategies directly. Besides the already discussed estab-
lishment of agenda transfer agencies, these measures concentrate on (1)
direct financial support for model projects such as low-energy housing; (2)
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 133
direct financial support (subsidies, loans) for specific measures like the
development of a LA21 strategy or energy savings in old buildings; and (3)
counselling services for specific target groups like businesses or consumers.
Although programmes which aim to provide financial support for local
actors can be found (to a certain extent) in all Länder, the prosperous Länder
in the south appear to spend more than their poorer peers in the former
GDR (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
2004). The differences between Länder emerge most clearly when general
environmental funds (Umweltfonds) are examined which have been estab-
lished only in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. In Baden-Württemberg
municipalities can apply for funding for measures in the areas of climate
protection, waste management and water management. The Bavarian pro-
gramme is not restricted to municipalities and aims to provide financial
support for environmental education, climate protection, soil protection,
environmental protection in the business sector and genetic engineering
research. Apart from the financial support of the Länder, LA21 activities are
underwritten by a variety of different non-governmental actors, in particu-
lar private foundations at both federal and regional levels. The most
important foundation at federal level is the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt
(DBU), which is discussed by Baker and Eckerberg in Chapter 2 of this
book.

Sustainable development in the Länder: activity levels and policy

diffusion
When all four areas of activity are ranked and these single rankings are com-
bined (see Figure 5.1, Table 5.1), Bavaria, Berlin, Baden-Württemberg,
Thuringia and North Rhine-Westphalia emerge as pioneers.1 At the bottom of
the league are the relatively small Länder of Rhineland-Palatinate in the
western part of Germany and Brandenburg in the eastern part. The study
shows, as expected, that the most populous and wealthy Länder are in the van-
guard not only of environmental policy-making but of sustainable development
initiatives. However, Thuringia which is a relatively small Land located in the
former GDR has developed from laggard to latecomer within the last few years.
In contrast to the historical precedents which examined only the differences
between Länder in the former West Germany, the comparison of all Länder
reveals the somewhat unexpected result that at least some Länder in the former
GDR have become quite active in sustainable development policy-making,
even more active than medium-sized Länder in the west of the country. This
can be explained by the fact that Agenda 21 was decided in 1992, only three
years after German reunification. In the first years after reunification,
institution-building was still in an early phase and this opened a window of
opportunity for sustainable development policies in the eastern Länder.
A result that was less evident from the outset is the influence of party
preferences on policy learning and diffusion within Germany’s federal
134 K. Kern

Figure 5.1 Sustainable development in the German Länder.

system. This can best be shown when comparing conservative Bavaria and
red–green North Rhine-Westphalia (until 2005). While relations between
the then red–green governments in Berlin (federal level) and Düsseldorf
(State of North Rhine-Westphalia) appeared to foster vertical policy dif-
fusion, tensions between the red–green government in Berlin and the
conservative government in Munich (Bavaria) had the opposite effect. North
Rhine-Westphalia supported the CO2 emissions reduction targets defined in
the federal red–green government’s national climate protection programme
(top-down diffusion), and, conversely, North Rhine Westphalia’s agenda
transfer agency was extended to the federal level (bottom-up diffusion). The
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 135
picture for Bavaria is completely different: Bavaria rejected the federal CO2
emissions goal, or at least its application on Bavaria (no top-down dif-
fusion), and its environmental pact had no influence on federal environ-
mental policy although the Bavarian Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber
suggested that the pact could become a model at the federal level (Wurzel
et al. 2003: 130) (no bottom-up diffusion). In terms of horizontal policy
diffusion, the differences are less pronounced. The first Länder which fol-
lowed Bavaria’s lead and negotiated environmental pacts with industry
were Baden-Württemberg and Saxony. Although the Bavarian environ-
mental pact was transferred to many other Länder, NRW under its
red–green government (1995–2005) never introduced anything similar.
After the red–green government in NRW was replaced by a
conservative–liberal coalition in 2005 it has become very likely that NRW
will eventually adopt this Bavarian innovation.

Sustainable development in selected Länder

Having compared the activity levels of all of the Länder in the previous
section, this section will focus on specific, selected case studies. The main
purpose of this section is to analyse the Länder’s commitment to sustainable
development. The three Länder chosen for closer examination (North Rhine-
Westphalia, Bavaria and Thuringia) represent different types of pioneers.
Traditionally, Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia have been the most
innovative Länder in West Germany and have served, therefore, as models
for other Länder governments. Although Bavaria and North Rhine-
Westphalia are both pioneers, as demonstrated in the preceding section,
they prefer different policy approaches. Thuringia was selected as the third
case because this state has recently developed from a laggard into a late-
comer and can, therefore, serve as a model for the eastern states.

Sustainable development in Bavaria

In the area of environmental policy and sustainable development, Bavaria
has always been a trendsetter among its peers (Hansmann 2001: 771).
Bavaria was the first German state to institutionalize environmental protec-
tion in its government and create a ministry for development and environ-
mental issues (Staatsminsterium für Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen) in
1970. Bavaria was also the first to include environmental protection in its
constitution in 1984; a corresponding change to the federal constitution was
not made until 1994 (Kösters 2002: 136). Thus, it comes as no surprise to
learn that the Bavarian government was quick to react to the decisions of the
Rio Summit. Bavarian Prime Minister Stoiber laid the basis for the imple-
mentation of Agenda 21 in Bavaria with his declaration of 1995 (Bay-
erisches Staatsminsterium 2002: 6; Bundesregierung 2004: 31). The
environmental pact with the business sector was signed the same year.
136 K. Kern
Thanks to the financial support provided by the state, 580 EMAS certifica-
tions were accomplished in the first phase (1995 to 2000) although only 500
had been planned (Jörgensen 2002: 21). The agreement was revised in
October 2000. Ninety-five per cent of all goals and measures had already
been implemented by 2004. Even before the World Summit in Johannes-
burg in 2002, the first results of this Agenda 21 had been evaluated and an
action programme, Sustainable Development Bavaria (Aktionsprogramm nach-
haltige Entwicklung Bayern), was presented (Bundesregierung 2004). The
Bavarian government also adopted a climate protection policy in 2000 and
revised it in 2003. The concept, which is linked to the environmental pact
and to local climate protection activities, supports the further development
of renewable energy resources but also clarifies its affirmative position
towards nuclear energy. Moreover, Bavaria has exercised leadership in imple-
menting LA21. By July 2006, around 700 cities, towns and counties in
Bavaria passed resolutions for the initiation of LA21. Remarkably, not only
30 per cent of the cities and towns, but also about 85 per cent of the state’s
counties have passed a LA21 resolution. The municipalities active in LA21
represent 60 per cent of the population (Technische Universität München
2003: 169, 173).
Bavaria’s high sustainable development activity level can be explained by
a number of factors but especially its socio-economic capacities because
Bavaria accounts for more than 17 per cent of Germany’s gross domestic
product (GDP). In the 1960s Bavaria transformed herself from a primarily
agricultural region into one dominated by industry, technology, and ser-
vices. Nonetheless, agriculture remained ‘rooted in the souls of the people’
(März 2002: 45–47). Socially and politically, Bavaria is a conservative state.
The conservative people’s party, the Christliche-Soziale Union (Christian
Social Union) or CSU, has been in power there since 1957 (März 2002: 44).
The CSU approach to sustainable development combines a conservative atti-
tude towards nature with government-industry co-operation, support for the
high-tech industry and a clear pro-nuclear stance. In addition to these eco-
nomic and political factors, sustainable development is an issue which is still
high on the political agenda because it is supported by the Prime Minister
who is a policy entrepreneur in this area. Finally, Bavaria is also a pioneer
regarding its ‘foreign policy’. An example is the recently revitalized co-
operation agreement between Bavaria and California.

Sustainable development in North Rhine-Westphalia

Like Bavaria, North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) has always been an environ-
mental policy pioneer. The first air pollution law was enacted in NRW as
early as 1962, which is remarkable – even from an international point of
view. Another example of this state’s visionary approach is its introduction
of the first funding programme for renewable energy sources (‘Rationelle
Energieverwendung und Nutzung unerschöpflicher Energiequellen’; REN) in 1987,
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 137
long before the federal government started to promote renewable energy
production. In 2000, the state government appointed a governing commit-
tee at the under-secretary level whose task was to develop a broad and
integrative strategy for sustainable development for the whole state of
North Rhine-Westphalia. This committee was advised by the ‘Council for
the Future’ (Zukunftsrat), which consisted of 28 prominent individuals from
politics, economics, trade unions, churches and other organizations. A
broad agenda consultation process was initiated in 2002. In the framework
of this Agenda 21 process, mission statements, goals and indicators were
developed for all relevant policy areas, agenda projects were launched, net-
works were created and best practice cases were documented. In close co-
operation with all other relevant ministries, the state government drafted a
report which, based on the results of the agenda process and a report of the
Council of the Future, contains the basic principles for a sustainable devel-
opment strategy for NRW. However, a formal decision had not been taken
when the coalition between the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the
Green Party was replaced by a new government, a coalition between the
Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP) in fall
2005. However, NRW has had a climate protection programme, Kli-
maschutzkonzept NRW, since 2001. The development of this programme was
linked to the Agenda 21 NRW process and this concept is based directly
on and complementary to the first national climate protection programme,
which aimed to reduce CO2 emissions by 25 per cent through 2005 (based
on the emissions levels in 1990). Furthermore, NRW also initiated an
LA21 process at an early stage. Compared to the rest of Germany, a high
percentage of cities passed LA21 resolutions (about 65 per cent of the
municipalities, as of 2006). In terms of the percentage of municipalities
with LA21 resolutions, NRW has been a leader from the outset. The early
and professional establishment of an agenda transfer institution, the very
first in the country, was also highly advantageous to the development of
LA21 in the state.
As in Bavaria, the high commitment to sustainable development activity
in NRW can be explained mainly by the latter’s socio-economic capacities.
NRW is the most densely populated German state. In economic terms,
NRW accounts for 22 per cent of the country’s GDP. NRW used to be the
centre of Germany’s coal and steel industries and the state’s transformation
to a high-technology industry and services base is still under way. Since the
1960s NRW has been governed by the SPD or by a coalition of the SPD
with a smaller partner until 2005. The red–green coalition, which has been
in power from 1995 to 2005 (Kost 2002: 189), has certainly fostered the
development of sustainable development initiatives in NRW. In contrast to
Bavaria, NRW demonstrated a lack of interest in government-industry co-
operation and a strong orientation towards Berlin’s red–green policy, which
became most evident in NRW’s climate strategy. This situation has been
changing recently because the new conservative–liberal government in
138 K. Kern
Düsseldorf favours government–industry co-operation and plans to establish
an environmental pact for NRW.

Sustainable development in Thuringia

Thuringia is the most active state of all the eastern Länder in the area of sus-
tainable development. In 2000, the government of Thuringia adopted its
‘10 Guidelines for the Implementation of Agenda 21 in Thuringia’ (‘10
Leitlinien zur Umsetzung der Agenda 21 in Thüringen’); this document appears
to be unique in Germany. In it, the Thuringian government explicitly
endorses LA21 initiatives and outlines a project and target group-related
approach to their implementation. The state further plans to put more
emphasis on topic-oriented co-operation, in the area of climate change
policy, for example. Since 1998, all of the relevant groups have participated
in the climate protection process. The close co-operation which exists
between the government and business sector was extended in March 2004
(Bundesregierung 2004: 36). By July 2006, 282 out of about 1,000 cities
and towns and about half of the counties in Thuringia had passed an LA21
resolution. However, groundbreaking activities were launched even before
LA21 was adopted in 1992. GET Agenda 21, a state-wide agenda transfer
institution, was established jointly in 1999 by the Thuringian Association
of Urban and Local Authorities (Gemeinde- und Städtebund Thüringen) and the
Thuringian Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and the Environ-
ment (Thüringer Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Naturschutz und Umwelt)
(TMLNU). Also in 1999, four regional agenda transfer offices were set up.
Although they are funded by the state government, formally they are
NGOs. The state-wide agenda transfer institution GET Agenda 21 was
forced to end its work in late 2002 and, today, the TMLNU and the four
regional Agenda transfer offices share LA 21 consultancy tasks. This regional
approach has proved successful as LA21 resolutions have strongly increased
in the last years.
Because Thuringia belonged to the former German Democratic Repub-
lic (GDR), it is surprising that this state shows a high level of activity and
commitment with regard to sustainable development. Thuringia is a rela-
tively small state with only about 2.4 million inhabitants. The region has
major economic problems, especially a high unemployment rate. Despite
these problems, Thuringia is nevertheless one of the best performing of the
new Länder. A few major industrial companies are located in Thuringia;
otherwise economic activity is concentrated mainly in small and medium-
sized businesses. Since reunification Thuringia is located in the centre of
Germany and has become Bavaria’s neighbour to the north. Today,
Thuringia is governed by the conservative Christian Democratic Party
(CDU), which has been in power since 1999. Therefore, close co-operation
between these two Länder has characterized various policy areas since
reunification.
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 139
Conclusions
This study on sustainable development in the Länder clearly shows that
international comparisons should be complemented by intranational compar-
isons between sub-national governments. This becomes especially evident
when relatively large federalist countries like Germany are compared with
relatively small unitary countries like the Netherlands or Sweden. It should
be kept in mind that some Länder have more inhabitants and a higher gross
national product than many EU member states. From an international com-
parative perspective, Germany has been a pioneer in some areas of sustain-
able development, such as climate protection policy, but a laggard in other
areas, such as strategic planning for sustainable development. Länder policies
in the area of sustainable development have not been examined systematic-
ally up to now. This study shows that several of the Länder started their own
initiatives only a few years after the Rio conference in 1992. They adopted
Landes-Agenda 21s and climate protection strategies; they negotiated
environmental or sustainable development pacts with industry and estab-
lished funding programmes for local sustainable development. Areas in
which the federal government has been a laggard are of particular interest
because this lack of national action opens a window of opportunity for
Länder initiatives. Thus, the Länder became most active in areas where the
federal government did not act. The most interesting innovation in this
respect is the Bavarian environmental pact. This government–industry
agreement appears to be the first of its kind in Germany.
The comparison of the Länder revealed that the southern states (Bavaria,
Baden-Württemberg), NRW and the city-state of Berlin rank highest in the
area of sustainable development. This underlines the historical trends in
West Germany. Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia
have always been environmental pioneers. Regarding the eastern states, the
study showed that the differences between eastern and western Germany are
not as significant as might be expected. Surprisingly, Thuringia, a rather
small eastern state, has become quite active in sustainable development
policy-making and scored higher than many medium-sized Länder in West
Germany. Thuringia and Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania, though to a
lesser extent, have developed from laggards to latecomers.
The differences regarding the Länder’s innovativeness and commitment to
sustainable development can be explained mainly by their socio-economic,
political-institutional and cultural capacities, by pressure factors and the
existence of policy entrepreneurs such as the Bavarian Prime Minister.
Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia are the most
populous and wealthiest Länder. They experienced serious environmental
problems in the past and have, hence, built up extensive capacities to resolve
them. This includes political-institutional capacities which aim at policy
integration, such as sustainable development councils or ‘Green Cabinets’.
The impact of socio-economic factors is also important in the case of
140 K. Kern
Thuringia which is a rather small state but has performed best economically
among the Länder in the former GDR. It can also be argued that EU Struc-
tural Funds may have helped to finance sustainable development initiatives
in East Germany.
A rather surprising finding is the fact that the parties in power appear to
play a crucial role for the framing of sustainable development and the devel-
opment of different policy patterns. The leading Länder are Bavaria,
Germany’s most conservative state, and North Rhine-Westphalia, which
was ruled by a red–green government from 1995 to 2005. Both Länder score
very high, show some similarities but also marked differences when details
are taken into account. They pursued a similar approach regarding the
support of LA21 initiatives. Both Länder are leaders in this respect and have
supported LA21 processes with considerable financial means for almost ten
years. Furthermore, both Länder used new forms of governance to foster the
implementation of LA21, namely learning from best practice and bench-
marking. However, there are also considerable differences: In Bavaria sus-
tainable development initiatives are based on conservative attitudes towards
nature and favour government-industry agreements and nuclear energy.
Thus, there was a clear conflict between Bavaria’s interests and those of the
red–green federal government which was in power until 2005 and forced the
phase-out of nuclear energy. In NRW, in contrast, extensive consultation
processes were organized; environmental pacts with industry were uncom-
promisingly rejected although demanded by the parties in opposition for
several years. Instead, the Bavarian environmental pact was imitated first by
other conservative Länder such as Baden-Württemberg and Thuringia,
which are both Bavaria’s immediate neighbours. After a change of govern-
ment it can be expected that NRW will finally adopt this Bavarian innova-
tion which may lead to further convergence of the different regional models
of sustainable development in Germany (see Table 5.1).
It can be concluded that sustainable development initiatives at least in
the leading federal states in Germany are not restricted to a declaratory level
but have led to significant changes at least at the policy level. The best-
performing states show some similarities regarding the use of benchmarking
and best practice transfer, especially as a tool to stimulate local action. The
comparison between red–green NRW and conservative Bavaria also shows
that the ‘greening of the state’ (Barry and Eckersley 2005) can take various
forms because sustainable development can be framed differently. While
extensive consultation processes were launched in NRW but also in other
states such as Berlin, Bavaria has put more emphasis on voluntary agree-
ments with industry. This governance approach has been the backbone of
Bavaria’s sustainable development strategy from the outset because the
environmental pact was Bavaria’s first sustainable development initiative
launched in 1995 when voluntary agreements were also supported and fos-
tered by the then-conservative federal government. This approach fits very
well with the specific Bavarian mixture between a conservative tradition,
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 141
including the conservation of nature, technology-oriented approaches and
ecological modernization, which may comprise the promotion of renewable
energy, cars powered by fuel cells and a firm stand regarding nuclear energy.
However, it remains an open question whether the conservative model or the
alternative red–green model will have more impact on the ground in the
long run and will lead to the sustainable development of the German federal
states.

Note
1 The assessment of the sustainable development activity level is based on the
comprehensiveness and integration of measures, such as the differences between
Environmental Plans and Sustainable Development Strategies or the sectors
included in a strategy. Scores for the support of local sustainable development
initiatives are based on the level of financial support of such initiatives (transfer
agencies, projects). Additionally, it was taken into account whether programmes
and strategies were evaluated and updated.

References
Andersen, M. S. and Liefferink, D. (1997) ‘Introduction: The Impact of the Pioneers
on EU Environmental Policy’, in M. Skou and D. Liefferink (eds), European
Environmental Policy: The Pioneers, Manchester and New York: Manchester Univer-
sity Press, 1–39.
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (eds) (2004) Multi-level Governance, Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development, London and New York: Routledge.
Barry, J. and Eckersley, R. (eds) (2005) The State and the Global Ecological Crises,
Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Poli-
tics, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Bayerisches Staatsministerium (2002) Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Bayern: Umwelt-
gerechter Wohlstand für Generationen, München.
Bundesregierung (2002) Perspektiven für Deutschland. Unsere Strategie für eine nach-
haltige Entwicklung, Berlin.
Bundesregierung (2004) Perspektiven für Deutschland. Unsere Strategie für eine nach-
haltige Entwicklung, Berlin.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2004) Geld
vom Staat für Energiesparen und erneuerbare Energien: Programme – Ansprechpartner –
Adressen, Berlin.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2005) Nationales
Klimaschuzprogramm 2005. Beschluss der Bundesregierung vom 13. Juli 2005, Berlin.
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (2004) Freiwillige Vereinbarungen und Selb-
stverpflichtungen. Bestandsaufnahme freiwilliger Selbstverpflichtungen und Vereinbarungen
im Umweltschutz (Stand: December 2004), Berlin.
Eckerberg, K., Coenen, F. and Lafferty, W. M. (1999) ‘The Status of LA21 in
Europe: A Comparative Review’, in W. M. Lafferty (ed.), Implementing LA21 in
Europe. New Initiatives for Sustainable Communities, Oslo: ProSus.
142 K. Kern
Geißel, B. (2004) Participatory Governance: Theoretical-analytical Approaches and a Case
Study. Fifth Pan-European International Relations Conference, The Hague, 9–11 Sep-
tember.
Gray, V. (1994) ‘Competition, Emulation, and Policy Innovation’, in L. C. Dodd
and C. Jillson (eds), New Perspectives on American Politics, Washington, DC: CQ
Press, 230–248.
Grote, J. R. and Gbiki, B. (eds) (2002) Participatory Governance: Political and Societal
Implications, Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Hansmann, K. (2001) ‘Der Beitrag der Länder im Umweltrecht’, in K.-P. Dolde
(ed.), Umweltrecht im Wandel: Bilanz und Perspektiven des 25-jährigen Bestehens der
Gesellschaft für Umweltrecht, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 768–782.
Heinelt, H., Getimis, P., Kafkalas, G., Smith. R. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds) (2002)
Participatory Governance in Multi-Level Context: Concepts and Experience, Opladen:
Leske + Budrich.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration,
London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003) ‘Unraveling the Central State? Types of Multi-
level Governance’, American Political Science Review, 97 (2): 233–243.
Jacob, K. and Volkery, A. (2003) ‘Instruments for Policy Integration: Intermediate
Report of the RIW Project Point’, FFU report no. 06–2003, Berlin: Freie Univer-
sität Berlin, Forschungsstelle für Umweltpolitik.
Jänicke, M. and Jörgens, H. (1998) ‘National Environmental Policy Planning in
OECD Countries: Preliminary Lessons from Cross-National Comparisons’,
Environmental Politics, 7: 27–54.
Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A. (2000) ‘ “Greening” the European Union: What Can
Be Learned from the “Leaders” of EU Environmental Policy?’, European Environ-
ment, 10: 109–120.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. and Zito, A. R. (2003) ‘ “New”’ Instruments of Environ-
mental Governance: Patterns and Pathways of Change’, in A. Jordan, R. K.
Wurzel and A. R. Zito (eds), ‘New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance?
National Experiences and Prospects, Environmental Politics, Special Issue, 12 (1): 3–24.
Jörgensen, K. (2002) ‘Ökologisch nachhaltige Entwicklung im föderativen Staat:
Das Beispiel der deutschen Bundesländer’, FFU report no. 04–2002, Berlin: Freie
Universität Berlin, Forschungsstelle für Umweltpolitik.
Kern, K. (2000) Die Diffusion von Politikinnovationen: Umweltpolitische Innovationen im
Mehrebenensystem der US, Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Kern, K., Jörgens, H. and Jänicke, J. (2000) ‘Die Diffusion umweltpolitischer Inno-
vationen. Ein Beitrag zur Globalisierung der Umweltpolitik’, Zeitschrift für
Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 23: 507–546.
Kern, K., Koenen, S. and Löffelsend, T. (2004) ‘Red-green Environmental Policy in
Germany: Strategies and Performance Patterns’, in W. Reutter (ed.), Germany on
the Road to ‘Normalcy’: Policies and Politics of the First Red-green Government
(1998–2002), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 183–206.
Kern, K., Koll, C. and Schophaus, M. (2004) ‘Local Agenda 21 in Germany from a
Comparative Perspective – An Inter- and Intranational Comparison’, WZB dis-
cussion paper no. SP IV 2004–104, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für
Sozialforschung.
Klimaschutzkonzept der bayerischen Stattsregierung (2000). Available online:
www.klimastrategie.de/download/bay_klmknzpt2000.pdf.
 Initiatives in federal states in Germany 143
Kost, A. (2002) Nordrhein-Westfalen: Vom Land aus der Retorte zum ‘Wir-
Gefühl’, in Hans-Georg Wehling (ed.), Die deutschen Länder. Geschichte – Politik –
Wirtschaft, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 181–194.
Kösters, W. (2002) Umweltpolitik: Themen, Probleme, Perspektiven, Munich: Olzog
Verlag (2nd edition).
Lafferty, M. W. (2004) ‘From Environmental Protection to Sustainable Develop-
ment: the Challenge of Decoupling through Sectoral Integration’, in W. M.
Lafferty (ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting
Form to Function, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar,
191–220.
Lafferty, W. M. and Hovden, E. (2003) ‘Environmental Policy Integration: Towards
an Analytical Framework’, Environmental Politics, 12 (3): 1–22.
Lafferty, W. M. and Coenen, F. (2001) ‘Conclusions and Perspectives’, in W. M.
Lafferty (ed.), Sustainable Communities in Europe, London: Earthscan, 266–304.
März, P. (2002) ‘Freistaat Bayern – Ein Fünftel Deutschlands’, in Hans-Georg
Wehling (ed.), Die deutschen Länder: Geschichte – Politik – Wirtschaft, Opladen:
Leske + Budrich, 35–66.
Meadowcroft, J. (2004) ‘Participation and Sustainable Development: Modes of
Citizen, Community and Organisational Involvement’, in W. M. Lafferty (ed.),
Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function.
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 162–190.
Peine, F.-J. (2001) ‘Probleme der Umweltschutzgesetzgebung im Bundesstaat’,
Natur und Recht, 23 (8): 421–427.
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Rabe, Barry G. (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse. The Emerging Politics of American
Climate Change Policy, Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
Rosamund, B. (2004) ‘New Theories of European Integration’, in Michelle Cini
(ed.), European Union Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–127.
Rosenau, J. (1997) ‘Global Environmental Governance: Delicate Balances, Subtle
Nuances, and Multiple Challenges’, in M. Rolén, H. Sjöberg and U. Svedin (eds),
International Governance on Environmental Issues, Dordrecht and Boston, MA:
Kluwer, 19–56.
Ruud, A. (2004) ‘Partners for Progress? The Role of Business in Transcending Busi-
ness as Usual’, in W. M. Lafferty (ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development. The
Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar, 221–245.
Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen (SRU) (2006) Der Umweltschutz in der Föder-
alismusreform, Berlin: SRU.
Scheberle, D. (2004) Federalism and Environmental Policy. Trust and the Politics of
Implementation, 2nd edition, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Scheich, J., Eichhammer, W., Boede, U., Gagelmann, F., Jochem, E., Schlomann,
B. and Ziesing, H.-J. (2001) ‘Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Germany – Lucky
Strike or Hard Work?’, Climate Policy, 1: 363–380.
Schmitter, P. C. (2002) ‘Participation in Governance Arrangements: Is there any
Reason to Expect It Will Achieve ‘Sustainable and Innovative Policies in a Multi-
level Context’?’, in Jürgen, R. Grote and Bernard Gbiki (eds), Participatory Gover-
nance: Political and Societal Implications, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 51–69.
Technische Universität München (2003) Evaluierung der Kommunalen Agenda 21 in
144 K. Kern
Bayern. Materialband zum Endbericht. Forschungsvorhaben im Auftrag des Bayerischen
Staatsministerium für Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen.
Wurzel, R., Jordan, A., Zito, A. R. and Brückner, L. (2003) ‘From High Regulatory
State to Social and Ecological Market Economy? “New” Environmental Policy
Instruments in Germany’, in A. Jordan, R. K. Wurzel and A. R. Zito, ‘New’
Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects, Environ-
mental Politics, Special Issue, 12 (1): 115–136.
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (Yale University) and Center for
International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) (Columbia Univer-
sity) (2006) Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index: www.yale.edu/epi.
6 Rhetoric or reality?
Responding to the challenge of
sustainable development and new
governance patterns in Ireland
Bernadette Connaughton, Bríd Quinn and
Nicholas Rees

Introduction
Ireland’s submission to the Earth Summit 2002 conceded that ‘underlying
problems in the relationship between the economy and the environment in
Ireland have not been fully addressed’ (DoELG 2002a). Traditionally among
the EU environmental laggards this would seem to imply that Ireland’s
commitment to sustainable development is more rhetorical than real. This
chapter examines sub-national engagement with the promotion of sustain-
able development in the Irish case. It considers the relationship between the
use of traditional methods of government and emerging new modes of gov-
ernance by illustrating challenges to implement waste management policy.
In particular the focus on waste management addresses the case of domestic
waste, since local authorities have been given responsibility for managing
and dealing with the public on this issue. Above all, the discussion ques-
tions whether policy innovations and rhetoric at central government level
have resulted in the emergence of effective governance capacities to realise
sustainable solutions in waste management.
The Irish approach to sustainable development is a relatively recent
policy advancement. It was first articulated in the government’s 1997 strat-
egy document which is the product of particular national political and eco-
nomic characteristics and forces that have shaped Ireland’s response (DoELG
1997). The past decade has also seen unprecedented economic development
in Ireland whereby GDP per capita has increased from below the European
average to among the highest within the EU. The population has also grown
strongly, especially in Dublin and its widening commuter belt. Notably, the
idea of sustainable development has at times been seen as at odds with
government policy on competitiveness and low taxation, although it can also
be seen as aligned with a general political commitment to social partnership
and corporatist style arrangements. In general, the public has been slow to
respond to the ideals of sustainable development. As a result of the country’s
146 B. Connaughton et al.
late economic development, environmental interests have often been subor-
dinate to agricultural and, more recently, industrial interests.
Environmentally, Irish governments have been obliged to respond to the
breadth of European legislation albeit slowly, sometimes viewing further
attempts at regulation and management of environmental issues as poten-
tially costly and as inhibiting economic competitiveness. The state has
therefore largely responded to EU regulatory pressure for change rather than
set out to define its own environmental agenda. This reflects a policy style
which has been described as ‘conservative and reactive’, and perpetuates the
promotion of the economic over the ecological (Flynn 2003; Connaughton
2005). The Irish case is thus illustrative of a weak decoupling of economic
growth and environmental pressures in comparison to best international
practices (OECD 2000). Waste management illustrates this quandary of
competitiveness and sustainability. It has been highlighted as a sector that
only began to receive significant nationwide attention in the late 1990s
(ibid., p. 25) and of which waste generation is at unsustainably high levels
in Ireland due to increasing consumption of goods and services (Environ-
mental Protection Agency 2004). To some extent the attention deficit has
been rectified in recent years. There has been a drive towards developing
strategies, enacting legislation, directing resources and promoting informa-
tion campaigns with the goal of solving the waste problem. Despite this, the
waste crisis is not simply a technical problem regarding the capacity of the
state to dispose of waste, it is also a crisis of governance (Davies 2004: 67). It
is an issue which illustrates both the ambivalence of Irish society towards
environmentalism and a minimalist approach to resolving our development
problems resulting in a weak model of environmental policy integration.
As noted by Baker and Eckerberg in the Introduction to this book, waste
is illustrative of an area representing traditional environmental management
issues that are now struggling to adapt to the broader sustainable develop-
ment agenda. The complexity of the waste management issue eludes the
traditional approaches to governing. It necessitates new directions for Irish
public administration, requiring widespread social and political consensus
and a diversification of policy instruments. The shift towards new environ-
mental policy instruments (NEPIs) implies that there is a transfer from the
traditional regulatory style towards more market based and cooperative
instruments (Jordan et al. 2003) with the overall goal of internalising and
fostering sustainability. In addressing this, the notion of governance may be
particularly useful in helping to facilitate the complexity of sustainable
development and the implementation of a normative political programme.
The governance approach ensures that the focus is not solely on institutional
actors but rather on the complex relationships, networks and processes by
which policy is framed and acted upon. For waste management the gover-
nance interpretation, based on multi-agency partnerships, the blurring of
responsibilities between public and non-public sectors, and the emergence of
self-regulating networks may be a more appropriate way of understanding
 New governance patterns in Ireland 147
contemporary developments (Fagan et al. 2001: 4). Approaches such as
partnership are deemed to have been achieved in Irish development policy
whereby a shift from government to governance is evident. It is illustrated
in the degree of experimentation and development of new sets of relation-
ships – horizontal and vertical – in an otherwise centralist system (Adshead
and Quinn 1998). Are similar patterns emerging in the governance of waste
management?
In order to examine Ireland’s response to these developments, this chapter
is organised into four core sections. It lays out a simple framework of analy-
sis to examine the degree to which new patterns of governance have emerged
in relation to waste management in Ireland. The interpretation of sustain-
able development in the Irish context and the degree to which new gover-
nance approaches are embedded in the Irish system is discussed followed by
examining the policy approach adopted in Ireland towards waste manage-
ment. The principal actors and institutions in the area are then identified
and their degree of influence is gauged in respect to the development of new
sets of relationships and partnerships at all levels of administration. The final
section looks at the challenges of implementing sustainable development
models encountered at the sub-national level and explores whether these
problems fit with the genre of ‘classic’ implementation problems or reflect
the emergence of new modes of governance.

Sustainable development and governance: the Irish

context

Interpreting sustainable development

In Ireland, the policy agenda for environmental and sustainability issues is
relatively new and the principal strategies to implement this agenda have
been introduced from 1990 onwards, largely in response to EU and inter-
national discourses. The first comprehensive policy document to be adopted
was the Environmental Action Programme in 1991, the main commitment
in which was the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This innovation was followed by a greater emphasis on sustainable develop-
ment as a key consideration in government policy. Awareness of sustainabil-
ity issues is evident across various policy sectors and levels of government.
However, the way in which it is conceptualised in the national context and
the accompanying implementation strategies may be questioned. It is
defined by inclusion in legislation and strategies (such as the Planning and
Development Act 2000, the National Development Plan (NDP) 2000–2006
and the National Spatial Strategy 2002–2020) which set the framework for
future economic and social development. But, while commitment to the
principle is pledged in such frameworks, there is no specific legislation con-
cerning sustainable development and the public perception of sustainable
development is generally weak. The Irish policy approach is more aligned to
148 B. Connaughton et al.
‘development that has to be sustained’ (McDonald and Nix 2005: 12) and a
blurred acceptance of ecological modernisation, rather than a strong ideo-
logical and practical commitment to sustainable development.
The government’s policy statement, Sustainable Development: A Strategy
for Ireland (Department of the Environment and Local Government), was
published in 1997. Sustainable development is viewed as a dynamic and
inclusive but also as a qualitative concept. In relation to inclusiveness, the
concept is interpreted as ‘bringing environment to the heart of economic
growth and quality of life concerns, and requiring the active participation of
economic operators and the public; as well as all levels of Government’
(DoELG 1997: 20).
Thus, the breadth of the concept has been espoused but in terms of sub-
stance the strategy reflects the contradiction between aspiration and reality
in the Irish case. The NSDS stresses an approach whereby sustainable devel-
opment should underpin policy decisions across all sectors and the trans-
ition to an environmentally sustainable society and economy. This marks a
change since, traditionally, the belief across government departments was
that environmental management was the particular responsibility of the
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, to
some commentators it has appeared that innovations in environmental reg-
ulation, such as the establishment of the EPA, do not represent a new
regime but rather display more in the way of continuity (Taylor and Horan
2001: 390). But while cross-sectoral integration remains weak, this paper
argues that it has begun to be addressed in, for example, city and county
development strategies and in the National Spatial Strategy launched in
December 2002.
In addition to the aspirations outlined above, the NSDS clearly states that
continued economic growth is essential and emphasises that sustainable
development is not a constraint but rather an opportunity for new market
innovation (DoELG 1997). This type of approach would indicate that the
Irish government is pursuing a policy of weak sustainable development
(Broderick 1999: 345) whereby ‘modernisation’ is a convenient justification
for continuing with economic imperatives (Taylor 1998). The objective of
policies to promote weak sustainable development remains economic
growth, but environmental costs are taken into consideration (Baker et al.
1997: 13). The National Development Plans formulated since 1988 provide
the blue print for Irish development but, while these plans have made con-
siderable resources available for environmental measures, their commitment
to sustainable development is slight. In the case of the 1994–1999 NDP,
Pepper (1999) argued that the emphasis on environment was not for intrin-
sic value or broader social value but because of perceived economic advant-
age. A perceived weakness of the National Sustainable Development
Strategy was that it did not have many quantified objectives in the economic
policy areas which underpin the environment (Comhar 2001b). Recently,
however, the National Economic and Social Council has developed a set of
 New governance patterns in Ireland 149
social, economic and environmental indicators to measure Ireland’s progress
on sustainable development, thereby providing some means to enhance
policy-making in this area (National Economic and Social Council 2002).
Interestingly, its findings indicate that Ireland has made progress on
many of the indicators, especially on those related to economic growth and
sustainability, but has made little progress on social indicators, and environ-
mental indicators have moved in a negative direction (ibid., p. 20).
Baker (2006: 30–31) outlines a ladder of sustainable development to
organise the different interpretations of sustainable development and their
policy imperatives. The model ‘weak’ sustainable development is charac-
terised by declaratory commitment to principles stronger than in practice.
‘Weak’ sustainable development embodies an approach whereby the aim is
to integrate capitalist growth with environmental concerns (ibid., p. 33). It
is a sector-driven approach, emphasising ‘end of pipe’ technical solutions,
market-led policy tools and voluntary agreements and restricted institu-
tional reform. This model also exhibits a preponderance of ‘top-down’ initi-
atives, limited state-civil society dialogue and elite participation (Baker
2006: 30–31). This type of sustainable development is conservative and not
radically reforming but reflects Ireland’s initial efforts. Another interpreta-
tion of the Irish approach to sustainability is to interpret it as between very
weak and weak sustainability in accordance with O’Riordan’s (1996) typol-
ogy (cited in Carter 2001). This ranges from paying lip service to policy
integration and minor tinkering with economic instruments to formal
policy integration and deliverable targets (Carter 2001: 201). Thus,
although some progress has been made in embedding sustainable develop-
ment objectives within the policy/administrative structures, much remains
to be done to achieve real change.

Government to governance in Ireland?

The idea that policy processes are in general an interplay between various
actors and not centrally governed by government is now broadly accepted
(Kooiman 1993). In envisaging governance in this manner, whereby policy
and its implementation are seen as the output of a process that involves
interaction between non-hierarchically organised actors, the question arises
as to what extent this is evident in the Irish political system? Traditionally,
the Irish political system has been characterised as unitary, highly cen-
tralised and hierarchical in nature with clientilism prevailing (Chubb 1992).
National politics remain highly localised, with politicians engaged in dense
networks built on personal relationships and acting on behalf of their con-
stituents. Political expediency therefore reinforces a tendency to steer away
from the difficult choices and long-term solutions that are unpalatable in
local constituencies. In many respects this image holds true until the late
1980s, when piecemeal reforms to government heralded some change at the
national level, ultimately leading to far greater political change in the 1990s
150 B. Connaughton et al.
and 2000s. Such change is manifested in the public-sector modernisation
programme launched in 1994 entitled the Strategic Management Initiative and
the abolition of the dual mandate which was a facility whereby members of
Dáil Éireann (lower house of parliament) could retain their county council
seats while serving in the national parliament. The greater emphasis on stra-
tegic management in the civil service, along with reform of local govern-
ment and the introduction of new regional structures has transformed the
nature of the political system and public administration in Ireland.
Ireland’s movement from government towards governance is closely
linked to the social partnership approach adopted by successive Irish govern-
ments since 1987. Social partnership agreements have underpinned,
although do not wholly explain, Ireland’s economic boom. Ireland adopted
an approach to governance that rested not only on a partnership between key
government, business interests and trade unionists, but also one that has
increasingly involved the voluntary sector and other non-governmental
interests. The concept of partnership has become widely accepted as a model
of governance at all levels in Ireland (Rees et al. 2006). In tandem with new
approaches to public policy, often emphasising public management solu-
tions, it has also led to new patterns of governance. Ireland is, of course, not
unique in this regard, given the increasing emphasis in many developed
states on attempting to adopt new steering approaches to political issues. No
single actor, public or private, has all knowledge and information required
to solve complex, dynamic and diversified problems or make the application
of instruments effective (Kooiman 1993). For example, the emphasis on
mixing public and private sector expertise and investment has been
embraced in Ireland through the concept of public–private partnerships
(PPPs) and key elements of the National Development Programme
2000–2006 are delivered through PPPs, although implementing such
arrangements has proven more problematic than anticipated.
There is some evidence of the move from government to governance in
the government’s National Sustainable Development Strategy. The Strategy
envisaged that the national model of social partnership would be extended
horizontally through the creation of Comhar – The National Sustainable
Development Partnership – which was established in 1999. It also placed a
particular responsibility on local and regional authorities for the implemen-
tation and co-ordination of Local Agenda 21 and local partnerships were
created for specific LA21 projects. The strategy thus highlights both the
importance of the regional dimension and the local government system. In
the latter case, it was envisaged that local government would provide leader-
ship and a basis for interaction with local communities. However, the ability
to steer a path towards effective sustainable development depends on the
capacities of people and institutions (for further discussion see Berger and
Steurer in Chapter 1 of this volume). Whether the strategy, as invoked in
the NSDS policy document, has actually influenced the approach to waste
management remains to be examined.
 New governance patterns in Ireland 151
Waste management policy in Ireland
In the case of waste management, sustainable development tends to be inter-
preted to mean the reduction of the amount of waste produced and an
increase in the amount of waste recovered. This reflects the waste manage-
ment hierarchy emphasised in the EU Landfill Directive (introduced in
1975) and Community Strategy for Waste Management (1999). The Them-
atic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Resources was launched in December
2005 and is closely linked with a strategy on the prevention and recycling of
waste. The waste strategy aims to help Europe become a recycling society
that seeks to avoid waste and uses waste as a resource.
In terms of indicating how the waste management hierarchy is to be
implemented, the main response from member states has been the emer-
gence of plans. The former Tánaiste (deputy prime minister), Mary Harney,
in the foreword to a report assessing the waste management infrastructural
deficit, highlights the Irish attitude to this issue in her comments. Her main
message was that putting the infrastructural facilities in place would, to a
significant degree, address the issue and maintain competitiveness in the
state’s industrial policy (Forfás 2001) – which implies lip service to an ecolo-
gical modernisation agenda as opposed to sustainable development. The
Irish approach to waste management policy has developed from the
1970s/1980s method of control through statutes and ministerial regulations
to a series of strategies and the enactment of legislation. Table 6.1 sum-
marises key developments in the sphere since the beginning of the 1990s.
The Waste Management Act 1996 attempted to bring together as many
features of EU waste management policy as possible and introduced a new
licensing procedure for waste management facilities, including landfills.
This has resulted in the redefinition of institutional relationships, as the
newly formed EPA was given the authority to license landfill sites operated
by local authorities and private interests. The 1996 Act was followed by the
policy statement Waste Management: Changing Our Ways (Department of the
Environment and Local Government 1998) which set targets for a diversion
of 50 per cent of overall household waste away from landfill over a 15-year
period and increased recycling and composting rates.
Under the remit of Changing Our Ways, local authorities are responsible
for the adoption and implementation of regional waste management plans
aimed at solutions that are sustainable and progressive. This involves pro-
viding for a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill, and the development
of a modern, integrated waste management infrastructure. The approach
represents institutional innovation since traditionally local authorities exer-
cised their waste planning and management functions in isolation from each
other and from other service providers. The implementation of regional
waste management plans is now underway. However, the actual process of
putting the plans into place proved controversial and was not supported by
local politicians in several regions (Connaughton 2005). The lack of
Table 6.1 Key developments in Ireland: sustainable development and waste management

Sustainable development Waste management Waste management developments

Environmental Action Programme 1991 Waste Management Act 1996 Legislative framework for local authorities;
developed role of EPA in reviewing National
Launch of Irish government’s environmental Hazardous Waste Management Plan (launched
policy activities for 1990s. in 2001).
EPA responsible for integrated licensing of all
significant waste recovery and disposal
activities.
Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 Changing Our Ways 1998 Sets targets aimed at stabilization of waste
generation, reducing dependence on landfill and
Establishment of independent statutory increasing recycling and composting rates.
authority. Introduction of Integrated Pollution
Control (IPC) licensing system, streamlined Provides framework for adoption and
through EPA. implementation of waste plans by local
authorities.
EPA established 1993 Waste Management (Amendment) 2001 Act addressed adoption of regional waste
Act 2001 management plans. Transfers power to adopt
plans from elected County Councillors to
County Managers.

Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Preventing and Recycling Policy statement outlined range of measures to
Ireland 1997 Waste 2002 minimising waste generation and promote
expansion in re-use and recycling.
Comhar (National Sustainable Development Protection of Environment Act 2003 Act introduced more stringent regimes for
Partnership) established 1999 2003 IPPC: more activities now require licence and
higher standards required for IPPC and waste
management licences.
Forum for national consultation and dialogue on Enforcement powers of EPA and power of local
Ireland’s pursuit of sustainable development. authorities enhanced to counter litter and
environmental pollution.
 New governance patterns in Ireland 153
compliance with regional and local waste plans resulted in action from the
European Commission, which also criticised waste management plans pro-
duced by some local authorities. The Irish government responded with the
introduction of the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001, which
made the adoption of a waste management plan an executive (management)
function, much to the chagrin of both opposition parties and members of
the public. As a result plans were remade by four local authority chief execu-
tives – County Managers – in September 2001. This perceived attack on
democracy was further entrenched when the Minister of the Environment,
Martin Cullen, referred to the over-democratised and multi-layered nature of
the waste planning process (Irish Times, 12 August 2002).
The politicisation of waste issue was further spearheaded by the Socialist
Party, which led protests against refuse charges in Dublin in autumn 2003.
Such charges have been interpreted as ‘double taxation’ and ‘tax by stealth’
by many members of the public. This interpretation does not take account
of the fact that the more stringent regulation has caused costs to rise, or that
adoption of the ‘polluter pays’ principle also precludes the financing of waste
management services through general taxation. Other developments include
the Environment Fund, which was established under section 12 of the 2001
Act to fund waste management initiatives. There has also been a move
towards NEPIs via a landfill levy, plastic-bag tax and voluntary agreements
regarding packaging waste. The Protection of the Environment Act 2003
gives local authorities explicit powers to stop collecting waste from house-
holders who have not paid their charges and allocates further authority to
the executive role of the County Manager.
Questions have also arisen as to whether the policy statements empha-
sises, on the one hand, individualisation with domestic household waste
highlighted more than agricultural and industrial waste or, on the other,
marketisation, that is attempting to make the final waste product ‘profi-
table’ (Fagan 2002). The Changing Our Ways policy document was followed
by Preventing and Recycling Waste (Department of Environment and Local
Government 2002b). This stressed that one of the main barriers to an
improved and sustainable recycling performance is the lack of stable and
economically attractive markets and outlets for recyclable materials. This
policy statement addressed factors and practical considerations relevant to
the achievement of government policy objectives for the prevention and
recovery of waste. It also called for a recycling consultative forum and a
National Waste Management Board to co-ordinate, monitor and review all
aspects of waste management policy. Despite such initiatives, the National
report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Department of
Environment and Local Government 2002a: 97) identified an important
implementation failure in the enforcement of existing policy ‘while greater
prevention/minimisation and recycling are needed, provision must also be
made for the disposal of the waste that does arise’. Some parts of the jigsaw
are being put into place with the roll-out of facilities such as recycling
154 B. Connaughton et al.
centres and ‘bring banks’ (bins for glass, cans and other recyclable materials).
But to counter this, there is only ten years landfill capacity remaining
(DoEHLG 2004) and limited progress has been made overall in addressing
waste infrastructure deficits (Forfás 2006). In addition, despite attempts by
local authorities towards a comprehensive approach to services and facilities,
arbitrary planning decisions in the past have contributed to ad-hoc develop-
ments regarding the provision of large waste disposal infrastructure (that is,
landfills and incinerators). This has had the potential to inhibit the develop-
ment of an integrated national network as well as fuelling local controversies
(Environmental Protection Agency 2004). Thus, the range of strategies and
legislation is wide but problems of implementation continue.

The actors – who governs waste?

The following section seeks to identify the principal actors and drivers in the
management of waste and assess their role, influence and capacity. Given the
highly centralised nature of Irish administration, the Department of
Environment, Heritage and Local Government retains a focal point in
environmental policy-making. In the case of waste management, however,
both public and private actors and all levels of government have been chal-
lenged by the necessity to secure a ‘goodness of fit’ with the European
requirements on waste that have driven the policy developments of the
1990s. This has implications for their success in achieving national targets
to facilitate sustainable development.
The network of actors outlined in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 facilitate regulation,
co-ordination and implementation. However, achieving sustainable develop-
ment requires the active engagement of economic actors and society sup-
ported at all levels of government. The demarcation of the boundaries and
responsibilities of these actors appears relatively clear-cut. In reality,
however, the contentious nature of waste, the lack of political commitment
to implementation, the blurring of accountability and the difficulties in
securing agreement to sustainable solutions and the inadequacy of resources
presents a different picture.
Environmental issues in Ireland have been addressed across an increas-
ingly fragmented structure of public bodies, with little scope for an integ-
rated and comprehensive approach (Taylor and Horan 2001: 383).
The following Table 6.2 illustrates several significant central government
level actors. The Irish system is based on a strong central executive with all
sub-national structures answerable to, and financially dependent on, the
central government. At the apex is the Department of Environment, Heri-
tage and Local Government, which is responsible for policy and programmes
in relation to the environment and the range of services (environmental pro-
tection, planning and development) provided through the local government
system. In the context of sustainable development, the environmental policy
section strives to promote the concept actively and ensure its integration in
 New governance patterns in Ireland 155
Table 6.2 Main actors for policy-making, monitoring and implementation

National level

Public sector Department of Environment, Heritage and Local

Government
Environmental Protection Agency (1993)
OEE (2003)
Comhar (1999)
‘Green Network’ Inter-departmental committee
Other government departments e.g. Public Enterprise,
Finance
Houses of the Oireachtas (sub-committee on sustainable
development)
ENFO – Environmental Information Service
Private sector IBEC (Irish Business Employers’ Confederation)
REPAK Ltd
Civil society/NGOs Friends of the Earth Ireland
An Taisce – National Trust of Ireland for protection of
heritage and environment

other policy areas. As provided for under the NSDS, the Department co-
ordinates an inter-departmental committee known as the ‘green network’ of
officials in order to discuss recommendations for the integration of environ-
mental affairs in other departments.
The Department is also responsible for co-ordinating the activities of
Comhar, the National Sustainable Development Partnership, which was
established in 1999. This brings together public and private actors includ-
ing expert and NGO representation, in a forum to debate and extend public
consultation and participation in the sustainable development agenda. As
part of its remit Comhar comments on government policy and gives recom-
mendations. It was quite critical of the policy statement Preventing and Recy-
cling Waste (Department of Environment and Local Government 2002)
highlighting its failure to fully address and over-simplify some substantive
issues regarding waste minimisation. Comhar also noted that the document
avoided addressing costs. Such comments are indicative of a frustration with
the failure of government to utilise and give genuine effect to the structures
it creates. In this instance the committee was given insufficient time to give
a detailed response (Comhar 2001a). It may be argued that this illustrate
that the role of Comhar as a forum to assist the consultation process is not
taken as seriously as it should be.
Under the Waste Management Act 1996, the Minister for the Environ-
ment, Heritage and Local Government has the power to issue policy direc-
tion to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local authorities,
make regulations, and promulgate a programme of in-house waste
156 B. Connaughton et al.
management for public authorities. Monitoring of local authorities’
environment performance is an important function of the EPA. The
powers of sanction the agency could impose upon local authorities have
been criticised for not being robust enough. The failures of local authori-
ties to execute their duties in relation to waste are evident in the problems
associated with adopting waste plans and the continuing levels of illegal
dumping. These failures, combined with general difficulties in enforcing
EU legislation, prompted the establishment of the Office of Environ-
mental Enforcement (OEE) in 2003. It is a dedicated unit within the EPA,
funded through the taxation on plastic bags, and one of its key tasks is to
audit the performance of local authorities and prosecute them if necessary
for enforcement failures. It would appear though that prosecution only
takes place as a last resort which does not boost confidence in the effective-
ness of such monitoring structures. A positive aspect of this development,
however, is that it is facilitating local authorities to engage in capacity
building and work with the EPA within a network of enforcement regula-
tors. These types of approaches, while signalling improvement, tend to
prompt comments that the EPA is more focused on managing rather than
conserving the environment (Taylor and Murphy 2002: 91).
Other national level actors include IBEC (Irish Business Employers’ Con-
federation), which is perceived as a key stakeholder in the waste manage-
ment policy process. Aligned to IBEC is Repak which is Ireland’s first
voluntary initiative between industry and the Department of the Environ-
ment. Repak is designed to meet industry’s producer responsibility obliga-
tions under the EU directive on packaging and packaging waste (94/62/EC)
and the subsequent Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations 1997.
Flynn (2003: 151) notes that voluntary approaches such as Repak find favour
with IBEC given that they build quite naturally on the wider pattern of
‘social partnership’, the neo-corporatist arrangements entrenched within the
Irish system. IBEC’s alignment with the model of weak sustainable develop-
ment is evident through, for example, its resistance to green taxation. In
regard to waste, IBEC has been advocates of a National Waste Authority,
given that many of the infrastructural problems are national in nature and
local authorities do not generally have the degree of expertise required to
solve waste problems.
The following Table 6.3 identifies those actors most identified with the
sub-national level of governance in Ireland. Berger and Steurer note in
Chapter 1 that regions are increasingly seen as the space within which sus-
tainable development problems become evident and the appropriate political
level to deal with the practical implications of policies. The NSDS empha-
sises the role to be played by regional authorities that have been given a co-
ordination role among the sub-national structures and charged with
promoting partnership and identifying and defining sustainability priorities
for their regions. Some regional authorities have been involved in the
preparation of regional waste plans on behalf of their constituent local
 New governance patterns in Ireland 157
Table 6.3 Main sub-national actors involved in policy-making, monitoring and
implementation

Regional level Local level

Public sector Regional authorities Local authorities

Local authority cooperation City/county development
boards
Private sector Waste management Chambers of Commerce
contractors
Local waste management
contractors
NGOs/Civil society Local branches of NGOs
Community groups e.g. Cork
Environmental Forum

authorities, but not all waste regions are aligned to the current regional
boundaries. Despite the rhetoric of such strategies, sufficient resources for
implementation are not allocated. Irish regional authorities find themselves
in a bind whereby they are increasingly conferred with responsibilities to
advance the implementation of sustainable development without necessarily
possessing the corresponding powers to do so (Mullally 2003: 90).
In 2002, Comhar published Principles for Sustainable Development, which
includes the principles that decision making should be devolved to the
appropriate level and that stakeholder participation should be promoted at
all levels (Comhar 2002: 27). In Ireland, the public identify most with the
county since it is the directly elected tier of local government as opposed to
‘regions’ that tend to be administrative or functional constructs. Despite
this, local authorities are in a very dependent position within the overall
administrative structure, particularly with regard to the financial burdens
associated with sustainable development objectives, especially given their
limited ability to generate own resources.
Although the institutional infrastructure has been put in place, few
would argue that local government in Ireland has adopted a consistent
approach to mainstreaming sustainable development. Institutional change
in terms of ‘a proliferation of partnership bodies does not change the
factors that make our society unsustainable’ (Broderick 1999: 356). In
addition, the new structures were never designed to overcome the most
problematic issues in Irish local government, those of centralisation and
inadequate resources. Waste management has also highlighted significant
accountability problems whereby the Waste Management (Amendment)
Act 2001 allowed regional waste plans to be adopted by county managers
as opposed to the elected representatives. This measure was permanently
enshrined in the Protection of the Environment Act 2003. Therefore as
158 B. Connaughton et al.
local communities are being encouraged to take ownership of local sustain-
able development, power has ironically shifted from locally elected repre-
sentatives to the County Manager for the implementation of waste policy
(Mullally and Quinlivan 2004).
Forging new relationships between community and the state are chal-
lenging and it may be questioned how seriously is the participatory and col-
laborative dimension of sustainable development being taken? NGOs tend
to remain outsiders especially those operating at the local level that tends to
be fragmented in organisation. Other organisations and parties that present
more radical views, and propose solutions such as ‘zero waste’, also remain
on the fringes, leaving fewer opportunities to influence the agenda or policy
outcomes. For example, a ‘zero waste’ agenda is promoted by parties that
represent the radical end of the political spectrum. These parties include
Sinn Féin and the Green Party who do not have mainstream appeal or
support.

Sustainable development, waste management and new

patterns of governance at the sub-national level

Designation of waste management regions

The above examination of who governs the waste management area suggests
both the continuing importance of government and of central public institu-
tions and actors but also provides some evidence of new patterns of gover-
nance emerging in Ireland. A transfer of the social partnership model to the
county level is supposed to facilitate the compatibility with sustainable
development principles. This section comments on its impact in relation to
the pursuit of solutions to municipal waste management problems at sub-
national level. The effect of institutional reform, the challenge of sufficient
resource allocation and the development of a partnership approach will be
explored.
The reform of local government in the 1990s and the creation of eight
Regional Authorities in 1994 and two Regional Assemblies in 1999 have
enhanced the role of sub-national actors in the public policy process. Figure
6.1 illustrates the demarcations between the regional authority areas in
Ireland, which are aligned to Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units
(NUTS) III regions. NUTS III is illustrated since this level denotes the
Regional Authority level which is more relevant to discussions on waste
management. There is also some evidence to suggest that other private
actors and NGOs are becoming more involved in the public policy process
in the adoption of more innovative solutions to waste management prob-
lems. For example, ‘the role of civil society has the potential, through a com-
bination of environmental activism, social enterprise and job creation, to add
value to the sustainable governance of waste in Ireland’ (Davies 2004: 68).
At the sub-national level, pledges to sustainable development are evident
 New governance patterns in Ireland 159

Figure 6.1 NUTS III regions in Ireland.

within the NDP’s regional operational programmes, and through the

National Spatial Strategy requirements that regional authorities prepare
regional planning guidelines, wherein sustainable development is a commit-
ment.
Detailed requirements in relation to the preparation and content of local
authority waste management plans were set out in the Waste Management
(Planning) Regulations, 1997. From the outset, local authorities were
encouraged to adopt a regional approach to this planning process, with a
view to the more efficient provision of services and infrastructure. In particu-
lar local authorities have been requested by the government to put facilities
in place to deal with municipal waste, whereas hazardous waste is under the
remit of the EPA’s hazardous waste management plan. This direction has, in
the main, been driven by the EU Landfill Directive, though a report on the
link between waste management capacity and the impact on the Irish
economy has welcomed the rationalisation of waste management strategy
beyond ‘arbitrary county boundaries’ (Bacon and Associates 2002: 3).
The designation of waste management regions has improved co-operation
and co-ordination between some local authorities, but the degree of inter-
authority cohesion has been uneven and the waste management regions seem
not to be firmly embedded in the political and administrative culture. The
regional approach, however, provides the scale to ensure effectiveness while
simultaneously ensuring that responsibility for dealing with the waste is
kept reasonably close to the place where it is generated. Despite this,
160 B. Connaughton et al.
Table 6.4 Waste management regions in Ireland

Region Counties

Connaught Galway, Mayo, Roscommon

Mid-West Limerick, Clare, Kerry
Cork Cork City and County
South-East South Tipperary, Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, Wexford
Midlands Offaly, Laois, Longford, West Meath, North Tipperary
Donegal Donegal
North-East Louth, Cavan, Monaghan, Meath
Dublin Dublin City and County
Kildare Kildare
Wicklow Wicklow

implementation is geared towards meeting specified targets laid out in the

plans as opposed to incorporating a better reflection of the respective roles
and activities of the public and private sector in the implementation of each
plan. The degree of involvement of civil society groups, NGOs and private
enterprise at the regional level is limited, although at a local level there is
far more evidence of these actors becoming involved in the waste manage-
ment agenda. Notably, there is growing degree of dependence on private
waste contractors, privately operated landfill sites and new privately oper-
ated incineration facilities. There is a mix of public and private arrange-
ments across the country whereby both local authorities and private
collectors in the region operate the domestic waste collection service. For
example, Limerick City and County have privatised their waste collection in
recent years while in County Kerry the local authority predominantly oper-
ates the municipal waste collection covering approximately 62 per cent of
the county.

Engaging with sustainable development at sub-national level

and promoting partnership
Recent developments in the institutions and functioning of Irish local
authorities have served to broaden the range of actors involved in policy
design and implementation. Since the publication of Better Local Government:
A Programme for Change (Department of the Environment and Local Govern-
ment 1996), new structures have emerged which facilitate the involvement
of the voluntary sector in the policy process and new roles have emerged for
local authority personnel which transcend the traditional divide between
administrative and technical operatives. The establishment of Strategic
Policy Committees has institutionalised the involvement of representatives
in the identification of policy priorities, the formulation of policy proposals
and the evaluation of policy implementation. The creation of County/City
 New governance patterns in Ireland 161
Development Boards (CDBs) in 2000 and their production of County/City
Development Strategies for the economic, social and cultural development of
the counties and cities over a 10–12-year period have further embedded the
involvement of an array of actors in policy production. Awareness of sustain-
able development is evident but not overarching in the vision statements of
these bodies. Waste issues have to be dealt with as part of the implementa-
tion of the development strategies. Local participation is also encouraged
through the establishment of a Community Forum whose local public meet-
ings provide an opportunity to debate local challenges. However, there is
room for improvement in guaranteeing that all groups, through provision of
adequate resources, are enabled to participate (Comhar 2001b: 8).
In terms of governance approaches, the strong emphasis on partnership
incorporated in EC regional policy since 1988 has reinforced and supported
the consensual approach to policy-making in Ireland. It is argued that adap-
tation to the EU has legitimised and entrenched the culture of consultation
at both national and local levels nurtured by the processes of social partner-
ship (Rees et al. 2006: 68). Aside from the above institutional innovations
there is some evidence of the development of a partnership approach in the
waste management area. The complication, however, is the existence of dif-
fering interpretations of partnership by local actors. One senior local author-
ity official in the Midlands region responsible for leading the drive for
sustainable development suggested that partnership is perceived as the
‘bringing together of the various local authorities to produce and implement
a regional waste management strategy’ (interview with official Midlands
Regional Authority, March 2005). An official from the Limerick/Clare and
Kerry region viewed the waste problem as an infrastructural problem
whereby significant investment is required. In this instance partnership was
taken to mean the inclusion of players such as private enterprise in order to
reach waste management targets (interview with official Limerick County
Council, March 2005). The role of civil society was not included in either
interpretation.
Differing interpretations are also evident at central government level. For
a central government official the most effective and enduring partnerships
for sustainable development were ‘producer responsibility initiatives’ and
‘the partnerships created in order to provide social housing’ which promoted
community involvement with government officials, while the partnership
outcome promoted sustainable communities by enabling single parents or
elderly people to afford to live within the community (interview with Assis-
tant Principal Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Govern-
ment, March 2005). To another Department of Environment official
partnership was personified by the establishment of Comhar as the main
mechanism for stakeholder participation (interview with Principal Officer,
Department of Environment and Local Government, July 2002). This inter-
pretation focuses on the notion of partnership as building consensus as
opposed to sustainable planning and implementation.
162 B. Connaughton et al.
Funding sustainable development and waste management
Given the delays in implementation of waste plans, greater awareness of the
extent of the problem and the increasing politicisation of the waste issue,
much of the strategic ambition of waste policy has been reduced to hollow
promises and action on waste management has been more akin to fire-
fighting than prevention at the local level. As noted, funding sustainable
solutions to waste management is problematic. Forfás identified an esti-
mated investment of C1 billion in 2001 for the implementation of the
waste plans. The NDP 2000–2006 envisages much of the funding for infra-
structure coming from the private sector. Central government has not been
in a position to finance waste management adequately, as the general tax
take has failed to keep pace with rising waste management costs (Curtis
2002: 85). Local and regional authorities feel under pressure as they do not
have the adequate resources in their general budget to fund long-term recy-
cling initiatives though some funding is available to them through the
Environment Fund, which is financed from the plastic-bag and landfill levy.
It does not finance partnerships and operates a capital grants scheme to
enable local government to secure funds for non-profit services, such as recy-
cling centres. The private sector is excluded from applying for such grant
aid as it is viewed as being able to exploit opportunities independently
through the effective enforcement of waste law (interview with Assistant
Principal, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
March 2005).
Funding the development of partnerships to promote sustainable devel-
opment at the sub-national level is very limited (OECD 2000; Comhar
2001b). There is no specific funding for sustainable development identified
in the national budget other than minor amounts for funding Comhar and
the Environmental Partnership Fund, established to co-fund Local Agenda
21 environmental awareness projects involving collaboration between local
authorities and community or other voluntary groups. These projects are co-
financed by local authorities and the partnerships implement small-scale
Local Agenda 21 projects. In 1999, total funding was doubled to IEP
200,000 and was used to support 6 national and 65 local projects. In 2004,
C600,000 was allocated to the fund and those applying to the scheme were
requested to address the issue of waste management in particular. Although
the increase in funding is a positive development, sustaining these projects
and their contribution to the sectoral integration of policy as advocated in
NSDS is nonetheless questionable. Specific implementation of the NSDS at
local authority level has been poorly resourced, with no dedicated funding
identified, which has limited the uptake of sustainable development projects
and ideas, even though overall local government funding has increased by
over 60 per cent since 1997 (Comhar 2001b: 6).
The adoption of formal public–private partnerships (PPPs) also provides
some further evidence of how new patterns of governance are being formed
 New governance patterns in Ireland 163
in the waste management area. As noted above, investment from the private
sector is viewed as part of the solution to the waste problem. The NDP pro-
vides for private investment of C571 million in the waste management area,
constituting over 70 per cent of the overall investment in waste infrastruc-
ture. Initially, visible only at national level, public–private partnerships are
now clearly in evidence at sub-national level. These partnerships are actively
fostered by national government. Between 1999 and 2004, a PPP ‘seed fund
scheme’ to support emerging projects operated with more than C5 million
being granted to local authorities to meet the start up costs of projects (such
as alternative energy, leisure facilities and environmental activities) outside
the mainstream investment programmes. Guidelines for PPP project imple-
mentation in the Local Government Sector were published in November
2003 and an online forum is in place to exchange ideas and experiences. The
update on projects, published by the Informal Advisory Group on PPS in
January 2005 lists 34 projects involving local authorities and ranging from
waste to energy (incineration) infrastructure to urban renewal and sewerage
treatment projects (Department of Finance 2005). However, many of the
projects are in areas other than waste management, such as sewerage, group
water schemes and drainage. The two principal PPPs dealing with waste
management projects are shown in Table 6.5.
A recent benchmarking assessment, however, reported that there has been
limited progress in addressing waste infrastructure deficits. This remains the
area of the NDP where the least progress has been made: the combined
government and private investment to the end of 2005 was C250 million,
most of which has been private investment (Forfás 2006). This constitutes
only 30 per cent of the original total investment target envisaged.
In the above context, it is evident that local authorities have significant
responsibility for waste management in Ireland and might be expected to be
key actors in fostering sustainable development. However, the dominance of
the centre and the limited resources available to local authorities restrict
their impact. The governance structures in which waste management takes
place have changed but the creation of facilitative structures has not been
accompanied by changes in the allocation of power and resources. Although
the level of responsibility for waste management has increased at local and
regional levels and the range of actors involved at these levels has widened,
the agenda is determined elsewhere. The implementation issues still need to

Table 6.5 Public–private partnerships in waste management, 2005

Department Project Start date Value (Cm)

DoEHLG South-East Region Joint Waste Late 2005 C20–50

Management Plan
DoEHLG Dublin Waste to Energy Scheme Early 2005 C100–250
164 B. Connaughton et al.
be addressed holistically, that is by all actors and across sectoral policy areas
at all levels of government.

Conclusion: rhetoric or reality?

At the outset of the paper the question was raised to what extent has policy
innovation and rhetoric at central government level resulted in the emer-
gence of new patterns in governance underpinned by an effective institu-
tional framework for the implementation of sustainable development
initiatives? It is apparent that during the past ten years Ireland has experi-
enced adjustment and learning in the structures designated to deliver the
necessary changes. The shift from an impromptu to a planned approach is
evidenced in the published strategies and plans, at both national and
regional level. It is not clear, however, whether this means better decision
making and implementation strengthened by the active engagement of civil
society at the sub-national level. Berger and Steurer’s comments in Chapter
1 suggest that, in respect of sustainable development policies, changes in
Irish regions tend to be more strongly shaped by the NDP rather than the
NSDS. This would imply that although new instruments and ‘ways of doing
things’ have been introduced for the horizontal integration of policy-
making, processes are driven by the implementation of economic develop-
ment strategies.
The overview of the actors involved in the governance of waste indicates
that hierarchical steering from the government remains an integral feature of
the policy process. Shifts towards the promotion of a horizontal network
approach are evident, however, whereby the involvement of non-
hierarchically organised actors and inter-organisational collaboration is
underway. The implementation of sustainable development initiatives is
therefore shaped by new modes of governance that co-exist with traditional
practices. Despite this, the case of waste management illustrates the dif-
ficulties of relating these new methods and practices to the existing struc-
tures and processes. Acceptance of the principle of sustainable development
and some integration has been achieved. In general the Irish case typifies
efforts to promote ecological modernisation rather than promote a signifi-
cant shift in economic models and policy focus. Despite a growing awareness
among policy-makers of the need to de-link environmental pressures from
economic growth, features of the Irish politico-administrative system and
culture contribute to militating against translating these principles into
action. For example, the lack of local government power and functions con-
tributes to the reluctance of local councillors to share what power they have
with local communities (Forde 2004). Consequently this has contributed to
a lack of knowledge about sustainable development on the ground level.
This does not facilitate the heralded extended forms of participation that are
promoted within the city/county development strategies. Contradictions
also exist between individual behaviour and actions in reality. Almost half of
 New governance patterns in Ireland 165
Irish adults consider waste the most important environmental issue facing
Ireland yet their private behaviour would dictate otherwise (Environmental
Protection Agency 2006). Household waste generation is unsustainable with
‘fly tipping’ (dumping at the side of the road) and uncontrolled back-yard
waste-burning becoming the new face of illegal waste activity (ibid.).
In spite of the centralised nature of the system, there is no single co-
ordinating mechanism for the planning and implementation of sustainable
development and from this stems a lack of clarity about overall respons-
ibility for steering. This raises the issue of whether the implicit assumption
that moves towards such new governance patterns are successful? The
emphases on partnership, reform of local government and the application of
principles such as privatisation and contracting-out have clearly widened the
number of participants in the case of waste management. Effective co-
operation between the different mechanisms and actors could overcome
some of the challenges but the development of horizontal networks in waste
management remains at an early learning stage. Top-down models focus on
effective control and compliance whereas bottom up approaches concentrate
on interactions, conflict, power and empowerment – policy in action. The
development of waste regions remains a ‘top-down’ process driven by the
need to comply with EU legislation and national targets rather than guided
by principles of sustainable development.
Another view is that the growing dependence on the private sector and
proliferation of private-sector companies to provide the necessary services
and solutions may lead to further complications whereby ‘local authorities
do not control waste any longer’ (interview with official Kerry County
Council, July 2002). It would appear that partnership can be perceived as a
‘catch all’ problem solving approach. But while the partnership approach has
been enormously beneficial, tensions and reservations have arisen about the
scope for partnership, the relationship of partnership to the representative
democratic structures and sectoral issues (Rees et al. 2006: 74). As indicated
in the previous section there is a broad interpretation of partnerships in sus-
tainable development consisting of, for example, the introduction of new
institutional actors and networks or co-operation through reliance on tradi-
tional government structures.
In conclusion, while there is evidence of experimentation of new modes of
governance, this is not necessarily stimulated by the principles of sustainable
development. The impact of Europeanisation and adherence to longer stand-
ing neo-corporatist arrangements are more likely factors to have influenced
these changes and modes of experimentation. The Irish interpretation of sus-
tainable development remains largely focused on economic factors and dis-
course as opposed to guidance from the NSDS. This is reflected in the case of
waste management policy which illustrates an area whereby developments
are more akin to fitting with the characteristics of weak sustainable develop-
ment. In terms of new institutional arrangements at the sub-national level,
regions remain cosmetic constructs as opposed to being the result of genuine
166 B. Connaughton et al.
decentralisation. Their existence is largely due to the impact of the Struc-
tural Funds and the creation of regional structures to support them, as local
authorities remain the principal actors. The challenges still outweigh the
progress in the pursuit of sustainable development at the sub-national level.

References
Adshead, M. and Quinn, B. (1998) ‘The Move from Government to Governance:
Irish Development Policy’s Paradigm Shift’, Policy and Politics, 26: 209–225.
Bacon, P. and Associates (2002) Strategic Review and Outlook for Waste Management
Capacity and the Impact on the Irish Economy, Dublin: Bacon Associates.
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (eds) (1997) The Politics of Sus-
tainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union, London:
Routledge.
Broderick, S. (1999) ‘The State versus Civil Society: Democracy and Sustainability
in Ireland’, Democracy and Nature, 5: 343–356.
Carter, N. (2001) The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chubb, B. (1992) The Government and Politics of Ireland, 3rd edition, London:
Longman.
Comhar – National Sustainable Development Partnership (2001a) Preventing and
Recycling Waste – Comhar Recommendation No. 4, Dublin: DoELG.
Comhar – National Sustainable Development Partnership (2001b) Report to the Earth
Council – Assessment of Progress on Agenda 21, Dublin: DoELG.
Comhar – National Sustainable Development Partnership (2002) Principles for Sus-
tainable Development, Dublin: DoELG.
Connaughton, B. (2005) ‘EU Environmental Policy and Ireland’, in M. Holmes
(ed.), Ireland and the European Union: Nice, Enlargement and the Future of Europe,
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 36–54.
Curtis, J. A. (2002) ‘Advancing Waste Management Beyond Crisis’, Administration,
50: 83–93.
Davies, A. (2004) ‘An Opportunity not to Be Wasted: Researching Civil Society
and the Governance of Waste in Ireland’, Chimera, 19: 67–72.
Department of Environment, and Local Government (1996) Better Local Government:
A Programme for Change, Dublin: DoELG.
Department of Environment and Local Government (1997) Sustainable Development:
A Strategy for Ireland, Dublin: DoELG.
Department of Environment and Local Government (1998) Waste Management:
Changing Our Ways, Dublin: DoELG.
Department of Environment and Local Government (2002a) Making Ireland’s Devel-
opment Sustainable – National Report for Ireland, Dublin: DoELG.
Department of Environment and Local Government (2002b) Preventing and Recycling
Waste – Delivering Change, Dublin: DoELG.
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2004) Taking Stock
and Moving Forward – Review of Waste Management Plans, Dublin: DoEHLG.
Department of Finance (2005) Financing Public Private Partnerships, Available online:
http://www.ppp.finance.ie (accessed 14 March 2005).
 New governance patterns in Ireland 167
Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Ireland’s Environment 2004, Wexford:
EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Public Perceptions, Attitudes and Values on
the Environment, Wexford: EPA.
Fagan, H. (2002) Grounding Waste: Towards a Sociology of Waste Networks, NIRSA
Working Paper Series No. 18, Maynooth: NIRSA.
Fagan, H., O’Hearn, D., McCann, G. and Murray, M. (2001) Waste Management: A
Cross Border Perspective, Working Paper, NUI Maynooth: NIRSA.
Flynn, B. (2003) ‘Much Talk But Little Action? ‘New’ Environmental Policy
Instruments in Ireland’ in A. Jordan, R. Wurzel and A. Zito (eds), New Instru-
ments of Environmental Governance?, London: Frank Cass, 137–156.
Forde, C. (2004) ‘Local Government Reform in Ireland 1996–2004: A Critical
Analysis’ Administration, 52: 57–72.
Forfás (2001) Key Waste Management Issues in Ireland, Dublin: Forfás.
Forfás (2006) Waste Management Benchmarking Report, Dublin: Forfás.
Irish Times, 12 August 2002.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. and Zito, A. (eds) (2003) New Instruments of Environmental
Governance?, London: Frank Cass.
Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government–Society Interactions,
London: Sage.
McDonald, F. and Nix, J. (2005) Chaos at the Crossroads, Kinsale: Gandon Books.
Mullally, G. (2003) ‘Tipping the Scales for Sustainable Development in Ireland:
Lessons from Local and Regional Agenda 21’ in W. Lafferty and M. Narodol-
slawsky Regional Sustainable Development in Europe, Oslo: ProSus, 90–114.
Mullally, G. and Quinlivan, A. (2004) ‘Environmental Policy: Managing the Waste
Problem’, in N. Collins and T. Cradden Political Issues in Ireland Today, Manches-
ter: Manchester University Press, 117–134.
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) (2002) National Progress Indicators for
Sustainable Economic, Social and Environmental Development, Dublin: National Eco-
nomic and Social Council.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2000) Environ-
mental Performance Reviews: Ireland, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
Pepper, D. (1999) ‘Ecological Modernisation or the Ideal Model of Sustainable
Development? Questions prompted at Europe’s Periphery’, Environmental Politics,
8: 1–34.
Rees, N., Quinn, B. and Connaughton, B. (2006) ‘The Challenge of Multi-Level
Governance and Europeanization in Ireland’ in C. J. Paraskevopoulos, P. Getimis
and N. Rees (eds), Adapting to EU Multi-Level Governance: Regional and Environ-
mental Policies in Cohesion and CEE Countries, Aldershot: Ashgate, 53–78.
Taylor, G. (1998) ‘Conserving the Emerald Tiger: The Politics of Environmental
Regulation in Ireland’, Environmental Politics, 7: 53–74.
Taylor, G. and Horan, A. (2001) ‘From Cats, Dogs, Parks and Playgrounds to IPC
Licensing: Policy Learning and the Evolution of Environmental Policy in Ireland’,
British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3: 369–392.
Taylor, G. and Murphy, C. (2002) ‘Environmental Policy in Ireland’, in G. Taylor
(ed.), Issues in Irish Public Policy, Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 80–98.
168 B. Connaughton et al.
Interviews
Interview with official, Kerry County Council, July 2002.
Interview with Principal Officer, Department of Environment and Local Govern-
ment, July 2002.
Interview with Assistant Principal Officer, Department of Environment, Heritage
and Local Government, March 2005.
Interview with official, Midlands Regional Authority, March 2005.
Interview with official, Limerick County Council, March 2005.
7 Governance networks promoting
rural sustainable development in
Norway
Sissel Hovik

Introduction
This chapter explores aspects of the promotion of rural sustainable develop-
ment at the sub-national level in Norway. Rural sustainable development
refers to economic development for the benefit of rural communities based
on sustainable use of the natural resources on which such development
depends. It involves both the sustainable use of natural resources for com-
mercial purposes and nature conservation in general, for example the protec-
tion of endangered species and their habitats. To combine nature protection
and economic development based on the use of natural resources is a chal-
lenge to rural sustainable development that is made greater by the fact that
many rural communities in Norway, as in the rest of Europe, are facing a
decline in economic activity and population.
As is the case for waste management, discussed by Connaughton et al. in
the previous chapter of this book, nature protection is a traditional environ-
mental management issue that is now struggling to adapt to the broader
sustainable development agenda. This chapter discusses whether and how far
three sub-national initiatives to promote rural sustainable development in
Norway represent a departure from traditional environmental management:
do they represent a genuine shift in policy focus from nature management to
sustainable development, or are they more representative of traditional eco-
nomic development? Another question discussed is whether the initiatives
represent a development towards ‘new governance’, understood as the emer-
gence of new patterns of relationships between different tiers of government
and between public and private actors. The cases will be considered with ref-
erence to the composition, role and autonomy of networks in relation to the
established political and administrative system. Special emphasis will be
given to the extent to which the networks contribute to input-based legiti-
macy, where political decisions are legitimate because they reflect the will of
the people, through extensive stakeholder participation. Finally, the rela-
tionship between the use of traditional methods of government and new
methods of governance, and the possible effects of this mixture is discussed.
The chapter reports results from the research project ‘How to Make It?
170 S. Hovik
Private–public Partnerships in Managing Sustainable Development in
Mountain Regions’, supported by the Research Council of Norway under
the programme Changing Landscape.

From nature conservation to rural sustainable

development?
Nature conservation has so far been the main element in Norway’s efforts to
comply with its international obligation to protect biodiversity, and, as
such, is a central part of the national strategy for sustainable development
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2002). The Norwegian action plan for sustain-
able development (Ministry of Finance 2003–2004) contains specific targets
and aims to establish by 2010 protected areas in 13 to 14 per cent of main-
land Norway, in accordance with the provisions of the Nature Conservation
Act. The areas protected under the Act increased from 7.6 per cent of the
mainland in 2001 to 12.5 per cent by spring 2006 (Directorate for Nature
Management 2006), which demonstrates a strong commitment on the part
of central government.
Local communities on the edge of national parks have often perceived
nature conservation as a heavy constraint on their prospects for economic
development. Thus local actors, such as farmers, landowners and local coun-
cils, have often strongly opposed proposals for establishing new national
parks. The level of conflict between affected local actors and the environ-
mental administrative authorities was high and rising throughout the 1990s
(Hovik and Reitan 2004). To reduce these conflicts, the Norwegian govern-
ment has gradually changed its policy on nature conservation, from a single
focus on conservation to include an additional focus on how affected local
communities can benefit from conservation. In 2003 the Norwegian parlia-
ment approved a policy document presenting aims and strategies for sustain-
able use of protected areas, such as national parks, for the benefit of the local
communities adjacent to the parks, a document known as ‘the Mountain
Text’ (Ministry of Finance 2002–2003). Sustainable use is here understood
as economic activities which do not harm the environmental and cultural
values in and near the national parks. Traditionally, grazing, hunting,
fishing, picking berries and mushrooms and hiking are allowed in Norwe-
gian national parks. Recently there has been a greater focus on tourism, such
as organised tours and tourist guiding, and on establishing accommodation
facilities close to the parks.
This development is accompanied by recent changes in the Norwegian
government’s agricultural policy. A new policy is promoting multifunc-
tional agriculture, where the aim is to stimulate new rural industries, such
as tourism and local food products, and making rural districts more attract-
ive places to live in (Ministry of Finance 2004–2005). Tourist activities in
and near national parks is one element in this policy effort. Even though the
main goal of the programme is to increase the financial gains of farmers
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 171
(Ministry of Finance 2005–2006), it makes explicit reference to the goal of
sustainable development, understood as environmentally sound and sustain-
able farming in a long-term perspective.
Farming can be an essential factor in the conservation of biodiversity and
valuable landscapes, by maintaining an open landscape rich in plant life.
Thus, farming can contribute to the preservation of nature and landscape
qualities that are valuable in terms of both conservation and tourism.
However, activities, such as farming, hunting and tourism, are also creating
an increased demand for motorised traffic (such as snowmobiles) and land
development (such as building of holiday cabins and roads). Such develop-
ment can be a threat to species and habitats. Several national parks have
been established to protect wild reindeer, which Norway has a special inter-
national obligation to protect. These animals are highly vulnerable to
human activities. In other protected areas, the local animal and plant life can
tolerate increased human activities. Thus, the conditions for commercial
utilisation of the values and resources of protected areas vary from place to
place.
The changing focus from nature conservation to rural sustainable devel-
opment is accompanied by some changes in policy instruments. Nature con-
servation policy is still the responsibility for central government in Norway.
However, the responsibility for managing three national parks and one large
protected landscape is delegated to local municipal government on a preli-
minary basis. Decentralisation in the form of increased local political auto-
nomy is intended to stimulate commercial use of natural resources (Ministry
of Finance 2002–2003: 152). Through decentralisation, nature conservation
is linked to land-use planning, an important instrument for local govern-
ment in rural development outside national parks and other protected areas.
Additionally, strong effort is been made by the Ministry of Environment to
develop management plans for the protected areas as an instrument for co-
ordinating nature conservation and business development. Emphasis is laid
on participation by local government and stakeholders in drawing up these
plans. Deregulation to reduce the formal constraints on commercial use of
protected areas is also under consideration.
The rural development policy administered by the Ministry of Agricul-
ture is formulated through negotiations between the government and the
farmers’ organisations, and implemented through a system of economic
grants and guidelines. Additionally, it is linked to the more general policy
for business innovation and regional development, in which regionalisation
and partnership strategies have recently become central elements (Ministry
of Local Government and Regional Development 2001–2002). In sharp con-
trast to the nature conservation policy, economic incentives are the main
policy instruments in the rural development policy. However, in both policy
areas, there is a trend of decentralisation to local municipal government, and
a strong emphasis is put on the need for cross-sectoral and private–public
co-operation at local and regional level. Additionally, emphasis is put on the
172 S. Hovik
need to co-ordinate the ecological, economic and social aspects of rural
development.

Promoting rural sustainable development – a need for

new governance structures?
These changes in national strategies towards decentralisation and local and
regional co-operation has stimulated several sub-national initiatives to
promote rural sustainable development. The three initiatives discussed in
this chapter are examples where actors at local and regional level take
advantage of the new policy signals from central level. Local business devel-
opment and the survival of local communities are at the core of all three
initiatives. The task for the local actors is to achieve economic development
based on environmental assets such as those found in national parks and
other protected areas.
The extent to which these three initiatives represent a development
towards ‘new governance’ is examined with a focus on whether or not they
represent the emergence of governance networks for promoting sustainable
development. Governance network is a particular form of governance and a
particular form of network and is in this chapter defined as institutional set-
tings where public and private actors interact through negotiations and non-
hierarchical co-ordination. The interaction is based on interdependency and
trust (see Sørensen and Torfing 2005: Rhodes 1997 for further discussion on
the concept of governance networks).
Sørensen and Torfing (2005: 197–198) argue that there are at least three
factors that distinguish governance networks from hierarchical control by
the state and competitive regulation of the market. They are pluricentric,
involving a number of interdependent actors who make decisions and regu-
late issues through negotiation. Furthermore, compliance is ensured through
trust and commitment. However, governance will always be conducted
under ‘the shadow of hierarchy’ (Scharpf 1997). Government has the privi-
lege of making authoritative decisions on public matters. In Norway both
environmental protection and business development are subject to extensive
government regulation and come within the sphere of responsibility of the
central government. Thus government actors play an important role in gov-
ernance networks, as initiators, as definers of important frames for network
activity and as network actors. In order to assess whether the sub-national
initiatives in this study represent a development towards new governance,
this chapter will focus on the composition of the networks, the role they are
given by government and the role government actors play in the networks
themselves.
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 173
The composition, role and autonomy of sub-national sustainable
development networks
Balancing environmental, economic and social objectives requires co-
ordinated efforts from different actors. Meeting the challenge of rural sus-
tainable development depends on the efforts of several sectors of
government: nature conservation, agriculture and forestry, regional eco-
nomic development and land-use planning. These policy areas have differ-
ent regional and local institutional bases, since the municipalities play a
central role in agriculture, forestry and land use planning, the counties in
economic development and land-use planning, and the County Governor
(the state administration representative at regional level) in agriculture,
forestry and nature conservation. Thus, rural sustainable development
requires policy integration between different levels of government as well
as policy sectors. It also requires adaptation on the part of private commer-
cial actors, like local farmers and tourism companies and people using the
areas in question for recreational purposes. The composition of the network
is defined by its participants, who may be representatives from different
levels of government or policy sectors, private landowners, business actors
or other stakeholders.
Regarding the role assigned to the networks by the public authorities,
two important aspects are identified. First, the stages of the policy process at
which the network becomes involved, distinguishing between the stage of
policy formulation and/or the stage of policy implementation. Second, the
formal power the network is given by the public authorities, distinguishing
between the role of consultation, the role of discussing and negotiating com-
promises, and the role of decision-making. If the network has a role as con-
sultant, the government authority is free to choose whether or not to follow
its recommendations. This does not indicate a development towards new
governance. If the network plays a role as negotiator of compromises, the
government authority has a stronger obligation to follow its recommenda-
tions. In this situation, the network is granted a certain amount of power,
which is a step in the direction of new governance. If the network is granted
decision-making power, this is a further step towards new governance.
The role of government actors as partners in the network is also exam-
ined. The relations between actors in governance networks are characterised
by exchange rather than instruction. In the context of the three sub-national
strategies, the following questions are explored: To what extent are public
actors entering the negotiations with open minds, willing to negotiate solu-
tions on matters within their spheres of responsibility? Are they imposing
strict constraints on the kinds of solutions they will accept? In governance
networks compliance depends on trust and commitment. To what extent are
public actors obliged to follow solutions negotiated in the network in
matters where they have formal decision-making power?
174 S. Hovik
Participation and legitimacy in sustainable development
networks
As mentioned before, broadening the range of actors who share the respons-
ibility for promoting sustainable development is important. Participation
from private actors in rural sustainable development networks can con-
tribute to problem-solving and goal achievement through better and more
informed decisions and because greater support from affected groups makes
implementation easier (Meadowcroft 2004; Pateman 1970). Participation
will then contribute to output-based legitimacy: political choices are
legitimate if and because they effectively promote the common welfare of
the constituency in question (Scharpf 1999: 6).
The fact that not all citizens are given the same possibility to participate,
and that it is unclear who should be held accountable for the resulting
policy, raises difficult questions regarding the democratic aspects of gover-
nance networks (Peters and Pierre 2000; Sørensen and Torfing 2005). There-
fore, there is a risk that governance networks are weak on input-based
legitimacy; that political decisions are legitimate because they reflect the
will of the people (Scharpf 1999). When a choice has to be made between
conflicting interests and values, the question of input-based legitimacy is
crucial. Sustainable development is about asking people to put constraints
on their activity today in order to benefit future generations. If people are to
make such sacrifices, it is important that they are confident that all the
affected parties’ interests have been taken into consideration.
The input-based legitimacy of governance networks can be increased by
linking the networks to the established democratic government (Peters and
Pierre 2000; Hovik and Vabo 2005). The results of negotiations in gover-
nance networks are then given legitimacy by the fact that they are approved
by democratically elected bodies. However, input-based legitimacy can also
be increased through extensive participation by affected groups and indi-
viduals. Participation can promote the right of every citizen to influence
decisions affecting him (Klausen and Sweeting 2004; Pateman 1970). Then
input-based legitimacy is increased through governance mechanisms. To
what degree the governance networks being studied have opened the way for
extensive participation that could contribute to input-based legitimacy, is
examined in this chapter by distinguishing between two different principles
for selecting participants (Hovik and Vabo 2005).
The target group principle states that only actors judged capable of con-
tributing to the governance of the designated task or solution of the
problem should participate. The stakeholder principle states that all actors
having a significant stake in the issue should participate. Participation in
accordance with the second principle contributes to input-based legitimacy,
whereas participation based on the first principle only contributes to output-
based legitimacy. In the context of rural sustainable development, landown-
ers and other property right-holders, farmers, the tourist industry and other
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 175
commercial actors are important contributors to sustainable economic and
ecological development, and are thus important target groups. Other actors
representing for example environmental and outdoor recreation interests also
have a strong stake in the matter and would also be able to contribute to the
solution of the problem because of their expertise. The point to make here is
whether the private actors are involved because of their resources and formal
rights, or because they represent important user interests.
Private actors will, as participants in governance networks, probably
defend their own interests. However, through participation, they might
learn about the consequences of their own activity as well as about their
dependency on sustainable development. Thus, participation might result in
support for solutions that advantage a larger collective (Pateman 1970),
especially if confronted with the arguments and experiences of actors repre-
senting different interests. Assuming that private actors initially will defend
their interests, there is a chance that the target group principle could lead to
a development favouring the economic aspects of sustainable development
before the environmental, since farmers, forest owners and tourist companies
are important target groups. The stakeholder principle could favour a bal-
anced development promoting the different aspects of sustainable develop-
ment, since that principle will secure the participation of all interests.

Three local sustainable development initiatives

This presentation of the three initiatives for involving networks in rural sus-
tainable development in Norway is based on data from interviews with indi-
viduals in these networks (conducted during winter–spring 2005–2006),
information given in the plans for the various projects, annual reports and
newsletters published on the web and, in the case of Setesdalen, the results
of a pilot project evaluating decentralised management of the protected
landscape (Falleth and Hovik 2005) and of a study of the network aspects of
decentralised management (Falleth 2006). The location of the three cases is
indicated in Figure 7.1.

Setesdalen: decentralised management of the Setesdal-Vesthei

Ryfylkeheiane protected landscape
Setesdalen-Vesthei Ryfylkeheiane was protected in 2000, mainly because it
hosts the southernmost wild reindeer population in Norway, but also
because the landscape is considered to be distinctive and beautiful. The
2,500 square kilometres are designated as a protected landscape, which is
the weakest form of protection under the Nature Conservation Act, and
allows traditional forms of agriculture and forestry to be carried out.
The protected landscape affects eight municipalities in three different
counties. Approximately 15,000 people live in these municipalities, which
have experienced a fairly stable population trend over the last 15 years.
176 S. Hovik

Figure 7.1 The three case studies.

Several of the municipalities are relatively wealthy, even in a Norwegian

context, due to revenues from hydropower plants. Agriculture is an import-
ant industry. The rural communities have traditionally made use of the
mountains for grazing, fishing and hunting. The population in the greater
metropolitan areas in the south and south-west of Norway also use the area
for outdoor recreation such as hiking and skiing. These activities are creat-
ing a demand for more holiday cabins and off-road traffic. These activities,
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 177
together with hydropower production, threaten the vulnerable alpine
environment, including its wildlife and ecosystems.
The central government plan to protect the area, which was presented in
1989, was opposed by local actors, including local politicians and the agri-
culture and forestry industries. Their efforts to prevent conservation in
accordance with the Nature Conservation Act were unsuccessful. They did,
however, successfully gain parliamentary support for a pilot project for local
management (Falleth 2006). The project began in 2001 and will run until
2008, when it will be subject to review by the Parliament. The municipali-
ties are given power to manage the area in accordance with the principles for
protected landscapes and the rules laid down by Royal Decree.
The power to manage the nature conservation regulations is delegated to
each of the eight municipalities, which receive grants to cover their adminis-
tration expenses. Their main responsibility is to decide on applications for
exemptions from the ban on land development and motorised traffic. As part
of the project, the municipalities were instructed to develop a joint manage-
ment plan to be approved by each municipal council and by the Directorate
for Nature Management, which is one of two environmental policy agencies
at central level in Norway. (The other is the Norwegian Pollution Control
Authority.) An inter-municipal company was established and a project
manager was hired. In order to improve the knowledge base, ensure that the
relevant interests were represented and assure legitimacy, an advisory group
was set up, consisting of the chairs of three municipal councils, the County
Governors (the County Governor normally has the power to manage the
nature conservation regulations), who were represented by two members,
and the affected county councils, represented by one member. Initially, the
only private interests represented were those of the landowners, but later, to
include a broader range of interests, the group was expanded to include rep-
resentatives of the local reindeer committee, the Norwegian Trekking
Association and the hydropower producers as observers. An open meeting
was held once a year to ensure transparency. The municipalities laid
emphasis on negotiating with all the members and observers of the advisory
group and on achieving consensus on the plan within the group. Thus, both
private stakeholders and national and regional authorities were given a role
in developing local nature management policy. The management plan dealt
with sustainable business development as well as nature conservation. It was
approved in 2004.
One subject for negotiation in the network was to develop common
guidelines with regard to land development and the use of off-road vehicles.
Since the municipalities had different practices, it was necessary to achieve
an agreement which was supported by all municipalities, as well as by the
environmental authorities. However, the network has not been given any
role in the implementation of the plan. The different municipalities have so
far applied a diverse and fairly liberal practice in the granting of exemptions,
without, however, contravening the guidelines in the management plan. A
178 S. Hovik
majority of local users and municipal council members do not see the neces-
sity of placing restrictions on off-road vehicles and land development, which
means that management of the protected landscape has to strike a fine
balance between the demands of the state environmental administration, the
interests of urban leisure users and the interests of local stakeholders.
The management plan also aimed to reduce the amount of activity
managed by other public and private actors through voluntary agreements.
The national Air Force has temporally limited its activities in the area. The
Norwegian Trekking Association agreed to move cabins and trails away
from vulnerable areas. No solution has been found to the conflict between
the municipalities and the reindeer committee regarding a comprehensive
strategy combining management of the habitat with management of the
game. The hydropower producers have not taken any notice of the manage-
ment plan.

Jostedalen: the nature-use project of Sogn and Fjordane County

Jostedalen National Park was established in 1991. The park measures 1,310
square kilometres and includes Norway’s largest glacier (Jostedalsbreen).
The main purpose of the park is to protect the glaciers, glacier valleys and
moraines. Part of the Jostedalen park lies within the borders of Luster
municipality. Agriculture and tourism are important industries in the whole
municipality and in the valley of Jostedalen, a rural community situated on
the edge of the park. Approximately 5,000 people live in the municipality,
which experienced a steep decline in population and in the agriculture
industry during the 1990s (County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane 2006).
Approximately 430 people live in the valley of Jostedalen, which is visited
by 45,000 to 50,000 tourists every summer.
In 2002, the County Governor of Sogn and Fjordane initiated the
‘Nature-use Project’ (County Governor of Sogn and Fjordane 2002). The
main purpose was to stimulate local rural economic growth by developing
nature- and culture-based industries in communities adjacent to national
parks. The County Governor’s intention was to demonstrate that nature con-
servation is not a barrier to rural development, and thus improve the dia-
logue between his office, as the authority responsible for conservation at the
regional level, and the affected communities. Four communities were
selected to take part in the project, one of them Jostedalen. The project ran
for three years, from 2003 to 2005.
The County Governor led the project, which was financed mainly by
public grants administered by the County Governor’s office. The agriculture
department of the governor’s office was given day-to-day responsibility for
the project, and the position of project manager was shared by two
employees in the Department. The project was based on co-operation
between the County Governor, represented by the agriculture and environ-
mental protection departments, the local community, represented by rural
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 179
welfare organisations, and the municipality, represented by the head of the
business development department. An advisory group was also appointed,
consisting of representatives of the County Governor’s office, the county, the
private tourist industry association, the farmer’s organisations and an
umbrella forum for environmental and outdoor recreation organisations.
A workshop was held, where local community members were invited to
present and discuss ideas for rural community development projects. Project
ideas proposed by the communities were granted seed funds in the form of
financial support from the County Governor for project planning,
competence-building and other necessary activities. Formally, decisions con-
cerning financial support were made by the County Governor’s office on the
basis of applications from local actors, but in fact the County Governor was
obliged to support projects submitted by local actors as long as they were
not in conflict with the nature conservation regulations. Some projects
received additional funding from public grants administered by Innovation
Norway, the municipal business development fund or the County Governor
on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. Both the project managers and the
municipal administration have assisted local actors in developing their ideas.
The advisory group has played a minor role.
The network involved in the Nature-Use Project was given a role in the
implementation of the rural development policy of the County Governor. Its
focus was practical and project-oriented. The goals and limits of the project
were defined by the County Governor. A project proposed by local actors in
a neighbouring community was rejected and excluded from the project by
the governor on the grounds that it would be in conflict with the purpose of
the national park. The County Governor’s action meant that the network
was not given the role in defining the balance between conservation and
development interests. The matter finally had to be settled at central
government level. In Jostedalen, on the other hand, none of the project ideas
were considered to be in conflict with the conservation regulations. Some
results have been achieved. Several projects have received support, and at
least two of them are considered to be commercially viable. One of these is
nature-based tourism, another is the production of stoves using bioenergy.
Local entrepreneurs believe that without the Nature-Use Project these two
ideas would never have seen the light of day.
The Nature-Use Project is being continued at local level, and a project
manager is employed by the local welfare organisation. The position is
financed by funds from several sources: the Ministry of Agriculture, the
County Governor, the municipality and the Nature Inspectorate, an organi-
sation under the Ministry of Environment.

Nord-Gudbrandsdalen national park initiative

The region of Nord-Gudbrandsdalen hosts three large national parks:
Rondane, which was the first national park to be established in Norway
180 S. Hovik
(established in 1962, 963 square kilometres), Jotunheimen (established in
1980, 1,151 square kilometres) and Dovrefjell (established in 2003, 289
square kilometres). A fourth park is planned in Reinheimen. The parks have
been established to protect wild reindeer populations, largely undisturbed
mountain landscapes, and/or ecosystems and biodiversity in mountain areas.
The region consists of six municipalities, with a total of about 20,000
inhabitants. Agriculture is an important industry in the area, which experi-
enced a decline in population during the 1990s. Nature-based tourism has
been an important industry for many years.
In early 2004, the national park project was initiated in response to the
need to stimulate growth in the tourist industry based on the environmental
qualities of the national parks. The aim was to achieve growth within the
framework of sustainable development. The project is a partnership between
Oppland county, the County Governor’s office, the inter-municipal regional
council, the local commercial tourist associations, Statskog (the state-owned
forestry company), the affected mountain boards, the affected local common
land and the farmers’ organisations. The mountain boards are appointed by
the municipal councils to be responsible for management of state-owned
common land. The partners have signed a formal co-operation agreement
defining their obligations. They form the steering committee, and the day-
to-day administration is delegated to an executive committee and a project
manager. The project is mainly supported by funds administered by
Oppland county council jointly with the Nord-Gudbrandsdalen regional
council. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development has
delegated the administration of development grants to the individual county
council, which in the case of Oppland has delegated this task further to the
regional councils. The six municipalities in the region also contribute a
small amount. A significant part of the funding is allocated to the national
park project, which also receives an allocation from the Ministry of Agricul-
ture. In addition the Ministry of the Environment, Statskog and the County
Governor have all supported activities under the project.
The network has been given a central role in policy formulation. It devel-
ops and decides on an action plan, and approves, funds and implements
activities. Each sub-project is implemented by a working group, with par-
ticipation by relevant partners and external actors. The partnership is
accountable to the County Council and the regional council, which provide
most of the financial support. In order to maintain a distance between the
financial authorities, represented by the politicians, and the executive
authorities, represented by the network, only employees of the public
administrations participate in the network. However, the chairs of the
affected municipal councils are members of a political national park forum,
whose role is to propose topics for discussion in the network.
The purpose of the project is to improve the formal and physical frame-
work conditions for tourism, make the area more attractive to visitors, and
improve the environmental qualities of the area by safeguarding landscape
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 181
qualities. Priority is being given to building a tourist highway with several
stops at entrances to the parks. The purpose is to channel the traffic to less
vulnerable areas of the parks and still offer visitors the opportunity to see
areas of scenic beauty.
In general, the local population has accepted nature conservation. The
tourist industry perceives the national parks and other environmental qual-
ities as resources on which their activity depends. However, in specific cases,
the matter is not so simple. The main purpose of Rondane National Park is
protection of the wild reindeer population, but the tourist industry wishes
to develop a stop on the highway close to an area important for reindeer.
The mountain boards and the environmental protection department at the
County Governor’s office are reluctant to allow this, since reindeer have a
low tolerance to human activity. A vulnerability assessment of the area is
being prepared as part of the project, but it is too early to tell whether the
network will be able to find a solution to the conflict. For the local councils
and the regional council equitable distribution of the benefits of the project
among the municipalities is important. Regional development and ecologi-
cally sustainable management have considerably less influence on voters than
local development. Since the regional council provides most of the financial
support, the project management must take account of these political
realities.
Some results have been achieved. The project partners have agreed on
important strategic choices, and the public authorities have willingly sup-
ported their activities. Some tourist highway stops have been developed,
others are in preparation. A logo and design scheme for brochures, signs and
information boards has been developed, and training programmes concern-
ing eco-tourism and nature management are underway.
All three networks in the above cases are members of an informal network
of rural development projects in mountain areas of Norway, for which an
annual conference on the development of tourism in mountain regions is an
important meeting place. In addition experiences and information are
exchanged between the individual projects on a bilateral basis. The three
projects also have links to international activities through their membership
of the interest organisation ‘Euromontana’, which was set up to safeguard
the economic, social, cultural and environmental interests of mountain
regions in Europe. Through this European network, the Norwegian cases
share experiences and knowledge with other European communities facing
similar challenges. A European orientation might give the local actors some
argumentative strength in the discussions with the Norwegian government.
Since Norway has not implemented EU policies on farming and nature con-
servation, a strategy supported by a majority of the rural population in
Norway, EU decisions has no direct effect on these cases.
182 S. Hovik
Sub-national sustainable development initiatives give
rise to new governance arrangements

The composition and role of the networks

The main characteristics of the three sustainable development networks are
summed up in Table 7.1. They are composed of actors representing different
levels of government, different policy sectors and different private interests.
In this way they reflect the fact that rural sustainable development is a
shared responsibility across administrative boundaries and social sectors.
The composition of the networks varies. All three levels of government
are involved in each of the cases, but the county level plays a minor role in
Jostedalen and Setesdal. The number of policy sectors is most restricted in
Setesdal, where only the environmental and land use management sectors are
involved. In the other two cases, the three policy sectors environment, agri-
culture and business development are involved. As regards private actors,
these are members of the local community in Jostedalen, representatives of
landowners and the tourist industry in Nord-Gudbrandsdalen, and represen-
tatives of landowners and environmental and recreational interests in
Setesdal.
In all three cases the networks have been given an influential role by the
government authorities. However, their power is linked to different stages of
the process. In Setesdal the network was invited to discuss and negotiate
compromises on the content of the management plan in the policy formula-
tion stage. In Jostedalen the network was invited to propose and develop
project ideas in the implementation of the policy of the County Governor.
In Nord-Gudbrandsdalen the network was invited to decide on and develop
a plan for promoting mountain tourism and to implement projects in con-
nection with the plan. It was given decision-making power in both the
policy formulation and the implementation stages.
The activity of the networks is subject to the hierarchical steering by
government in different ways and to varying degrees. In Jostedal, the
County Governor defines the limits of the activities and topics for discussion
in the network by defining the project goals and means of implementation,
and also the framework for ecologically sustainable development. Within
this frame, the County Governors and municipal administrations facilitated
and supported local participation; they were open to new ideas and strongly
committed to the agreed solutions negotiated with member of the local
community.
In Setesdal, too, both local and state government actors were very willing
to negotiate solutions with other actors on the content of the management
plan and were strongly committed to approving the plan. However, the
network was not given an important role in the implementation of the plan.
Granting exemptions to the ban on off-road traffic and land development is
regarded as a matter for the individual municipality, and not for neighbour-
Table 7.1 Governance of the three rural sustainable development networks

Setesdal Jostedalen Nord-Gudbrandsdalen

Composition
Tiers of government Local, state (and county to a Local, state (and county to a Local, county and state
lesser extent) government lesser extent) government government
Policy sectors Environment, land use Environment, agriculture, Environment, agriculture,
economic development economic development
Private participants Landowners, economic actors, Local entrepreneurs, Landowners, economic actors
environmental and recreational community members
interests

Role
Project stage Policy formulation Policy implementation Policy formulation and
implementation
Power To negotiate compromises To negotiate compromises To decide on plans and projects

Participants Target group and stakeholder Target group and stakeholder Target group principle
principle principle

Links to government Direct, decisions of network Direct, decisions of network Indirect, network held
decisions formally approved by government formally approved by accountable by government
government
184 S. Hovik
ing municipalities or private interest organisations. The diverse and fairly
liberal practices of the different municipalities raises the question of how
strongly local government was committed to the management plan.
In Nord-Gudbrandsdalen the government actors were more eager to
support and take part in the network than to restrict its scope of activity.
There were no indications of lack of commitment, and they showed great
willingness to discuss and negotiate solutions. An example of this is the
strategy adopted by the County Governor’s environmental protection
department. Instead of exercising its formal power to decide which activities
were to be allowed on land adjacent to the national parks, the department
conducted a vulnerability assessment, which made its decisions more trans-
parent and ensured informed input from other actors. However, issues with
a potential for serious conflict between environmental and commercial inter-
ests have not so far been settled. Thus, it is too early to tell how the network
will tackle these challenges.
The three cases described here are certainly not examples of ‘governance
without government’ (Rhodes 1997). The different government actors made
deliberate use of their privileged position to promote the goals and interests
they represented both when defining frames for network activities and as
members of the networks. On the other hand, these cases show a develop-
ment towards new governance. The interaction between representatives both
from different levels of government and from the public and private sector is
based on exchange and negotiation, and compliance is based on trust and
commitment rather than on command and control. The networks represent
a development towards shared responsibility for sustainable development in
these rural areas. They are important arenas for discussions on the content
and direction of sustainable development in their regions. The position of
project managers at regional or local level is important in this respect. In all
three cases resources were used to build administrative capacity. Although
the project leaders were sometimes employed by one of the parties, they did
promote co-operation and joint action within the networks.

Extensive participation as a contribution to input-based

legitimacy?
Another important question when assessing the degree to which these net-
works represent a development towards new governance is how far they try
to meet the requirements for input-based legitimacy through extensive par-
ticipation. In all three cases there was greater participation by private actors
and elected politicians than is usual in the fields of nature management or
rural development, which are normally tasks for state administration. The
activities of the networks are subject to discussion among local and regional
politicians and actors representing private interests, and this, together with
open meetings, and information publicised on the web, means that the
decisions and activities of the network are fairly transparent. Opportunities
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 185
for local politicians and private stakeholders to influence the proceedings are
therefore greater than under the usual system.
In all cases the target group principle for involving private actors pre-
dominates (see under ‘participants’ in Table 7.1). In Nord-Gudbrandsdalen,
the participating private actors represent property right holders and the
tourist industry. In Jostedalen, the local community is represented by rural
welfare organisations and individual community members. The latter
mainly consist of entrepreneurs with ideas or competence related to eco-
nomic development projects. In Setesdal, only property right-holders were
included at first, but the network was later expanded to include representa-
tives of recreational interests and the local wild reindeer committee, bring-
ing it more into line with the stakeholder principle. Even though not all
user interests were included in the networks, there are some elements that
contribute to input-based legitimacy. In Jostedalen, the inclusion of a broad
range of local community members can be expected to contribute to input-
based legitimacy among the local population. However, the fact that this
participation is based on self-selection, not on representation, could weaken
this effect. The minor role of the advisory group in this case cannot be said
to contribute substantially to input-based legitimacy among external inter-
est groups, such as those representing regional recreational and environ-
mental interests.
The decisions made in all three networks were linked to the decisions
made by government, a fact which could contribute to input-based legiti-
macy. In Setesdal and Jostedalen the links were direct; the solutions agreed
in the networks were formally approved by either municipal or state
government. In the Nord-Gudbrandsdalen project, the link was more indi-
rect. The network was accountable to its public sector supporters, the
County Council and the inter-municipal regional council. Thus the most
radical governance structure as regards the role of the network, the Nord-
Gudbrandsdalen project, is also the weakest as regards procedures that con-
tribute to input-based legitimacy, whether through representative
democracy or through participatory democracy. The other two networks
had closer links to representative democracy as well as more extensive
stakeholder participation.
However, the links to representative government, whether direct or indi-
rect, also impose certain constraints on the role of networks and their activ-
ities (Stoker 2000). In Setesdal, many local actors were highly critical of the
constraints placed on off-road traffic and land development by the conserva-
tion rules. It is difficult for local municipal council chairs to both negotiate
compromises with external and local environmental interests in the advisory
group on the one hand, while being accountable to local community
members on the other. This is probably one reason why the network has
been given a minor role during the last years of the project. This case exem-
plifies the difficulty of combining strong local political interest and shared
responsibilities in a network.
186 S. Hovik
The realities of local politics were also present in the case of Nord-
Gudbrandsdalen. Equitable distribution of the economic benefits between
the municipalities is perceived to be important by the local municipal
council chairs. This is a political constraint on the kinds of solutions that
can be negotiated within the network. A project with indirect links to
representative democracy and few possibilities of gaining input-based legiti-
macy from extensive participation by local stakeholders is vulnerable to a
perception by a particular community that it is not getting its fair share of
the benefits, but merely contributing to the welfare of neighbouring
communities.

The interpretation of rural sustainable development

All three cases represent efforts to co-ordinate the policies of nature manage-
ment and rural development between different levels of government. Public
grants were used to fund positions at local or regional level, which imposed
an obligation on the incumbents to promote a co-ordinated policy. Net-
works were established to link actors representing different sectors and
interests and possessing different resources. Thus, efforts were made to build
up local capacity to promote rural sustainable development. In this respect
the projects differed from traditional environmental policy. The projects
were temporary, and one has been terminated. This is a limitation, since a
long-term perspective is necessary for promoting sustainable development.
Since local governance reforms in Norway normally are initiated as short-
term pilot projects, these projects might be the first examples of a future
general reform.
Sustainable development can be understood as local economic develop-
ment that creates jobs and other income opportunities for local people that
do not damage the biodiversity and other ecological values of the area. The
term ‘rural sustainable development’ refers to economic development based
on the use of local natural resources. The main objective of Jostedalen and
Nord-Gudbrandsdalen was to promote business development in order to
secure jobs and attract settlement. The ecological aspects of development
limit the kinds of activities considered to be sustainable. It is hard to say
whether this represents a ‘principled and consequential prioritisation of the
environment’ over and above sectoral interests (Lafferty and Hovden 2003).
Business development is given priority at local level, but in general local
actors accept that commercial activities must be subordinated to the
environmental values safeguarded through nature conservation. Furthermore
the perception of the relation between environmental concerns and rural eco-
nomic development is changing; these interests are being perceived more as
interdependent and less as conflicting.
However, in Setesdal there is still a strong focus on the conflict of interest
between environmental concerns and local development. The case represents
delegation of responsibilities within the environmental policy domain. In
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 187
spite of local ambitions, there were few connections between this network
and the actors and resources in the rural development policy domain. Thus,
the case represents less of a move away from traditional environmental
policy. The different interpretations of, and practices in, rural sustainable
development reflect the differences in participation between the cases. In
Setesdal, the main participants are the municipal council chairs, represent-
ing local user interests, and public and private actors representing environ-
mental interests, and this highlights the conflict between local use and
central nature conservation. There were no actors advocating commercial
activities founded on protected environmental values, such as eco-tourism.
Such actors, both public and private, are well-represented in the other two
cases, which may explain their focus on shared interests and interdependen-
cies between nature conservation and the creation of income opportunities
for local people.
In none of the cases, however, were there discussions on the fundamental
implications of sustainable development for economic growth, either on the
need to change consumption patterns or on the effects on transport and
greenhouse gas emissions that would follow increased eco-tourism.

Conclusion
All three cases presented in this chapter are examples of state environmental
authorities and actors representing local communities pooling their
resources and sharing responsibility for sustainable development of rural
communities adjacent to large protected areas. The local communities were
represented both by local government and by private actors. The networks
were important arenas for the discussion and operationalisation of the
concept of rural sustainable development. In this way, the challenges of rural
sustainable development have led to new governance arrangements.
By initiating and participating in these arrangements, local actors
acquired more influence on development at the expense of both central
government and market forces. State government supports this local ambi-
tion. The three initiatives were strengthened by recent changes in national
policies. State government combined the use of supportive policy instru-
ments facilitating and funding the development of local administrative
capacity, sponsoring local ideas and negotiating the content of management
plans with local actors, with the use of traditional policy instruments such as
legislation and regulation of activities in national parks and other protected
areas. Central government both facilitates governance and restrict its scope.
As regards participation by private actors, greater emphasis was placed on
problem-solving capacity than on stakeholder participation. Right holders
and entrepreneurs were included in decision-making while other stakehold-
ers, with minor commercial or rights-based interests, were often excluded.
This indicates that input-based legitimacy is not secured by extensive par-
ticipation. Strong links to representative democracy at local and regional
188 S. Hovik
levels seems to be the preferred alternative to extensive participation. Addi-
tionally, local councils tend to put the interests of their local constituency
above the will to deliberate and negotiate agreements with external actors in
a network. This is an example of the difficulties of combining the logic of
representative democratic government and the logic of network governance.
As noted by Connaughton et al. in the previous chapter regarding urban sus-
tainable development in Ireland, new modes of governance co-exist with
traditional practices, but are difficult to combine.
Sustainable nature resource management must combine the use of nature
resources for the economic benefit of the local communities with nature con-
servation. Both dominant participation by private economic actors and close
links to local representative government can lead to local business develop-
ment being given priority over the ecological aspects of sustainable develop-
ment. There were signs of such a trend in all three cases. That private
economic actors advocate their self interests and local politicians promote
the interests of their community is no surprise.
Since private actors representing the environmental and recreational
interests are given a minor role in the three cases studied, the representation
of these interests is mainly left to the state environmental administration
authorities. This illustrates that government is needed alongside governance,
to achieve a balanced development in situations of conflicting goals between
central and local level. To promote their policy objectives, state environ-
mental authorities both utilise the means of government and take part in the
negotiations in the networks. So far they have left the question of private
participation to local governments. If governance networks are to play a
central role in the future, there is also a need to strengthen the position of
private actors representing the interests of the environment. An extensive
participation from private actors, including representatives of external recre-
ational and environmental interests, would not only strengthen the input-
based legitimacy of the network decisions, it could also contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development.

References
County Governor of Sogn and Fjordane (2002) Naturbruksprosjektet, fase II. Prosjekt-
plan, Leikanger: Fylkesmannen i Sogn og Fjordane.
County Governor of Sogn and Fjordane (2006) Bygder i Sogn og Fjordane – tilstands-
analyse 2005, Leikanger: Fylkesmannen i Sogn og Fjordane.
Directorate for Nature Conservation (2006) Available online: www.dirnat.no.
Falleth, E. I. (2006) ‘Setesdal Vesthei-Ryfylkeheiane, Norway: Local Co-
management in a Protected Area’, in Y. Rydin and E. I. Falleth (eds), Networks
and Institutions in Natural Resource Management, Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar.
Falleth, E. I. and Hovik, S. (2005) Holdninger til landskapsvern og lokal forvaltning i
Setesdal Vesthei – Ryfylkeheiane landskapsvernområde. NIBR-notat 2005: 134. Oslo:
Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning.
 Rural sustainable development in Norway 189
Hovik, S. and Reitan, M. (2004) ‘National Environmental Goals in Search of Local
Institutions’, Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy, 22: 687–699.
Hovik, S. and Vabo, S. I. (2005) ‘Local Councils as Democratic Meta-Governors?
Analysing Networks Dealing with Border Crossing Natural Resources in
Norway’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 28: 257–275.
Klausen, J. E. and Sweeting, D. (2004) ‘Legitimacy and Community Involvement in
Governance’, in M. Haus, H. Heinelt and M. Stewart (eds), Urban Governance and
Democracy, London: Routledge.
Lafferty, W. M. and Hovden, E (2003) ‘Environmental Policy Integration: Towards
an Analytical Framework’, Environmental Politics, 12: 1–22.
Meadowcroft, J. (2004) ‘Participation and Sustainable Development: Modes of
Citizen, Community and Organisational Involvement’, in W. Lafferty (ed.), Gov-
ernance for Sustainable Development. The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, Chel-
tenham, Glos: Edward Elgar.
Ministry of Finance (2002–2003) Tilleggsbevilgninger og omdisponeringer i statsbudsjet-
tet, medregnet folketrygden 2003 (St.prp.nr.65), Oslo: Finansdepartementet.
Ministry of Finance (2003–2004) Nasjonalbudsjettet 2004 (St.meld.nr.1), Oslo:
Finansdepartementet.
Ministry of Finance (2004–2005) Statsbudsjettet; Landbruks- og matdepartementet
(St.prp.nr.1), Oslo: Finansdepartementet.
Ministry of Finance (2005–2006) Statsbudsjettet, Landbruks og matdepartementet
(St.prp.nr.1), Oslo: Finansdepartementet.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2002) Nasjonal strategi for bærekraftig utvikling, Oslo:
Utenriksdepartementet.
Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (2001–2002) Nye opp-
gaver for lokaldemokratiet – regionalt og lokalt nivå (St.meld.nr.19), Oslo: Kommu-
nal- og regionaldepartementet.
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and democratic theory, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, New York: St
Martin’s Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997): Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Scharpf, F. (1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centered Institutionalism in Policy
Research, Oxford: West View Point.
Scharpf, F. (1999) Governing in Europe. Effective and Democratic?, Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2005) ‘The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Net-
works’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 28: 195–217.
Stoker, G. (2000) ‘Urban Political Science and the Challenge of Urban Governance’,
in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Authority, Steering and Democracy, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
8 New interpretations of local
governance for sustainable
development in the Netherlands
Frans Coenen

Introduction
This chapter explores the promotion of sustainable development as an organ-
ising precept for the emergence of new forms of governance practices in the
Netherlands. The Netherlands is recognised as a pioneer in the adoption of
sustainable development as a key principle for public policy (OECD 2003).
In particular, Dutch attempts to structure their commitment to sustainable
development through national environmental policy plans has attracted
international attention. In 1995, the OECD described Dutch environmental
planning as an indicative, comprehensive, and implementation-oriented
planning of a remarkably high standard, from which other countries had
much to learn (OECD 1995b). The Dutch experience with environmental
plans and strategies are very well documented in international literature (for
example, Keijzers 2000, Liefferink 1999, Van Muijen 2000, Dalal-Clayton
1996, Johnson 1997, Jänicke 1996a, Jänicke et al. 1997, REC 1995, OECD
1995a, Bressers and Coenen 1996, Lampietti and Subramanian 1995).
Relatively little, however, has been documented on the position of the
Dutch local authorities in the pursuit of sustainable development.
In this chapter, analysis of the 15-year history of Dutch plans and pro-
grammes is used to ascertain how national and local strategies have engaged
with sustainable development. Examination of the evolving perceptions of
the policy requirements for sustainable developments is used to reveal trends
in the Netherlands towards new governance patterns at the local level. The
chapter also explores the corresponding changes in the role of the central
state and its relationship to the local level.
The chapter addresses two main questions. First, how have top-down and
bottom-up implementation efforts engaged with each other in the pursuit of
sustainable development in the Netherlands? Second, did the implementa-
tion of sustainable development bring forward new governance patterns at
the local level and new patterns in the relationship between national and
local government, and if so, how?
Although Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 was a direct appeal to local authori-
ties to draw up local sustainable strategies for their own communities,
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 191
national governments retain overall responsibility for implementation.
However, because national sustainable development is impossible without
the involvement of local authorities, every national strategy will somehow
try to stimulate, convince, or force local authorities with communication,
financial incentives, or command and control instruments to contribute to
the task. This frames the promotion of sustainable development as an imple-
mentation problem.
Implementation efforts are typically analysed according to top-down or
bottom-up evaluation of policy processes. In a top-down perspective, imple-
mentation requires clear, operationalisable sustainable development goals
that are communicated early on to the lower levels (Jänicke and Weidner
1997). A top-down approach presumes hierarchical control over municipali-
ties as implementation agents. Internationally, the Rio Earth Summit paved
the way for a more bottom-up approach to implementation. In a bottom-up
perspective, sustainable development goals, and how they are reached, are
developed together with the policy target groups. Funding arrangements
form an essential part of either strategy. Typically, a top-down strategy
makes use of ‘command and control’ and financial instruments. In a bottom-
up approach, processes of joint commitment building with financial auto-
nomy and local priority setting would be more appropriate. Arguments for
bottom-up development of sustainable development strategies are closely
aligned to more general arguments for administrative and political decen-
tralisation. Arguments in favour of decentralised policies processes include
the advantages of grass-roots democracy, the importance of using local
knowledge, and the necessity of local political commitment.

Central–local relations in the Netherlands

The Dutch constitutional context is of great importance for understanding
the balance between top-down and bottom-up implementation of sustain-
able development policies. The Netherlands is a decentralised unitary state.
The administrative system compromises three levels of government: about
450 municipalities (gemeenten), 12 provinces (provincies), and the central
government. The unitary nature of the state is based on agreement between
the three layers of government, not on central government alone. The lower
levels are responsible for their own affairs and, to a limited extent, can take
their own initiatives. This freedom of initiative, however, is restricted by
the constitutional obligation to implement legislation passed by higher
authorities.
The Dutch Constitution (1848) and the Municipalities Act (1851) frame
the legal position of Dutch municipalities. Certain factors limit municipal
autonomy. The Mayor is centrally appointed and budgets and other import-
ant financial and planning decisions require higher approval. Central
government also possesses the power to overrule any action by local govern-
ment considered illegal or contrary to the public interest. A large part of
192 F. Coenan
local authority activities involves co-government with the centre. The Dutch
system of local government is difficult to align with categorisations of local
government, such as that provided by Hesse and Sharpe (1991). Characteris-
tic of the Dutch system is the relatively high degree of centralised state
control and relatively high financial dependence of municipalities on the
centre. The degree of policy autonomy varies across policy sector. For
instance, the municipalities have a strong role in the provision of public
services.
Funding arrangements for the pursuit of local sustainable development
fall into the general arrangements for municipal revenues. More than 70 per
cent of municipal revenues in the Netherlands come from the national
budget. Specific grants, which fund joint administrative tasks, account for
around 40 per cent of total municipal income. The general grant from the
Municipal Fund is used to finance autonomous tasks as well as general statu-
tory tasks imposed on the municipalities. In addition to grants from central
government, municipalities also have their own independent income from
taxes (including levies and fees) and other revenues (such as charges and
interest).
Until the end of the 1980s, local environmental management was seen as
an autonomous task for municipalities, to be paid for from the general
municipal budget. When evidence mounted that implementation was being
blocked by the limited capacity of public authorities at the local level, addi-
tional funds were made available by the central state. These funds, provided
under government-sponsored programmes, including the ‘contribution to
implementing the municipal environmental policy decree’ (BUGM) scheme,
the ‘Funding the Implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Plan’ (FUN) programme (both running from 1990 to 1995), as well ‘the
supplementary contribution scheme for developing municipal environ-
mental policy’ (VOGM) programme, (which ran from 1996 to 1998). Baker
and Eckerberg discuss these funding programmes in Chapter 2.

Changing perceptions on sustainable development at the

national and local levels
Dutch environmental policy is framed by the long-term strategies laid down
in National Environmental Policy Plans (NEPPs). The goal of Dutch
environmental planning is sustainable development (Bennett 1991, 1997;
van Geest and Ringeling 1994). Soon after the publication of Our Common
Future (WCED 1987), the Dutch government adopted the concept of sus-
tainable development as the overall guide for government policy. The
concept was then incorporated into the first NEPP (NEPP-1) (Nationaal
Milieubeleidsplan 1989). This has been followed by four further NEPPs, the
most recent being NEPP-4, introduced in 2001, which formulates policy up
until the year 2030 (NEPP-4 2001). In the run up to the Johannesburg
Summit, the ‘national strategy for sustainable development’ was prepared
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 193
2002 (NSD 2001). After the Summit the strategy was transformed into an
International Action Programme for Sustainable Development (IAP 2002)
and a National Action Programme on Sustainable Development (Sustainable
Development Action Programme 2002).
Municipalities also prepare their own local sustainable development strat-
egies. These fall into two types, Local Environmental Policy Plans (LEPPs)
and Local Agenda 21 Plans (LA21 Plans). After the publication of the
Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), there was great interest in the idea of
sustainable development at the municipal level. Between 1988 and the mid-
1990s, the number of larger municipalities (with more than 30,000 inhabi-
tants) with an LEPP rose from one-third to more than two-thirds (Coenen
1996; ECWM 2001). Similarly, the number of municipalities with an LA21
Plan rose from a dozen directly after Rio to more than 170 at its peak at the
end of the twentieth century (Coenen 1998a). The number of LA21 Plans
has decreased since then.
We follow the Sustainable Development Reporting Protocol, described in
the Introduction, to detect the ways in which the sustainable development
concept has been interpreted and applied in the Dutch national and local
contexts. The seven characteristics of the Reporting Protocol help ascertain
whether Dutch governmental efforts to promote sustainable development
represent a genuine shift in policy focus away from the more traditional
environmental management approach and whether involvement in sustain-
able development goes beyond a commitment to ecological modernisation,
as described in the Governance Reporting Protocol.
Table 8.1 shows that the first three NEPPs focused their attention on
traditional environmental policy. The main goal of NEPP-1 was to achieve
technical solutions to environmental problems within a single generation.
Its starting point was the report ‘Care for Tomorrow’ (RIVM 1989). This
report revealed the seriousness of many Dutch environmental problems and
pointed to the need for significant reductions in environmental load, given
the environmental carrying capacity of the Dutch ecological system. The
NEPP-1 and NEPP-2 take quite a technocratic view of sustainable develop-
ment, focusing mainly on restriction of pollution within a given environ-
mental carrying capacity (NEPP-3 1998; NEPP-2 1993). The NEPP-4
introduced the concept of persistent environmental problems (NEPP-4
2001). Some problems, such as waste, were seen as being more or less under
control in that sufficient funds and technical means could be made available
to solve waste issues within a decade. Other environmental issues, such as
climate change, have turned out to be more complex than originally
thought. Tackling these issues is seen as requiring radical social changes,
which cannot be brought about in one generation, nor can they be solved by
planning alone.
The focus in the first three NEPPs on the reduction of emissions through
technical and managerial changes, and, in particular, the stress in the
NEPP-3 on decoupling economic growth from negative environmental
Table 8.1 Key components of Dutch national sustainable development plans and strategies

Time frame NEPP1/NEPP Plus NEPP2 NEPP3 NEPP4 National Sustainable

Development Strategy

1990–1994 1995–1999 1999–2003 2001–2030 2002–2030

Policy focus Reducing emissions Reducing emissions Decoupling Quality of life; Coherence between
environmental addressing ecological, social, and
pressure from manageable and economic (sustainable
economic growth solvable development) goods
environmental
problems; addressing
persistent problems
Nature of solutions Technical solutions Technical solutions Maintain goal of Solving persistent Sustainable
within one generation within one generation absolute decoupling environmental development
problems through
long-term societal
changes
Signatories Ministers of: Spatial + Minister for + State Secretary + Ministers of: Ministerial Governing
Planning, Housing Development for Finance Health Welfare and Committee
and Environment; Cooperation Sport; Urban Policy
Economic Affairs; and Integration;
Agriculture, Nature Finance
and Food Quality;
Transport, Public
Works and Water
Management
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 195
impacts, frames the interpretation of sustainable development as ‘ecological
modernisation’ (see Introduction to this volume). Over this time frame, a
clear move from more traditional environmental management and the inter-
pretation of sustainable development as ecological modernisation can be
seen. However, more recently Dutch policy moves more towards a conceptu-
alisation of sustainable development that is closer to the classic Brundtland
formulation.
To understand how far beyond traditional environmental management
and ecological modernisation the more recent Dutch engagement with sus-
tainable development actually goes requires a closer look at the different
compounds of sustainable development.

The emergence of new forms of governance and

central–local relations

Sustainable development requires a high level of government

commitment
Through the development of the NEPPs, the Dutch have showed their will-
ingness to make the promotion of sustainable development an overall guide-
line for government policy. In addition, they have developed numerous
policies on more specific aspects of sustainable development. The NEPPs
also make clear reference to EU goals and have made, in turn, key contribu-
tions to the development of EU framework documents.
However, while the Rio Earth Summit called for immediate action, includ-
ing through Agenda 21, this did not lead to the formulation of specific strat-
egies for the promotion of sustainable development in the Netherlands. It was
not until the country began preparing the national strategy for sustainable
development in 2001 that efforts were made to adopt a strategic approach. The
strategy commands high levels of political commitment, as it was developed
under a Ministerial Governing Committee chaired by the Prime Minister.

Sustainable development requires institutional support

In the wake of the 1992 UNCED Summit, many countries established a
National Commission on Sustainable Development. However, the Dutch
preferred to stimulate institutional innovation and reform within existing
institutions, including at the sub-national levels. It was also felt that several
advisory boards and scientific councils that were already in existence, such as
the Central Planning Bureau (CPB), the Environmental Planning Bureau
(RIVM), the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) and the
VROM council, performed functions very similar to the National Commis-
sions in other countries. In addition, it was argued that the Dutch national
environmental policy planning procedures already involved various govern-
ment and non-governmental actors and agencies.
196 F. Coenan
Over time, however, the National Committee on International Co-
operation and Sustainable Development (NCDO) became a key agent stimu-
lating local sustainable development within the Netherlands. Around 50
NGOs from all sectors of society participate in this Commission, which aims
to stimulate the debate on sustainable development at the national level. In
1998, the Ministry for Environment made money available through the
NCDO for the so-called ‘Local Agenda 21 Fund’. This Fund was aimed at
local groups, organisations, or individuals wishing to implement or initiate
an LA21 or LA21 activity. This, it was hoped, would catalyse local sustain-
able development.

Sustainable development requires policies that cut across

traditional policy fields and take account of sectoral linkages
NEPPs are comprehensive plans that cover a wide range of environmental
issues (such as waste, air quality and noise) and related policy sectors
(including traffic, housing and spatial planning). Environmental policy
integration is also addressed within the NEPPs by specific cross-cutting
themes (for example, acidification, the manure problem, and groundwater
depletion), designed to bring out the linkages between sectoral policy fields.
This integrated approach is evident by the fact that a variety of Ministers are
involved in the policy design of the NEPPs: NEPP-1 involved input from
four ministers; the most recent NEPP-4 has spread responsibility across
seven different Ministerial departments.
In NEPP-1, the links between environmental protection and the eco-
nomic and particularly the social pillar of sustainable development were
weak. NEPP-1 and NEPP-2 both emphasised the ecological dimension of
sustainable development. Their main focus was on reducing environmental
impacts, rather than promoting social change. NEPP-3 pays more attention
to the economic dimension of sustainable development and looks more
closely at the social trends needed to decouple continuing economic growth
from increasing environmental pressure. NEPP-4 added a clear social
dimension by giving priority to quality of life and social welfare issues.
The starting point for the Dutch national sustainable development strat-
egy is to embed all policy areas within the framework of sustainable devel-
opment. It pays particular attention to the need to elaborate time and space
perspectives (‘the here and now’ but also ‘the later’ and the ‘elsewhere’) in
environmental policy integration. In addition, these criteria have to be used
in decision-making for all major investments of government. Each ministry
is also requested to give an overview of their contribution to sustainable
development in their annual budget, to be discussed in Parliament.
However, most progress in relation to environmental policy integration
has been made at the national, as opposed to the sub-national, level. In con-
trast to the NEPPs, the LEPPs and LA21 Plans are best conceptualised as
environmental plans rather than sustainable development strategies. Three
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 197
arguments support this claim. First, the focus of the LEPPs and LA21 Plans
is narrow, being primarily concerned with the environment and issues of
‘liveability’. Second, LEPPs and LA21 Plans have a limited influence on
non-environmental policy areas. Third, sustainable local development initi-
atives and projects are not seen as linked to LEPPs or LA21, but to national
policies and initiatives.
In relation to the first argument, although most LEPPs address the whole
range of environmental compartments and related policy sectors (traffic,
housing, spatial), only a third of them make use of cross-cutting integrating
themes from the NEPPs (Coenen 1996). Only the bigger and more
urbanised municipalities have developed integrated plans. The LA21 action
plans often concentrates on issues in relation to the surrounding environ-
ment, such as dog fouling and litter, or on concrete projects, such as sustain-
able building or energy saving. The global dimension and the North-South
problematic received relatively little attention in Dutch LA21 plans (Coenen
1999).
Second, despite expectation that policy integration would be easier to
achieve at the local level, environmental goals continue to have only limited
influence on other policy areas at the local level (ECWM 2001). Existing
policy commitments and organisational culture at the local level continue to
act as barriers to effective integration. Resistance to what is seen as the
incursion of environmental policy into other policy sectors also depends on
how far the LEPP is considered as merely an ‘environmental’ initiative
(Coenen 1996). In addition, because the Ministry for the Environment
funded many Dutch LA21 initiatives, they were seen as environmental
schemes and as only weakly linked to ongoing planning and policy processes
in other sectors.
Third, the national level continues to dominate policy developments. In
many policy areas, inter-policy integration is given shape at the national
level and then implemented locally. For example, sustainable development
principles are taken into account in spatial and traffic planning at the
national level and then implemented at the local level. As a result, many
good municipal sustainable development initiatives, such as sustainable
building and green transport, do not become associated with the LA21, nor
are they seen as linked to the implementation of the LEPPs.

Sustainable development requires interaction between

international, national and decentralised levels
A truly interactive process requires the development of local sustainable
development strategies that are more than a mere local copy of a national
strategy. In addition, the local level has to be able, in turn, to influence
national policy.
From 1990 to 1998, Dutch municipalities were allocated extra central
government funds to improve and expand their administrative capacity.
198 F. Coenan
This assistance arose from dissatisfaction with environmental policy imple-
mentation at the local level, which was attributed to lack of expertise within
municipalities. The presence of this earmarked funding enhanced the per-
ception that LEPPs were top-down initiatives, primarily concerned with
implementation, rather than bottom-up, locally formulated sustainable
development strategies. This top-down perspective is evident in the so-
called ‘Central Plan for Enacting the National Environmental Policy Plan’
(VNG/VROM 1990), negotiated between national government and the
municipalities. Municipal actions in this Plan were financed through ear-
marked funds and implementation was strictly controlled by the Environ-
mental Inspectorate, an agent from the Ministry of Environment. As a
result, the LEPPs closely followed national policy in their content.
More generally, it can be argued that, between the 1970s and until
recently, local authorities lost much of their autonomy in environmental
affairs. In the 1970s, for example, responsibility for the environmental man-
agement of big companies were taken away from the municipalities and
given to the provinces. In part, this is related to the problem of environ-
mental expertise. In a small municipality, the number of environmental
experts is always limited. The period of earmarked funding for environ-
mental policy (1990–1996) contrasts with the general tendency in the late
1990s and early twenty-first century towards decentralisation and growing
self-responsibility for local authorities. The BUGM and VOGM funding
initiatives (as discussed in Chapter 2 by Baker and Eckerberg) were specifi-
cally designed to encourage co-operation at this higher, provincial level,
because it is at this level that greater expertise exists. This manner of imple-
mentation within municipalities also contrasted with the consensual strat-
egies that national government used with other implementing agents, such
as target groups within business sectors.
At the end of the 1990s, the national government began working on a
law that would regulate statutory environmental policy planning. This
resulted in considerable discussion as to whether municipalities should turn
their LEPPs into local sustainable development strategies. One concern was
that of ensuring a correct balance between central and generic policy and
area specific policies, and between national standards and local priority set-
tings. There were also arguments that the local level is not the most appro-
priate level for strategic decision-making, as local environmental policies
tend to be more concerned with concrete activities. This would make it
more fitting for local government to develop concrete, operational plans and
not strategic policy documents. The outcome of these discussions was that
concrete, operational management plans were required for all municipalities,
but that strategic LEPPs were voluntary, being especially targeted at larger
municipalities.
Chapter 7 of the national sustainable development strategy explicitly
addresses the role of local authorities (NSD 2001). National government
requires municipalities, provinces and the Water Boards to draw their own
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 199
strategies for sustainable development, in addition to implementing the
national strategy. However, national government recommends that the other
tiers of government build upon existing experiences and expertise. This
reflects the fact that the period since the mid-1990s has been marked by a
general tendency towards more policy freedom in the environmental field at
the local level. In particular, existing regulations and national standards in
the field of spatial urban planning, noise abatement and soil remediation
have begun to be considered as too rigid and as possible hindrances to urban
development. As a result, some exceptions to the norms are now tolerated,
so long as they are compensated for in others areas.
Another, more recent approach is to encourage horizontal patterns of
cooperation, in particular between municipalities. One way of stimulating
local sustainable development are the networks and pilot projects funded
under the so-called GIDO (Collective Initiative Sustainable Development)
and the NIDO (National Institute Sustainable Development), discussed by
Baker and Eckerberg in Chapter 2. Another similar policy initiative is the
so-called ‘learning for sustainable development’ programme (SenterNovem
2006). A whole range of ministries (Agriculture, Environment, Foreign
Affairs, International Development and Education) and the national associ-
ations of municipalities, provinces, and Dutch Water Boards helped to draw
up a policy programme and co-finance this project. The starting point is
that sustainable development requires knowledge, insight, skills, commit-
ment, and the willingness to act from societal actors. These qualities have to
be learned. The first phase of the Programme was implemented from 2000
to 2003 and has now been extended for a second phase. The Provinces co-
ordinate the implementation of the programme. They draw up so-called
‘provincial ambition statements’ and allocate money to proposed projects.

Sustainable development requires active involvement of

stakeholders
Dutch society is noted for its consensus-based approach to policy-making,
built around a long-standing tradition of government consultation with
various social groups. The tradition of consultation is often institutionalised
in tripartite forums with government, employers and labour unions, often
referred to as the ‘Dutch Polder Model’. This model has been credited with
the Dutch economic miracle of the late 1990s. This economic success story
formed an inspiration for other policy areas. The lesson learnt was that new
institutional arrangements can create opportunities for the parties to engage
in constructive and economically beneficial discussion.
The Dutch polder model formed the inspiration for the more specific
‘green polder model’. In this model, social organisations are given the
opportunity to present their opinions, views and arguments at an early
stage in the environmental decision-making process, when alternative sce-
narios are still open. The green polder model is a specific form of interactive
200 F. Coenan
policy-making that recognises two important factors (Glasbergen 2002).
First, it recognises the importance of environmental and nature conserva-
tion groups and gives these groups a formal role in the decision-making
process. Second, it recognises the changing role of government, which is no
longer able to prepare and make radical decisions relating to the environ-
ment and infrastructure on its own. The model provides an additional insti-
tutional framework for consultation, alongside existing formal consultative
and advisory mechanisms, as laid down by law.
The NEPPs and the LEPPs are made under statutory planning law, which
propagates the principle of ‘open planning’. Open planning means involving
stakeholders (such as citizens, businesses, environmental bodies, and other
government authorities) in the planning process and at an early stage. Stake-
holders are particularly involved in plan implementation. The utilisation of
‘open planning’ had already appeared by the beginning of the 1980s
(Coenen 1998b). This was in response to concerns that many planning
processes were mainly directed towards what government could and should
do, underestimating the role of other actors in realising social change. Ideas
from the Dutch Scientific Advisory Council to the Government (WRR) were
particularly influential in ensuring that governments paid more attention to
the ‘external dimension’ of planning (den Hoed et al. 1983). The commu-
nicative role of policy documents in the implementation of plans was also
stressed at this time. In the communicative approach, the aim is to try to
implement plans not by wielding power but by convincing implementing
agents and target groups to act. Advocates of communicative planning
emphasise an open planning process, shared responsibility, and internalisa-
tion of the goals of the plan (Healey 1992, 1997; Fischer and Forester 1993).
Dutch planning has also introduced the so-called ‘target group approach’,
whose underlying philosophy is that environmental problems are best solved
through consultations with the polluters, that is, the target group. In the
first three NEPPs, the planners sought to obtain prior agreements with the
target groups who would be affected by the measures in the Plans. As a
result, these NEPPs were the result of a series of negotiations with the target
groups (Coenen 1998b). These agreements were later drawn up as covenants.
This has led to numerous voluntary environmental agreements, where
national government enters into an agreement with the most important
sectors of industry in order to reduce emissions from a particular sector.
Similar rounds of consultations were held for the NEPP-4.
In the formulation of the national strategy for sustainable development, a
wider range of actors were involved, including non-governmental organisa-
tions, youth organisations, as well as the business community. The process
included bilateral talks with relevant departments and non-governmental
organisations. Additionally, a series of workshops were held, with a view to
devising implementation strategies. In contrast, however, local environ-
mental plans mainly use traditional forms of participation, such as hearings
(Coenen 1998b). Thus, while some local environmental policy plans work
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 201
explicitly with a target group approach, these are a minority. In LA21 par-
ticipation processes are very diverse and range from limited consultation to
structured participation platforms (Coenen 1999).
However, the consultative practices embedded in the Dutch approach to
planning have led to problems (Coenen et al. 2001). In the 1990s, newly
planned large-scale infrastructural projects were subject to considerable
debate within society, including for example the proposed Betuwe rail-link
for freight transport to Germany. Public support for these large projects was
often weak and participatory practices offered many opportunities for groups
to take legal action that, in turn, caused decision-making deadlock. Oppos-
ing actions came not only from local, regional and national environmental
organisations and other societal groups but also from municipal and provin-
cial authorities. Although the traditional participation methods offered a
voice to all the parties concerned, this input came relatively late in the
decision process. Typically, large-scale infrastructural projects require con-
siderable effort on the behalf of the authorities that initiated them long
before the consultation stage is reached, in particular so as to obtain initial,
internal approval for specific options. The consequence was that by the time
municipalities and societal actors became involved, they felt that they were
been consulted too late in the process. For instance, in the case of the Betuwe
freight-train link, participation was directed towards discussing the precise
route of the rail-line and how it could best be fitted into the landscape, but
the decision on whether such a railway was needed in the first place had
already been made. As a result of this, and other similar disputes, new gov-
ernance arrangements eventually emerged that offered local authorities and
societal organisations the opportunity to take part in earlier, and more fun-
damental, discussions about the need for new infrastructural developments.
In these more fundamental discussions, the dialogue is strongly linked to
the need to strike a balance between the economic and ecological pillars of
sustainable development.

Sustainable development requires political renewal

This new form of dialogue is closely related to another development in
Dutch society. The 1990s saw the emergence of new patterns of engage-
ments between local government and their citizens. The catalyst for this so-
called political renewal (bestuurlijke vernieuwing) was the low turn-out rates at
local election, combined with increasing levels of voter apathy toward
municipal policies. Voters did not consider municipal politics as an import-
ant political arena were citizens should get involved.
The process of political renewal or ‘political and administrative modern-
isation’, as it is sometimes called, turned attention to the policy style of
municipalities, which came to be seen as too formal and closed, with public
administration directed inwards at the organisation itself. This resulted in
citizens seeing themselves more as consumers than as voters, and as ‘left out’
202 F. Coenan
from a policy-making process that had come to be dominated by experts and
an ‘inner circle’ of politicians. This gave citizens no room to channel their
own needs and problems into local politics. The process of political renewal
then led to a search for new ways of policy-making, which can better accom-
modate the demands of citizens. This means that local administrators and
politicians seek to change modes of interaction with the citizenry.
Attempts at political renewal led to a number of local political experi-
ments, which can be categories as either ‘instrumental’ or ‘communicative’
(Veldboer 1996). The instrumental approach introduced instruments to find
out what citizens think, mean and want, such as a referendum or some form
of opinion research. The communicative approach involved changing the
mode of policy-making. Instead of involving citizens after draft plans have
been completed, they are brought in at the outset of the policy-making
process (interactive policy-making). Political renewal also took place at the
national level. The ministry of the environment, for example, has increas-
ingly tried to treat citizen behaviour as central to sustainable development
policies and plans.
LA21 is often labelled as an example of political renewal. Not only did
LA21 promote new patterns of governance, but it also played a role in the
changing institutional context of local democracy in the Netherlands and, as
such is interpreted as closely linked to, or even an exponent of, Dutch polit-
ical renewal (Coenen 1998c). The development of LA21 is here linked to the
need to overcome the crisis in local democracy. However, this new form of
governance is neither unique to the task of implementing sustainable devel-
opment nor was it initiated by the Dutch commitment to pursue sustainable
development

The promotion of sustainable development calls for

long-term policies
The NEPPs are noted for having taken a long-term planning perspective. In
the first Plan, the aim was to solve the environmental problems within a
single generation, giving a 30-year horizon to the Plan. The perspective of
the Strategy is even longer (25 to 50 years). LEPPs, however, often work on
a much shorter time-scale, adjusted to the time horizon of the local electoral
cycle and also because their goals and actions are less strategic and more
concrete.

Conclusions
The first question that this chapter sought to address was: how have top-
down and bottom-up implementation efforts engaged with each other in the
pursuit of sustainable development in the Netherlands? The analysis shows
how the NEPPs are an expression of the Dutch commitment to making the
pursuit of sustainable development the overall guide for public policy.
Table 8.2 Implementation and planning style

NEPP1/NEPP Plus NEPP2 NEPP3 NEPP4 National Sustainable

Development Strategy

Implementation style Phased Responsibility Establishing Policy renewal; Joint planning and
implementation; shifted to means for internalize transition processes
priority themes; implementing decoupling environmental
target groups as agents costs in prices
implementing agents
Objective of planning Technocratic vision; Technocratic vision; Decoupling; Quality of life Three pillars of
reduce environmental reduce environmental addition of sustainable
impacts impacts economic pillar development
Planning style Agreements with Government: Market given role Criticism of Transition processes
other actors business covenants in decoupling covenants;
negotiation on
persistent
environmental
problems
204 F. Coenan
Nevertheless, the Dutch did not follow other countries in the establishment
of sustainable development institutions at the national level but preferred
institutional innovation and reform within existing institutions, including
at the sub-national levels. Stakeholders are actively involved in these policy
processes, because of the propagation of the principle of ‘open planning’ in
the statutory planning law. There is also a more recent trend, evident in
particular in the national strategy for sustainable development, to involve
stakeholders at a very early stage in policy framing.
In contrast to the strong role of central government, the analysis also
shows that national planning efforts are not matched by similar strategic
efforts at the local level. Thus, while regional and local authorities also
developed their own local sustainable strategies, these are often mere local
copies of national strategies. Neither the local environmental plans nor the
Dutch LA21 initiatives have led to integrated, comprehensive, local sustain-
able development strategies. Compared with the NEPPs, the LEPPs are
more in the nature of environmental plans than sustainable development
strategies. The content of the LEPPs and LA21 Plans is narrowed down to
environment and liveability and they have had a limited influence on non-
environmental policy areas. Sustainable local development initiatives and
projects are not linked to LEPPs or LA21, but remain firmly anchored to
national policies and initiatives. In short, the interface between the national
and sub-national levels is the weak link in the Dutch commitment to the
pursuit of sustainable development. As Baker and Eckerberg point out in
Chapter 2, one likely explanation for this lies with the way funding was
organised. The VOGM and BUGM funds strengthened the idea that a sus-
tainable development strategy was something that belonged in the environ-
mental policy field and that required top-down steering. As such, such
funding initiatives hindered the development of sustainable development
strategies at the local level.
The second question addressed in this chapter was: did the implementa-
tion of sustainable development bring forth new governance patterns at the
local level and new patterns in the relationship between national and local
government, and if so, how? In the first NEPP, the goal at the end of the
plan period (1994) was presented in advance. The NEPP-1 displayed signs
of blueprint planning (Dalal-Clayton 1996; Ringeling 1990). Here, certain
objectives and measures were declared desirable, without clearly stating
whether adequate measures, resources and power were available to imple-
ment the Plan (Ringeling 1990). There was too much plan and too little
planning process, such that NEPP-1 can be seen as having been made over
the heads of those involved in implementation (the business community,
lower tier authorities and target groups). Individual citizens also played a
marginal role in the planning process, and political integration with lower
tier authorities was limited (van Geest and Ringeling 1994). In contrast,
however, the NEPP-4 states that ‘a government that dictates solutions
cannot change society’ and thus forms the starting point for a new depar-
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 205
ture: the development of a joint ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ planning
process. The general shift in the style of planning, from a more orthodox,
top-down type of planning towards more joint planning, is contributing to a
change in central–local relations.
The analysis also distinguished four main arrangements to institutionalise
stakeholder processes in the pursuit of sustainable development: open plan-
ning, the green polder model, consensual strategies, and political renewal.
The socio-economic polder model and its economic success story inspired
new institutional arrangements. The policy style adopted to implement
Dutch commitment to promote sustainable development is a reflection of
these more general arrangements. Nevertheless, we argued that these general
forms take on specific characteristics as they address the tasks associated
with the implementation of sustainable development. From these character-
istics, it is clear that new forms of governance emerged during the imple-
mentation of the nation’s commitment to sustainable development.
However, these new forms are neither unique to the task of promoting sus-
tainable development nor were they initiated by the commitment to pursue
sustainable futures. The drivers for new governance arrangements are more
general and are rooted in efforts to find solutions for problems with traditional
participation procedures, ones that offer possibilities for local authorities and
societal organisations to take part in a more fundamental discussion about the
need for new policies and infrastructure. In these more fundamental discus-
sions, sustainable development nonetheless remains an important policy frame.
Similarly, processes of political renewal were not initiated as a result of the
commitment to pursue sustainable development. Thus, while the pursuit of
sustainable development promotes new pattern of governance, these changes
are best seen as taking place within, and driven by, more general changes in the
institutional context of democracy, including its practice at the local level.

References
Bennett, G. (1991) ‘History of the Dutch National Policy’ Environment, Vol. 33, No.
7: 7–33.
Bennett, G. (1997) ‘Niederlande, The Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan’,
in M. Jänicke, A. Carius and H. Jörgens, Nationale Umweltpläne in ausgewählten
Industrieländern, Berlin: Springer.
Bressers, J. Th. A. and Coenen, F. H. J. M. (1996) ‘Green Plans: Blue-prints or
“Statements of Future Intent for Future Decisions” ’, paper presented at ‘The
Environment in the 21st Century’ Conference, Abbaye de Fontevraud, France,
8–11 September.
Coenen, F. (1996) The Effectiveness of Municipal Environmental Policy Planning,
Enschede: Twente University Press.
Coenen, F. (1998a) ‘The Netherlands: Subsidized Seeds in Fertile Soil’, in W. M.
Lafferty and K. Eckerberg (eds), From Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21, Working
towards Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.
Coenen, F. (1998b) ‘Policy Integration and Public Involvement in the Local Policy
206 F. Coenan
Process. Lessons from Local Green Planning in the Netherlands’, European
Environment 8: 50–57.
Coenen, F. (1999) ‘Probing the Essence of LA21 as a Value-added Approach to Sus-
tainable Development and Local Democracy: The Case of the Netherlands’, in
W. M. Lafferty (ed.), Implementing LA21 in Europe: New Initiatives for Sustainable
Communities, Oslo: ProSus.
Coenen, F., Peppel, R. A. van de and Woltjer, J. (2001) ‘Inspraak’ – an Institutional
and Historical Account of Public Participation in Dutch Planning’, paper pre-
pared for World Planning Schools Congress, Shanghai.
Dalal-Clayton, B. (1996) Getting to Grips with Green Plans: National-level Experience in
Industrial Countries, London: Earthscan.
ECWM (Evaluatiecommissie Wet milieubeheer) (2001) Het gemeentelijk milieubeleid-
splan, The Hague, ECWM 2001/4.
Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (eds) (1993) The Communicative Turn in Policy Analysis and
Planning, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Geest, H. J. A. M. van and Ringeling, A. B. (1994) ‘Planning in het milieubeleid’,
in P. Glasbergen (ed.), Milieubeleid, een beleidswetenschappelijke inleiding, vierde
herziene druk, ‘s-Gravenhage: Vuga Uitgeverij BV.
Glasbergen P (2002) ‘The Green Polder Model: Institutionalizing Multi-
stakeholder Processes in Strategic Environmental Decision-making’ European
Environment, 12: 303–315.
Healey, P. (1992) ‘Planning through Debate’, Town Planning Review, 63: 143–162.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning, Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Bas-
ingstoke: Macmillan.
Hesse, J. J. and Sharpe, L. J. (1991) ‘Local Government in International Perspective:
Some Comparative Observations’, in J. J. Hesse (ed.), Local Government and Urban
Affairs in International Perspective, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Hoed, P. den, Salet, W. G. M. and Sluijs, H. van der (1983) Planning als
onderneming, serie Voorstudies en achtergronden, ‘s-Gravenhage: Wetenschap-
pelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
Jänicke, M. (1996) ‘National Environmental Policy Plans and Long-term Sustain-
able Development Strategies: Learning from International Experiences’, paper
presented at ‘The Environment in the 21st Century’ Conference, Abbaye de
Fontevraud, France, 8–11 September.
Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (eds) (1997) National Environmental Policies: A Compar-
ative Study of Capacity-Building, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.
Jänicke, M., Carius, A. and Jörgens, H. (1997) Nationale Umweltpläne in ausgewählten
Industrieländern, Berlin.
Johnson, H. D. (1997) Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability’, Lincoln, NE: Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press.
Keijzers, G. (2000) ‘The Evolution of Dutch Environmental Policy: The Changing
Ecological Arena from 1970–2000 and Beyond’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 8:
179–200.
Lampietti, J. and Subramanian, U. (1995) ‘Taking Stock of National Environmental
Strategies’, Environmental Management Series Paper No. 010, Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Liefferink, D. (1999) ‘The Dutch National Plan for Sustainable Society’, in N. J.
Vig and R. S. Axelrod (eds), The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy,
Washington DC: CQ Press, 256–278.
 New interpretations in the Netherlands 207
Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan (NMP) (1989) ‘Kiezen of verliezen’, The Hague.
NEPP-1 (1989) Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment
(VROM), To Choose or to Lose: National Environmental Policy Plan, The Hague.
NEPP-2 (1993) Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment
(VROM), National Environmental Policy Plan 2: The Environment: Today’s
Touchstone, The Hague.
NEPP-3 (1998) Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment
(VROM), National Environmental Policy Plan 3, The Hague.
NEPP-4 (2001) Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment
(VROM), 1993: National Environmental Policy Plan 4: Where There’s a Will There’s
a World, Working on Sustainability, The Hague.
NSD (2001) Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment (VROM), A
National Strategy for Sustainable Development.
OECD (1995a) Planning for Sustainable Development. Country Experiences, Paris:
OECD.
OECD (1995b) Environmental Performance Reviews: The Netherlands, Paris, OECD.
OECD (2003) Environmental Performance Reviews: The Netherlands, Paris: OECD.
REC (Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe) (1995) Status
of National Environmental Action Programs in Central and Eastern Europe. Szentendre,
Hungary.
Ringeling, A. B. (1990) ‘Plannen en organiseren: het Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan’,
in Juridische en bestuurlijke consequenties van het Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan, Zwolle:
Tjeenk Willink.
RIVM (1989) (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene = National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Zorgen voor morgen: Nationale
milieuverkenning 1985–2010 (Concern for Tomorrow: A National Environmental
Survey 1985–2010), Alphen aan de Rijn.
SenterNovem (2006) Werkplan Leren voor duurzame ontwikkeling, Programmabureau
leren voor duurzame ontwikkeling, Utrecht.
Sustainable Development Action Programme (2002) Sustainable Action, The Hague:
Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, VROM.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992)
Agenda 21.
Van Muijen, M.-L. (2000) ‘The Netherlands: Ambitious on Goals – Ambivalent on
Action’, in W. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft (eds), Implementing Sustainable Develop-
ment: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies, Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 142–173.
Veldboer, L. (1996) De inspraak voorbij. Ervaringen van burgers en lokale bestuurders met
nieuwe vormen van overleg, Amsterdam: Instituut voor Publick en Politick.
VNG/VROM (1990) Association of Dutch Municipalities/Ministry of Housing,
Physical Planning and Environment, Central Plan for Enacting the National Environ-
mental Policy Plan (Kaderplan van aanpak NMP), The Hague.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our
Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conclusion
Combining old and new governance in
pursuit of sustainable development
Susan Baker and Katarina Eckerberg

Part 1: General summary of the chapters

In Chapter 1, Berger and Steurer examined the steering capacity of the
central state to promote sustainable development at the regional level
through the use of national sustainable development strategies. In the four
selected EU member states, they showed that other strategies, such as
national development or spatial plans, have a greater influence on regional
models of economic development than the NSDSs. They also revealed that
EU Structural Funds, while contributing to increase general capacity at the
regional level, are more concerned with the implementation of traditional
economic development and, more recently, the promotion of social cohesion
rather than sustainable development. Capacity building at the regional level
was particularly geared towards horizontal integration, where many Euro-
pean regions have developed inter-regional co-operation in order to define
common strategies and establish platforms for lesson learning and policy
transfer. While this helps promote new forms of governance, they concluded
that genuine sustainable development projects, that integrate economic,
social and environmental considerations, are still the exception rather than
the rule in European regions.
Baker and Eckerberg then took the theme of funding further by examin-
ing the significance of central government funding for the promotion of sus-
tainable development at the sub-national level in five EU member states
(Chapter 2). Analysing a range of centrally funded initiatives, they found
that, while such funding is symbolically important in that it signals a shift
from declaratory intent to practical commitment, these initiatives pay
greater attention to ecological targets than to integrating social and eco-
nomic pillars into a sustainable development paradigm. Yet, their findings
also point to the connection between the use of traditional economic instru-
ments and the promotion of new processes of governance, and even to the
extent that economic instruments can be central to catalysing local authori-
ties’ engagement in public–private partnerships and in networks that
include civil society stakeholder groups. Their chapter highlighted the
significant role of what had hitherto been seen as traditional, economic steer-
 Conclusion 209
ing instruments for the development of new governance practices, including
the enhancement of sub-national capacity in the pursuit of sustainable devel-
opment.
Enhancement of social and institutional capacity to promote sustainable
development at the local level formed the focus of the research by Evans et
al. (Chapter 3). Local governments were identified as the prime ‘movers’ for
local policies towards sustainable development, mobilising local agencies,
resources and civil society stakeholders. Despite the fact that governance
networking is increasingly playing a critical role, Evans et al. reminded us to
continue to take account of the role of traditional governing activity.
National legislation and policy priorities are key drivers for sustainable
development, and although local governments may pursue innovative and
adventurous policies without central government support, policy capacity is
enhanced when this traditional government support is present.
Capacity building, in particular as it relates to institutional capacity, was
also explored by Hanf and Morata (Chapter 4). Their analysis of LA21 in
Catalonia produced findings similarities to those of Evans et al., in that
political leaders and administrative officials in local government were found
to play a crucial role in promoting LA21. Despite, however, the support
given to LA21, the environment continues to remain relatively marginalised
in local development strategies. They confirmed that the majority of LA21
initiatives in Spain address ecological issues, and that the requirement of
environmental policy integration, which lies at the heart of sustainable
development agenda, is at loggerheads with the sectoral organisation of local
administration. They also argued that government remains important, as
governance is unlikely to come about if there is no effective government
commitment to the pursuit of sustainable development.
Kern looked at the impact of LA21 on the pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment, examining policy learning and transfer within the German federal
structure (Chapter 5). The fact that the federal government in Germany has
been a laggard in relation to strategic planning for sustainable development
opened up a window of opportunity for Länder initiatives. All of the Länder
started LA21 initiatives soon after the Rio Summit in 1992, setting new
trends in governing patterns across German Länder. Differences in Länder
commitment to implementing sustainable development can be explained by
their social, economic and cultural capacities, ecological pressures and the
existence of policy entrepreneurs. Policy entrepreneurs also proved to be
important in the cases studied by Evans et al. and in the Catalan experiences
discussed by Hanf and Morata. In addition to this influence, Kern pointed to
the importance of policy transfer agencies at the Länder level and to financial
support in shaping policy outcomes. In addition, she showed that the polit-
ical party in power plays a crucial role in the framing of sustainable develop-
ment and in the advancement of different policy patterns, that is, whether
and to what extent new governance and traditional government patterns are
used or combined.
210 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
The study of waste management in Ireland by Connaughton et al. illus-
trated a policy area representing traditional environmental management
issues that are now struggling to adapt to the broader sustainable develop-
ment agenda (Chapter 6). Policy innovations and rhetoric at central govern-
ment level did not result in the emergence of effective governance capacities
to realise sustainable solutions in waste management. The Irish policy
approach is more aligned to ‘development that has to be sustained’, with a
blurred acceptance of ecological modernisation. They also found a con-
tinuation of government and central public institutions and actors, with
waste management remaining a top-down process driven by the need to
comply with EU legislation. Nevertheless, there was evidence of new pat-
terns of governance emerging in relation to waste management, but confined
to public–private partnerships for the operation of domestic waste collection
services and incineration. These governance processes, however, remain
firmly rooted in longer standing partnership approaches towards the man-
agement of industrial development and growth, and are driven by new
public management principles.
When Hovik examined the emergence of governance networks to
promote rural sustainable development in Norway (Chapter 7), she found
that policy continues to give central place to economic, in particular busi-
ness, interests over sustainable development concerns. Emerging governance
networks were, however, significant in that they have given a voice to local
communities and enhanced their influence over local development. Yet,
central government continues to be a key player, combining, on the one
hand, the use of supportive policy instruments, designed to enhance local
administrative capacity, with, on the other hand, the use of traditional
policy instruments, which enhance the role of the central state. Here again,
evidence is noted of government being combined with new, network gover-
nance in the pursuit of sustainable development.
The final empirical study by Coenen contrasted the strong role of Dutch
central government, in particular in relation to national planning models,
with the weak efforts made at the local level (Chapter 8). Neither local
environmental plans nor Dutch LA21 initiatives have led to integrated, com-
prehensive, local sustainable development strategies. Despite this, however,
national sustainable development planning has stimulated the development
of new governance patterns at the local level and new patterns in the relation-
ship between national and local government. Current national planning has
seen a shift in the style of planning, from an orthodox, top-down approach
towards more joint planning, policy flexibility and policy freedom, with
greater engagement of mixed public and private networks. However, these
changes are not driven by Dutch commitment to the pursuit of sustainable
development, but by efficiency considerations, in particular in relation to
implementation delays caused by weaknesses in traditional participation pro-
cedures. They are also closely linked to the processes of political renewal.
Thus, while the pursuit of sustainable development promotes new pattern of
 Conclusion 211
governance, these changes are best seen as taking place within, and driven by,
more general changes in the institutional context of democracy, including at
the local level. In these more fundamental discussions, sustainable develop-
ment nonetheless remains an important policy frame.
Having provided the reader with a brief summary of the chapter contri-
butions, we now turn to examining how and in what ways these empirical
studies can help us answer the research questions of this book. To what
extent is the implementation of sustainable development policies at the sub-
national level structured by, and in its turn structuring, ‘new’ patterns of
governance? It will be recalled that we organised this book around the use of
two reporting Protocols, a sustainable development and a new governance
protocol. The Protocols proved very useful in streamlining and focusing con-
tributions, helping to frame and organise the analysis of the case material in
each chapter. However, authors had difficulty in exploring each and every
aspect of the Protocols. In some cases, only parts of the Protocols were rele-
vant and in other cases, answering all issues would have deflected from the
core focus of their contribution. In addition, as is so often the case, in the
applications of such heuristic devices overlapping categories are uncovered,
making it difficult to separate findings. Despite these limitations, however,
the use of the Protocols enabled us to solicit emerging patterns of findings
and to group these into main themes. It is to this we now turn.

Part 2: The sustainable development reporting protocol

As mentioned in the Introduction, the Sustainable Development Reporting
Protocol was designed to distinguish government efforts to promote sustain-
able development from a more traditional environmental management or
ecological modernisation approach. We asked contributors to analyse the
pursuit of sustainable development (1) at the declaratory level; (2) in relation
to policy context; and (3) in terms of policy content. Through the lens of
their own case or country studies, contributors were also asked to explore the
links between commitments to the promotion of sustainable development at
the EU and national levels and sub-national engagement with implementa-
tion tasks. However, we realise that several of these topics of analysis overlap
considerably with the research questions posed in the New Governance Pro-
tocol, in particular those pertaining to the process variables, such as multi-
level governance, participatory approaches and the use of ‘new
environmental policy instruments’. Therefore, we leave the bulk of the dis-
cussion on these process variables to section 3, which discusses the findings
stemming from the use of the New Governance Protocol.

1 Sustainable development at the declaratory level

There is no doubt that the commitment to the promotion of sustainable
development is well established at the declaratory level, across all levels of
212 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
government within the EU member states studied in this volume. All con-
tributors referred to this commitment and to the explicit links between
member state and EU engagement, although the impact of such vertical
links varied among the countries studied. Both the development of national
sustainable development strategies and the emergence of LA21 at the local
level were showed to be spurred by global and EU commitments (see in
particular Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8).

2 Sustainable development in policy context

In relation to the policy context, the Protocol asked contributors to examine
how, and in what ways, the policy towards the sector or issue under investi-
gation is embedded in a wider national sustainable development strategy.
We also asked them to examine attempts to promote environmental policy
integration (EPI) in policy design and further, to analyse the connection to
Local Agenda 21. Having set the context, contributors were asked to explain
the processes by which the commitment to sustainable development was
acted out. This involved examining institutional capacity, as well as dis-
cussing recent attempts at capacity enhancement at the sub-national level.
In particular, the emergence of new institutional and network arrangements
for lesson learning and policy transfer were to be investigated.
An analysis of the range of policy instruments at the disposal of the dif-
ferent levels of government, including funding, and whether there is evid-
ence of increased use of new policy instruments, of public/private
partnerships and of participatory approaches to policy-making and imple-
mentation is, as explained above, presented below in section 3.

The role of national sustainable development strategies in stimulating

sub-national engagement
In the countries investigated in this volume, responsibilities for implementing
national sustainable development strategies has been allocated to both regional
and local levels of government and various types of co-ordination mechanisms
have been devised for this purpose. The Dutch appeared to have the most com-
prehensive national approach, since they clearly address joint planning and
transition processes in pursuit of sustainable development, including at the sub-
national level. In the Netherlands, the long tradition of government consulta-
tion with various social groups, combined with strong linkages between central
and local government, provides the institutional framework for the national
strategies to become adopted and used at the local level. We saw, however, that
the commitment to the pursuit of sustainable development often becomes less
influential as a policy driver at sub-national level in countries like Norway,
Spain and Ireland, but that this situation appears even in the Dutch case.
One explanation for this weakness lies in the fact that sustainable devel-
opment strategies enter a crowded policy arena, where a substantial amount
 Conclusion 213
of initiatives already exist, including at the sub-national level. These include
various types of economic development, spatial and social policy frame-
works, action plans and management guidelines. In many cases, national
sustainable development strategies are in conflict with these established
plans and frameworks.
Despite this, however, as Berger and Steurer noted, national strategies
may potentially serve to secure commitment for sustainable development
policy objectives and measures from the sub-national level, while simultan-
eously helping to build or strengthen the capacities of the sub-national level
to undertake such action. National government support can help create
momentum for action at the sub-national level (Lafferty and Eckerberg
1998). LA21 itself visualises the link between capacity building and sustain-
able development through creating the preconditions for implementing sus-
tainable development policy locally. These preconditions include political
leadership, resources and authority within local government and the pres-
ence of engaged social partners (ibid.). Many of the chapters pointed to the
importance of LA21 in helping the local level meet these requirements.
However, the absence of national strategies need not necessarily block sub-
national engagement. The case of Catalonia in Spain provided an example
where, despite the lack of central government commitment, LA21 remains
strong, largely as a result of support from regional government. Similarly, in
the German case, the weak commitment at the Federal level in Germany
cleared the field for Länder level engagement, although certain conditions
had to be met for this to prove successful. The presence of policy entre-
preneurs, capacity to engage in lesson learning and policy transfer, and of
funding, were pivotal factors. In those countries with weak sub-national
governments, however, national support is required for the local level to
become stronger (see for example, Chapters 3 and 4).

Promoting environmental policy integration

The search for better policy co-ordination in pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment has led to intensive discussions in the literature on the need to develop
provisions and measures for integrating environmental considerations into
sectoral policies. As discussed in the Introduction, both horizontal and verti-
cal policy integration are necessary prerequisites for the promotion of sus-
tainable development, but EPI could also be viewed as a learning process,
where both international and national drivers for change are relevant
(Nilsson and Eckerberg 2007).
The importance of EPI is stressed in each contribution. Kern found that
policy integration played a central role in the creation of sustainable devel-
opment plans and strategies within Germany and is increasingly important
at the Länder level. The horizontal dimension is most obvious in the devel-
opment of climate action plans and strategies because they affect several
policy arenas, such as energy, transport and agriculture. However, as Berger
214 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
and Steurer found, while efforts at achieving horizontal policy integration
are relatively advanced, vertical integration is often either weak or non-
existent. This indicated that sustainable development activities are not
systematically synchronised with the targets and activities of higher political
authorities. Similarly, the evidence presented by Baker and Eckerberg sug-
gested that EPI is more likely to materialise at the local level of government
than at the central level, where central government funding mechanisms can
promote the integration of environmental, economic and social values
particularly at the project level.
Evans et al. also found evidence of mainstreaming of sustainable develop-
ment principles in several of their local case studies across Europe. This
included the establishment of a ‘horizontal’ organisational structure aimed
at encouraging cross-departmental working; the adoption of sustainable
development principles for internal practices, such as eco-procurement,
‘green’ budgeting or purchasing; and training programmes for both officers
and politicians. Similarly, the implementation of LA21 and the elaboration
of local Strategic Plans in Catalonia, Spain contributed positively to the
development of more extensive patterns of inter-sectoral collaboration and
that such integration increased over time (Chapter 4).
However, not all cases show such strong commitment to EPI. In Ireland,
for example, although some progress has been made in embedding sustain-
able development objectives within public policy, cross-sectoral integration
remains weak (Chapter 6). The Structural Funds provide another example
where it is hard to find a commitment to EPI, despite recent changes to
Funds regulations in support of sustainable development (Chapter 1). Struc-
tural Funds, it will be remembered, also play a strong role in economic
development in Ireland.
Evidence of environmental policy integration has been found in the
research presented here, but only to a limited extent. It is hampered by
several obstacles, including lack of political commitment and of capacity to
act at the sub-national level of government. The factors that inhibit EPI
thus correspond with the institutional and normative prerequisites for
effective governance in pursuit of sustainable development.

3 Sustainable development in policy content

Contributors were also asked to investigate how sustainable development
was understood in policy practice. We were particularly interested in explor-
ing the connections between a social inclusion policy agenda, including in
relation to the enhancement of social capital, and the pursuit of sustainable
development. This investigation entailed evaluating whether policy was pri-
marily aimed at ecological modernisation, or whether a wider sustainable
development agenda, encompassing production and consumption patterns
and levels, as well as equity issues, existed. Furthermore, contributors were
asked to explore whether a long-term policy perspective was taken into
 Conclusion 215
account in policy design and delivery and whether policy developed from, or
linked to, LA21.

The role of LA21

According to Agenda 21, local government is ‘the level of governance closest
to the people’ and it is therefore best placed to pursue the sustainability goal
of ‘thinking globally, acting locally’ (Agenda 21, para 28, Koch and Grubb
1993). The research presented by Evans et al. substantiates this position.
Local governments in Europe have been remarkably proactive in their
pursuit of sustainable development, in many cases, in the face of national
government apathy or even opposition. Similarly, Kern found German
Länder to be the vanguard of sustainable development initiatives. Baker and
Eckerberg also showed, in the Danish and Swedish case studies, that the
success of central government funding programmes in pursuit of sustainable
development was related to how closely they were linked to LA21 processes
at the local level.
However, Hanf and Morata appear less optimistic about the capacity of
LA21 to help local pursuit of sustainable development. Even though most
Spanish local authorities claim formal commitment to LA21, the majority
have neither set explicit targets nor allocated specific funding to this end. In
addition, LA21 aims more at traditional environmental management than a
broad-based sustainable development agenda. They also found a tendency
among the municipalities to use ‘soft’ types of policy instruments, in
particular education and information, rather than economic instruments, to
promote the implementation of the LA21. This questions the sincerity of
the municipalities’ commitment, since real change is unlikely to happen
unless facilitated by economic incentives. Similar findings were also pre-
sented for the Dutch case by Coenen.

Having a long-term vision

Only a few of the contributors investigated this aspect of sustainable devel-
opment policy. Evans et al. research showed that, while there is recognition
that a long-term approach is required, policy-making tends still to be linked
to the political cycle. Methodologically, a long-term commitment is prob-
ably one of the most difficult issues to examine since it requires longitudinal
studies with strong analytical devices in order to distinguish patterns of
‘real’ change from that of a rhetorical nature.

The three pillars of sustainable development

Connaughton et al. drew upon theoretical models to discuss how sustainable
development is understood in the Irish case. Using the models of Baker and
of O’Riordan, they argued that Ireland’s efforts correspond to a ‘weak’ model
216 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
of sustainable development. While acceptance of the principle of sustainable
development can be found at the declaratory level, the Irish case typifies
efforts to promote ecological modernisation rather than promoting a
significant shift in economic models and policy focus. Moreover, the Irish
public has been slow to respond to the ideals of sustainable development,
and within the context of the country’s late economic development, environ-
mental considerations have often been subordinate to agricultural and, more
recently, industrial interests.
Baker and Eckerberg also revealed that the leader environmental states of
Denmark, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands were primarily concerned
with reaching environmental, or ecological, targets rather than the social
and economic pillars of sustainable development. Within that, ecological
modernisation predominates the agenda, particularly in Sweden and
Germany and, until recently, also in the Netherlands. Berger and Steurer
confirmed that national sustainable development strategies tend to be
prominently environmental strategies and that they have, as yet, failed to
focus on quality of life and the need to develop economic models that
operate within environmental limits.
Nevertheless, recent efforts in the Netherlands, including the Dutch
GIDO initiative discussed by Baker and Eckerberg, and the current
National Environmental Plan, as discussed by Coenen, are helpings to bring
all three pillars of sustainable development more to the fore. These initi-
atives are also facilitating the development of participatory processes. The
UK also proved an exception, where the heightened awareness of the social
pillar of sustainable development gave clear focus on social inclusion and on
the local level as a site for promoting sustainable development. However,
this awareness was not matched by strong engagement with participatory
practices of governance for sustainable development (Chapter 2). In contrast,
within Norwegian rural development policy, sustainable development is
understood as local economic development that creates jobs and other
income opportunities for local people within the limits of biodiversity and
other ecological values of the area. While the main objective of local actors is
to promote business development in order to secure jobs and attract inward
settlement, most of these actors accept that commercial activities must be
subordinated to nature conservation. The dominant perception is that social,
economic and environment interests are interdependent not conflicting aims
of policy (Chapter 7). Here we see one of the key tenets of sustainable devel-
opment come to the fore, namely that economic, ecological and social goals
are compatible, mutually reinforcing aims of public policy.
Despite these positive efforts, overall the pattern of findings indicate that
countries understand sustainable development to be primarily an environ-
mental policy issue and that they promote ecological modernisation in place
of sustainable development.
 Conclusion 217
Part 3: The ‘new governance’ reporting protocol
In the Introduction, a distinction was made between ‘old’ and ‘new’ gover-
nance, with the primary aim of the book being to explore the new gover-
nance approach. The book took as its starting point the argument that new
governance can be distinguished from old governance in that the latter
places emphasis on multi-level engagement in policy-making, via a complex
web of public/private networks and makes use of a range of policy instru-
ments. Using this conceptual tool, the book set out to explore whether and
to what extent new governance is used at the sub-national, regional and
local levels to promote sustainable development in western European states.
At the most abstract, we were keen to see whether this has resulted in a
change in the long-standing balance between the state, economic actors and
civil society (Stoker 1998: 21) in the pursuit of sustainable development.
However, in using new governance, we were keenly aware that the
concept, and its associated term of ‘multi-level governance’, both are under-
theorised and can lead to conclusions from empirical research that are exces-
sively general. The term, while useful for synthesising general trends in
government practices, does not encourage rigorous hypothesis-building and
detailed analysis. To help to overcome these problems, the characteristics of
new governance were incorporated into a New Governance Reporting Proto-
col, and contributors were asked to use this as a guide in their empirical
investigations.
Several characteristics of new governance were listed in the Protocol.
First, ‘multi-level governance’ was seen as characterised by a stronger collab-
oration between the different levels of government (European, national,
regional and local) in policy-making. New governance process, in so far as
they also involve ‘network governance’, was characterised as including the
use of extended forms of participation. This promotes a policy-making style
that gives more opportunities for the involvement of different kinds of non-
state actors, such as companies or non-governmental organisation, as well as
the engagement of civil society. Finally, new governance processes were
taken to included the use of ‘softer’ policy instruments, associated in
particular with ‘new environmental policy instruments’ (NEPIs), such as the
use of market incentives (for example, eco-taxes and environmental agree-
ments) and the provision of information about effects of certain choices (for
example, eco-labelling).

Multi-level governance
The concept of multi-level governance has facilitated our exploration of gov-
ernance for sustainable development at sub-national level within member
states while taking account of the influence of governance processes at the
EU level. While aware that international integration, including in relation
to GATT and UNCED, adds to this complexity, we deliberately chose to
218 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
exclude this level of governance in the present volume as it has been well
explored by Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000).

The EU level
Berger and Steurer found that EU Structural Funds have helped to increase
capacities at the regional level, especially in establishing institutional know-
how and in implementing projects in the regions. This conforms to the more
general role that the EU has played in supporting the development of regional
governance (Keating and Loughlin 1997). However, research also revealed that
the integration process can have a negative impact on the sub-national level.
Kern pointed to the fact that Länder competences have been restricted rather
than extended in the process of European integration, as this process has tended
to strengthen the hand of Federal government. Connaughton et al. also confirm
that compliance with EU environmental regulation not only ensures that
central government continues to play a strong role, but that the need for regu-
latory compliance can distort new governance arrangements at the sub-national
level. In addition, even if Structural Funds now include a commitment to sus-
tainable development, the majority of the programmes and projects funded are
still concerned with economic development and social cohesion.
Despite these tendencies, the Structural Fund nevertheless play an
important role in multi-level governance processes in that they trigger the
establishment of inter-regional and cross-border regional collaborations.
While Berger and Steurer did not see a direct link between this and the
strengthening of sub-national engagement with sustainable development,
Evans et al. did see that multi-level networking in the context of Europeani-
sation played a role in supporting innovative approaches to sustainable
development. Towns and cities that are consistently high in achievement in
pursuit of sustainable development are those that have worked in European
networks. Networks such as these can become conduits for the transfer of
best practice at the horizontal level, revealing the important role that Euro-
pean networks play in policy transfer.
Although Norway is not a member of the EU, Hovik also found that
through European networks, the Norwegians share experiences and know-
ledge with other European communities facing similar challenges. Kern dis-
cussed similar patterns of policy transfer, in particular as they relate to
inter-organisational policy learning. This discussion pointed to the need to
take account of new moves towards governing through policy transfer and
benchmarking, particularly at the sub-national levels, as an integral part of
the governance process. Hanf and Morata also saw policy transfer as an
essential tool of new governance. The role of policy learning and transfer
needs to be given more attention in the literature on new governance prac-
tices, especially given the increased reliance of the EU on the so-called ‘open
method of communication’, which promotes horizontal policy transfer and
learning as integration tools (cf. Nilsson and Eckerberg 2007).
 Conclusion 219
However, within such process of policy transfer there can be a tension
between, on the one hand, exploiting past learning to standardise around
best practice and, on the other, maintaining adaptability and avoiding ‘lock
in’ to outmoded routines. This problem was seen with the use of Award
Partners in the UK, where public/private partnerships were in widespread
use, particularly for the distribution of funding. However, the desire to
build upon past success and established forms of best practices was shown to
work against the adoption of innovate approaches and new initiatives, as dis-
cussed by Baker and Eckerberg.

Institutional capacity at sub-national level

There is increased emphasis in national sustainable development strategies
on the inclusion of the sub-national, regional and local levels of government,
described as ‘vertical policy integration’ in the promotion of sustainable
development. Even in the Irish case, long recognised as one of the most cen-
tralised states in the EU, there is growing emphasis on the role of regional
authorities in promoting partnership and in identifying sustainable develop-
ment priorities for their regions, as discussed by Connaughton et al.
Nevertheless, as Berger and Steurer argued, the engagement of the sub-
national level should not be taken for granted, in that stimulating such
engagement presents several challenges. Central government, for example,
faces the difficult task of securing commitment from, and enhancing the
competence of, the sub-national levels, especially in relation to policy
objectives and measures, without which national sustainable development
trajectories could be blocked. Baker and Eckerberg pointed to a further role
over and above building capacity in local authorities and their partners to
implement nationally defined sustainable development strategies. Central
government funding schemes also aim to empower the local level to act as
an independent actor in promoting locally relevant strategies.
Several of the chapters in the book emphasised the issue of capacity
enhancement. Capacity building instruments are widely used instruments of
public policy and play a role in the enhancement of governance processes
(Painter and Pierre 2005). They usually involve national or state govern-
ment efforts to strengthen the capacity of state or local officials to manage
programmes on their own. They can include provision of technical assistance
through giving grants for skills training. Their advantage is that they help
ensure that those given discretion over specific tasks have the appropriate
skills and ability to carry these tasks through. They also increase account-
ability by developing the management skills that facilitate compliance with
national government grant requirements (Radin 2003: 608).
In the research by Evans et al., institutional capacity was found to be
important because the process of mainstreaming a sustainable development
ethos within institutional cultures is quite slow, typically extending far
beyond a normal electoral term of office. Hanf and Morata also paid
220 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
particular attention to the role of institutions and found evidence of ‘path
dependency’ in that sustainable development became interpreted through
existing structures, procedures, and patterns of interactions. The need to be
aware of the institutional framework in which policies are prepared,
developed and implemented was also pointed out by Baker and Eckerberg,
particularly in relation to the steering role of the central state in the Swedish
study.
We are particularly pleased that these chapters were able to explore the
role of political institutions in new governance processes, particularly as
Rhodes’ understanding of governance has been criticised for ignoring this
aspect (Pierre and Peters 2000). Collectively, these chapters point to the
need to combine discussion of governance processes with acknowledgement
of the centrality of formal institutional structures and processes in framing
the pursuit of sustainable development. As Smith has argued, institutions
structure political situations and also shape political outcomes, as they influ-
ence not just actors’ strategies but their goals and they mediate their rela-
tions of co-operation and conflict (Smith 2003). In other words, political
institutions matter to the governance of sustainable development. Here the
role of government in shaping governance processes is reaffirmed.
This argument has a direct bearing on current disagreements on the role
of the nation state in the context of multi-level governance. On the one
hand, Hooghe and Marks argue that ‘formal authority has been dispersed
from central states both up to the supranational institutions and down to the
sub-national governments’ (2001: 1). On the other hand, there is the argu-
ment, represented by Pierre and Peters (2000), that the nation state still
retains important resources for guiding policy structures and processes. Our
findings support the argument of Pierre and Peters that the ‘steering capa-
city’ of the nation state remains critical in order to establish a co-ordinated
form of policy-making in the promotion of sustainable development. Central
government still plays a key role through its formal exercise of power, the
establishment of framework legislation, through sustainable development
strategy formulation and funding mechanisms, and through its catalysing
role in spurring the sub-national level to engage in the implementation of
appropriate policies.
There are also issues of a more structural or constitutional nature that
have to be taken into account when discussing the role of the sub-national
level in the pursuit of sustainable development. The German case provides
the most obvious example of the need to look at different constitutional dis-
tributions of power and authority. Evans et al. also reiterated that strong
governance processes for, and achievements in relation to, sustainable devel-
opment, are chiefly found among local governments that have a high level of
fiscal, legal and political autonomy, Connaughton et al. provided another
way of getting to the same point, the Irish case being illustrative of a highly
centralised administrative system that continues to obstruct action at the
sub-national level. Similar findings were reflected by Baker and Eckerberg,
 Conclusion 221
who pointed out that the extent and nature of the external resources avail-
able to local government through central government funding regimes, and
the constraints these place upon local governance, must not be ignored in
discussion on new governance processes. The contribution of Hovik also
brings our attention to the issues of power relations. Her exploration of the
compromises that are required by the different interests involved in network
governance pointed to the play of power and politics as governance processes
are acted out.
Hence, our research supports the argument that local level engagement
remains structured by the degree of autonomy granted by the national level
to local governments and/or to the regional/provincial level (Lafferty and
Eckerberg 1998). This draws our attention to the distinction between
multi-level governance, which refers to steering and public management,
and multi-level politics, that is, to the distribution of power across the dif-
ferent levels of government (Smith 2003). The multi-level policy-making
process in the EU is not just a process that involves policy networks, but
also negotiations in and between these all levels. In other words, the study of
policy-making for sustainable development is not only a study of regional or
local government and of combining this with a study of regional or local
governance for sustainable development. Rather, it is the study of how these
processes are shaped by the power relations between actors of public, private
and associative status across all levels of member state governments (Smith
2003: 620) and upwards to the EU level.

Network governance
The governance perspective forces us to take account of the role and import-
ance of policy networks, as discussed in the Introduction. New governance
processes place emphasis on bargaining, compromise and networking in
policy-making, facilitated by the development of inter-organisational net-
works that include both governmental and non-governmental actors.
Rhodes’ understanding of new governance in particular emphasises the role
of network governance (Rhodes 2000; 1997).
All of the chapters found some evidence of enhanced co-operation
between the private and public sectors in support of sustainable develop-
ment. This co-operation can extend from the engagement of interest groups
in policy formulation to the construction of public/private partnerships for
programme delivery. Governance networks were particularly important in
Hovik’s exploration (Chapter 7). Such networks provide new opportunities
for local politicians and private stakeholders to influence policy, representing
new efforts to take shared responsibility for sustainable development in rural
Norway. However, she drew our attention to the fact that governance will
always be conducted under ‘the shadow of hierarchy’ (Scharpf 1997). This
undermines Rhodes’ claim that we are witnessing the emergence of gover-
nance without government (Rhodes 1996). In addition, Hovik pointed out
222 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
that the presence of networks does not in itself indicate the development of
new governance patterns. The composition of the network, its role and the
influence of government actors as partners are all important is ascertaining
whether the use of networks indicate a development towards new gover-
nance. In many instances the activity of networks are subject to hierarchical
steering by government, and government actors make use of their privileged
position to promote their own interests within these networks.
This is in line with Stokers caution that we need to take account of the
constraints, whether direct or indirect, that governments can impose on the
role of networks and their activities (Stoker 2000). Baker and Eckerberg’s
research also supported these arguments, pointing out that capacity
enhancement measures by central governance, particularly those that involve
the provision of grants and subsidies, may strengthen the hand of central
government in steering the engagement of networks in governance
processes. Similarly, the Irish study indicated that hierarchical steering from
central government remains an integral feature of policy processes that make
use of such networks. Evans et al. also voiced concern that an exclusive focus
on ‘new governance’, understood as policy networks, holds the danger of
underplaying the essential roles that local governments play in innovating,
supporting and nurturing sustainable development processes.
The case of waste management in Ireland illustrated the difficulties of
relating these new methods and practices of participatory governance to the
existing structures and processes of government. In the Irish case, the
growing dependence on the private sector and proliferation of private sector
companies may reduce the control that local authorities exercise over waste
management. It may thus undermine their role in the promotion of sustain-
able development. Tensions also exist between partnership arrangements
and traditional practices of representative democracy. This is in line with
Rydin’s (2006) concern that such networks require continuous reinforce-
ment and transparency to overcome problems of fragmentation, integration
and democracy (Rydin 2006: 213–215). Evans et al. pointed out that new
governance arrangements can create ambiguity and uncertainty in the eyes
of both policy-makers and the public about who is responsible and account-
able for policy. Given that accountability and legitimacy are key tenets of
democratic governance, maintaining a strong steering role for the state, at
both the central and the local levels, becomes all the more important.
The Irish case also directed attention to the need to explore the under-
lying rationale for partnership arrangements between the public and private
sectors. In practice, these arrangements often involve privatisation and
contracting-out, actions which are driven by new public management prin-
ciples and not necessarily by the pursuit of sustainable development. Indeed,
Baker and Eckerberg highlighted the importance of the neo-liberal belief in
the power of the market in driving new partnership arrangements, particu-
larly in the UK. Moreover, Coenen stressed that many new governance prac-
tices are driven by concerns about public distrust in government and aim at
 Conclusion 223
enhancing the legitimacy of policy-making processes while simultaneously
improving their efficiency. Again, this shows that evidence of experimenta-
tion with new modes of governance is not necessarily stimulated by the
principles of sustainable development alone. Rather, it highlights the dif-
ference between countries that give priority to the market as a mode of gov-
ernance, and those that give a more significant role to the state or to
networks (Gamble 2000: 121). The UK has a strong attachment to liberal
economic models. This is often contrasted with Germany, Sweden and the
Netherlands, where there is greater readiness to promote long-term eco-
nomic development, whether through formal planning, corporatist arrange-
ment or information networks, to promote consensus on national goals and
to steer the economy by long-term subsidies and support (Gamble 2000:
121). Here there is also a greater willingness to invest in new capacity,
including in relation to new technology and to human capital, as evident
both by Baker and Eckerberg, Evans et al. and Coenen in their respective
studies.
In short, these research findings suggest that while we may find new
modes of participatory governance, their presence does not necessarily imply
a causal connection with the commitment to promote sustainable develop-
ment. The discourse of sustainable development has helped to open up a
new political space within many European local governments, legitimised
through the vocabulary contained in Agenda 21. But, this new way of
working is not necessarily stimulated by, nor is it confined to, the sphere of
sustainable development policy-making.

Civil society participation

A key characteristic of new governance is that it affords increased opportun-
ities for citizens, or the public, to have a more direct input in the making of
public policy. This participation aims at reducing the distance, both phys-
ical and intellectual, between the bureaucracy and civil society. This is seen
as evidence of a strong felt need to strengthen the legitimacy of public sector
institutions (Peters and Pierre 2003: 3). Current Dutch policy of political
renewal, as discussed by Coenen, provides an excellent example of this trend.
Kern paid particular attention to the connection between the promotion
of sustainable development and participation. In some German Länder
extensive consultation processes were started which aimed at the develop-
ment of a sustainable development strategy for the Land (Landes-Agenda
21). In these practices, evidence of governing through participation and
representation as well as governing through partnerships and voluntary
agreements were found.
In their discussions on participation, several of the chapters in this book
addressed not just the more traditional focus on local government capacity
enhancement but also capacity building within civil society. As a shift in
the relationship between state and civil society, new governance is also about
224 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
‘active’ citizenship. It is therefore linked to issues of social capital, under-
stood as the social underpinning necessary to achieve effective economic and
political performance (Putnam 1993; 2001). Evans et al. in particular drew
upon the work of Putnam to consider the interplay between social and insti-
tutional capital and to discuss the complex ways in which sectors of civil
society build and maintain capacity (economic, social and mutual support)
for action. They were also concerned to address the role played by govern-
ment institutions in the creation and function of social capital. However,
Evans et al. revealed that, in the majority of cases, the capacities of civil
society to successfully participate in local policy-making processes for sus-
tainable development were limited, both in terms of the capacities of organi-
sations and in terms of the options available to them for co-operative
policy-making. Baker and Eckerberg found a similar limited participation of
civil society in the majority of their studies, however, with the two smallest
Dutch and Danish initiatives providing interesting exemptions.
The findings of Evans et al. suggested that, effective, or what they refer to
as ‘dynamic’, governing for sustainable development is most likely to occur
when governments work closely with civil society agents in a process of gov-
ernance.
This reinforced the idea of ‘bracing’ social capital (Rydin and Holman
2004), where a strong relationship is formed between a limited group of
actors with an interest in local sustainable development issues. Similarly, in
their study of the UK lottery funds, Baker and Eckerberg revealed that local
authorities tend to be over reliant upon a limited number of groups to
participate in funding schemes, although the extent to which these formed
an example of ‘bracing’ social capital that is orientated towards the pursuit
of sustainable development remained open to question.
Despite the key role of civil society, Connaughton et al. revealed that it is
not easy to establish new relationships between community and the state. In
Ireland, NGOs tend to remain outsiders, especially those operating at the
local level. Organisations that present radical views, for example, proposing
‘zero waste’ strategies, remain on the fringes, with fewer opportunities to
influence the agenda or policy outcomes. The Norwegian case also exposed
similar problems. Here participation practices, particularly the inclusion of
private sector actors, tended to be driven by emphasis on problem-solving
capacity rather than on principles of stakeholder participation. Additionally,
local councils tend to put the interests of their local constituency above the
will to deliberate and negotiate agreements with external actors in a
network. Hovik also noted that strong links to representative democracy at
local and regional levels seems to be the preferred alternative to extensive
participation.
These findings again point to the difficulties of combining the logic of
representative democratic government and the logic of network governance.
As noted by Connaughton et al., while new modes of governance are starting
to co-exist with traditional practices, they remain difficult to combine. Yet,
 Conclusion 225
as Evans et al. pointed out, there is ample evidence to suggest that those
cases of local governments where there are high levels of achievement are
also those that have high social capacity and where a strong relationship
between local government and civil society organisations exists.

New policy instruments

There was evidence of the use of new policy instruments for the promotion
of sustainable development in all of the studied cases (Chapters 1–8). As
pointed out by Evans et al., increased use of new environmental policy
instruments form part of a broader context of promotion and integration of
sustainable development principles within local authorities. However, their
use predates the commitment to sustainable development, stemming more
from concerns about the deficiencies of the traditional ‘command and
control’, regulatory approaches (see, in particular, Chapters 5 and 8). Kern
also pointed to the influence of the changing concepts on global governance,
which focuses on various forms of governance beyond the traditional forms
of inter-governmental co-operation, such as global policy networks or
private–public partnerships.
Baker and Eckerberg found that it is difficult to maintain a sharp distinc-
tion between new and old policy tools in that so-called ‘old’ tools may be
used to promote ‘new’ governance approaches. Despite this, however, they
were aware that the way in which some tools are used can present difficulties
for new governance processes. The use of competitive procedures for the allo-
cation of funds can be disruptive to new governance processes. They can lead
to short-term, self-interested behaviour among partnerships, which can in
turn, threaten to destroy the basis of future partnerships (Stoker 2000: 101).
Competitive processes can also have a disabling impact on losers, as they
may find it difficult to regain a sense of commitment (Stoker 2000: 102).
This was confirmed in the research by Baker and Eckerberg, who also noted
that funding allocation tends to favour quantifiable measures over more
vague qualitative measures built into the purpose of partnership.
Research further revealed that the use of new instruments can have unin-
tended consequences. In the Irish case, the use of public/private partnerships
for the management of waste has diminished the control of Local Authorities
over the strategic management of waste. In addition, privatisation, which
often brings increased charges, can lead to an increase in illegal dumping,
while commercialisation turns waste into a profitable commodity, a process
that does little to encourage waste reduction. The use of new environmental
policy instruments may not, in fact, always be good for the promotion of
sustainable development, as the case of developing public/private waste part-
nerships in Ireland shows.
226 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Concluding comments
The new governance approach has been particularly useful in the research
undertaken for this book. It has ensured that our focus is not solely on insti-
tutional actors but rather on the complex relationships, networks and
processes by which sustainable development policy is framed and imple-
mented. This challenges conventional assumptions that focus on govern-
ment as if it were a ‘stand alone’ institution divorced from wider societal
forces (Stoker 1998: 19). The value of the new governance perspective is that
it provides a framework for understanding changing processes of governing.
The adoption of new governance practices may be particularly useful in
helping to facilitate the implementation of a normative political programme
such as that embedded in the pursuit of sustainable development.
Our research also pointed to the limitations of having new governance as
an overarching frame. That is, that we have to understand new governance
processes in a wider political context. Here we need to acknowledge that dif-
ferent institutions, policies and capacities, that is, the traditional governing
arrangements embedded in different national systems, also structure the
pursuit of sustainable development. In these arrangements, government
engages in a process of steering and governing of societal change: in other
words, governments govern. Despite the fact that ‘new’ governance may play
a critical role, the chapters continually reminded us of the need to take
account of the role of traditional governing activity in the promotion of sus-
tainable development. National legislation and policy priorities are key
drivers for sustainable development, as are central government steering
mechanisms and instruments.
The findings of the book confirm the argument that, rather than a shrink-
ing role of government, we are witnessing a shifting role as private and third
sector engagement and interactions in policy-making increases (Kooiman
2000: 139; 1993). As such, new governance is best seen as involving
processes that include actors and institutions that are drawn from both
within government but also beyond government. Problems remain, however,
in combining these in the context of traditional democratic practices in
member states. While this policy style makes room for combining respons-
ibility at the local level with local capacity enhancement and the develop-
ment of horizontal learning networks, there are dangers with these processes.
They can mask responsibility, making it difficult for citizens to understand
and influence the actions of their governments and may lack democratic
legitimacy.
We also found no causal connection between the pursuit of sustainable
development and the emergence of new governance practices. There is evid-
ence of new governance practices, but they may not necessarily be connected
with the commitment to promote sustainable development. There are signs,
however, of increased involvement of local government. This was already
facilitated by Agenda 21. However, the engagement of civil society remains
 Conclusion 227
limited and participation by groups that propose a radical agenda of sustain-
able development are restricted.
In conclusion, we argue that the research presented in this book clearly
demonstrates that both governance and government remain intertwined but
distinct elements of the process of governing. The two elements together can
create a process which can promote and sustain real progress. The combina-
tion requires the active engagement of local civil society combined with
commitment, leadership and steering by local and national governments and
international authorities. This can, in turn, generate the local resources,
support and energy needed to deliver outcomes. More generally, we see no
reason to argue that the role of such authorities should, or indeed needs to,
decline. Major roles for the state remain and continue to be evident, includ-
ing the need to promote political objectives and pursue the collective inter-
est (Pierre 2000: 4). One of the main roles of the state is to intervene in the
face of market failure. The failure of the market to protect the global
environmental commons still remains a solid ground for government inter-
vention. Market failure is particularly evident as society pursues the promo-
tion of sustainable futures, because markets work on short-term horizons,
deal with profits and promote individual advancement. The pursuit of sus-
tainable development requires transition to a society whose policy process
guards the future, promotes equity and pursues the common good. In the
face of such transformative tasks, new governance practices have an increas-
ingly important role to play, but they must remain only one element of the
process of governing in pursuit of sustainable development.

References
Gamble, A. (2000), ‘Economic Governance’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–139.
Hooghe, E. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance, New York: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Keating, M. and Loughlin, J. (eds) (1997) The Political Economy of Regionalism,
London: Frank Cass.
Koch, M. and Grubb, M. (1993) ‘Agenda 21’, in M. Grubb, M. Koch, A. Munson,
F. Sullivan and K. Thomson, The Earth Summit Agreements: A Guide and Assessment,
London: Earthscan, 97–157.
Kooiman, J. (1993) (ed.) Modern Governance: Government–Society Interaction, London:
Sage.
Kooiman, J. (2000) ‘Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of
Social–Political Interaction’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 138–166.
Lafferty, W. M. and Eckerberg, K. (eds) (1998) From the Earth Summit to Local
Agenda 21: Working Towards Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.
Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J. (eds) (2000) Implementing Sustainable Develop-
ment: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies, Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
228 S. Baker and K. Eckerberg
Nilsson, M. and Eckerberg, K. (eds) (2007) Environmental Policy Integration in Prac-
tice: Shaping Institutions for Learning, London: Earthscan.
Painter, M. and Pierre, J. (2005) ‘Unpacking Policy Capacity: Issues and Themes’,
in M. Painter and J. Pierre (eds), Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends
and Comparative Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, J. (2003) ‘Introduction: The Role of Public Administra-
tion in Governing’, in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public
Administration, London: Sage, 1–10.
Pierre, J. (2000) Introduction: Understanding Governance’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debat-
ing Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–12.
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. Guy (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, London:
Macmillan.
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Putman, R. (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Radin, B. A. (2003) ‘The Instruments of Intergovernmental Management’, in B.
Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage,
607–618.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996) ‘The New Governance: Governing without Government’,
Political Studies, Vol. 44: 652–667.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000) ‘Governance and Public Administration’, in J. Pierre (ed.),
Debating Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 54–90.
Rydin, Y. (2006) ‘Conclusion’, in Y. Rydin and E. Falleth (eds), Networks and Insti-
tutions in Natural Resource Management, Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar,
201–216.
Rydin, Y. and Holman, N. (2004) ‘Re-evaluating the Contribution to Social Capital
in Achieving Sustainable Development’, Local Environment, Vol. 9, No. 2:
117–133.
Scharpf, F. (1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centered Institutionalism in Policy
Research, Oxford: West View Point.
Smith, A. (2003) ‘Multi-Level Governance: What it Is and How it Can Be Studied’,
in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public Administration, London:
Sage, 619–628.
Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Governance as Theory: Five Propositions’, International Social
Science Journal, 155: 17–28.
Stoker, G. (2000) ‘Urban Political Science and the Challenge of Urban Governance’,
in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–109.
Index

Tables are indicated by italic type, figures by bold.

administrative capacity 17; see also Christie, I. 75
capacity building; institutions, policy citizens, participation of 12–13,
capacity of 223–43; in civil society 223–4;
Agenda 21 1–2; capacity building 8; limited in UK 64–5; LIP in Sweden
participation of stakeholders and 55; see also participation
citizens 12; see also Local Agenda 21 climate protection, Germany 129, 131
agriculture: Norway 170–1 Coenen, F. 216
Austria: coordination mechanisms in Connaughton, B. 215–16, 218, 224
NSDSs 37; multi-level governance coordination mechanisms between
42–3; policy priorities in NSDS 36; national and regional level 37–8
policy tools for and the NSDS 38;
regional competencies 33; regional decentralisation of nature conservation
sustainable development strategies in Norway 171–2
39–40; role of regions in the NSDS Den Grønne Jobpulje (The Green Job
35, 36; Structural Funds 42 Pool) 58–60, 66–7
autonomy of local governments 91–2 Denmark: Den Grønne Jobpulje (The
Green Job Pool) 58–60, 66–7;
Baker, S. 149, 214, 215, 216, 222 funding by central government
Bavaria 135–6 58–60; Local Agenda 21 58–9
benchmarking in Germany 127–8 Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)
Berger, G. 32, 213–14, 216, 218 60–2, 67
Bijdragenbesluit Uitvoering Gemeentelijk development strategies/plans 7–8, 34–5;
Milieubeleid (BUGM) 56–8, 65 Ireland 40, 147–8, 150; Länder in
Börzel, T.A. 32 Germany 128–9; local 107–8;
Brundtland Report 1, 7, 8 regional 39–41; Spain 106–8; see also
Bund-Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Nachhaltige national sustainable development
Entwicklung (BLAG NE) 124 strategies (NSDSs)
devolution of environmental
capacity, institutional see institutional responsibilities 10
capacity DISCUS project 3; categories of
capacity building 8, 17–18, 33–4; governance 79–80, 90–1, 91; data
DISCUS project 79–80, 80; see also collection and analysis 81–2;
administrative capacity; institutions, institutional capacity 83–8;
policy capacity of methodology and research framework
Catalonia 109 77–80, 79, 80; policy capacity 82,
central–local relations in the 82–3; social capital 88–9; see also local
Netherlands 191–2, 204 governance
230 Index
Dutch polder model 199–200 benchmarking 127–8; Bund-Länder
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Nachhaltige
Eckerberg, K. 214, 215, 216, 222 Entwicklung (BLAG NE) 124; climate
ecological modernisation 5–7; protection in 129, 131; Deutsche
decoupling 6; social change and Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) 60–2,
ecological modernisation 7 67; funding by central government
economic growth and environmental 60–1; Länder and the federal
protection 6–7; integration in Spain government 123–5; Local Agenda 21
111–12, 112, 114 132–3; new forms of governance
economic instruments: and multi-level 125–8; North Rhine-Westphalia
governance 66–7; rewarding/punitive 136–8; policy diffusion 133–5; policy
51–2; in Spain 106; use of in integration 126; policy transfer
promoting sustainable development 127–8; public–private partnerships
69–70; see also funding by central 127; strategic development plans in
government the Länder 128–9; sustainable
employment, green 58–60 development in the Länder 130;
environmental policy 7–13 Thuringia 138;
environmental policy integration (EPI) Umweltministerkonferenz (UMK)
8–10, 31–2, 213–14; see also (Conference of Environmental
horizontal EPI; policy integration; Ministers) 124; voluntary agreements
vertical EPI 127, 131–2
environmental protection and economic governance, new: categories of in
growth 6–7 DISCUS project 79–80, 90–1, 91;
European Union (EU): national characteristics of 30; concept and
sustainable development strategies emergence of 14–15; cooperation
(NSDSs) 34–5; and promoting with private sector 18–19;
sustainable development 3, 218–19; environmental policy integration
Structural Funds 45, 218; as system (EPI) 31–2; governance networks in
of multi-level governance 15–16 Norway 172–5; and government 92;
Evans, B. 100, 214, 215, 218, 222, 224 institutionalisation of 100–2; Ireland
164–6; LIP in Sweden 55; multi-level
farming, Norway 170–1 15–16, 30–1, 42–4, 217–21;
First National Environmental Policy networks 16–18, 221–3; new
Plan (NEPP-1) (Netherlands) 56 environmental policy instruments 11,
France: coordination mechanisms in 11–12, 18–19, 30, 50–1, 225;
NSDSs 37–8; multi-level governance participation in 18, 30, 67;
43; policy priorities in NSDS 36–7; public–private partnerships in 16–18;
policy tools for and the NSDS 38; reporting protocol 19, 20; in
regional sustainable development sustainable development initiatives
strategies 40–1; regions 33; 67, 68, 69–70
Structural Funds 42 government: commitment in the
funding by central government 53; Netherlands 195; commitment of
Denmark 58–60; Germany 60–1; 7–8; and governance 92; investment
Netherlands 56–8; Sweden 52, 54–6; programmes 53; see also funding by
United Kingdom 62–5 central government
funding of waste management in Ireland green polder model 199–200
162–4 Green Spaces and Sustainable
Communities programme (UK)
Gemeenschappelijk Initiatief Realisatie 63
Duurzame Ontwikkeling (GIDO) 57–8,
65, 67 Hanf, K. 2, 215, 218
Germany: activity levels of Länder Harney, Mary 151
compared 133, 134; Bavaria 135–6; Hesse, J.J. 192
 Index 231
Holland see Netherlands Jostedalen nature-use project 176,
Holman, N. 76 178–9, 183
Hooghe, L. 31, 220
horizontal EPI 9–10, 31; see also EPI; Kern, K. 213, 215, 218, 223
policy integration; vertical EPI
Hovden, E. 9 Lafferty, W.M. 2–3, 6, 9
Hovik, S. 218, 221–2 Länder, Germany: activity levels
compared 133, 134; Bavaria 135–6;
implementation: bottom-up 190–1, climate protection in 131; and the
202–3; top-down 190–1, 202–3 federal government 123–5; Local
institutional capacity 75–6; DISCUS Agenda 21 132–3; North Rhine-
project 78–80, 80; mainstreaming Westphalia 136–8; policy diffusion
sustainable development ethos 84; 133–5; strategic development plans
multi-level governance 85–6; multi- 128–9; sustainable development in
level networking 84–5; regional 130; Thuringia 138; voluntary
perspective 87, 87–8; and the agreements 132
reporting protocols 86–7; role of key Local Agenda 21 1–2, 213, 215; Bavaria
individuals or groups 83–4; and social 136; comparative studies of 4;
capital 92–3; at sub-national level Denmark 58–9; in Germany 132–3;
219–21; see also administrative and multi-level governance 16;
capacity; capacity building; Spain Netherlands 56, 193, 202; North
institutions, policy capacity of 8 Rhine-Westphalia 136–8; rationale
integration of policies see policy behind 74–5; social capital 17–18;
integration Spain 108–10, 109, 114–16;
Ireland: actors in waste management Thuringia 138
154–8, 155, 157; approach to local–central relations in the
sustainable development 145–6; Netherlands 191–2, 204
coordination mechanisms in NSDSs local government, autonomy of 91–2
37; funding of waste management local governance: central role of 75;
162–4; from government to interplay with social capital 76–7; see
governance 149–50; key also DISCUS project; Local Agenda
developments in 152; local 21; multi-level governance; regions;
government 158–9, 160–1; multi- Spain
level governance 43; national local strategic plans 107–8
sustainable development strategy Lokala Investeringprogrammet för Ekologiskt
147–8, 150; and new modes of Hållbar Utveckling (LIP) 52–6, 65, 66
governance 164–6; policy tools for Loughlin, J. 32
and the NSDS 38; political system Lowndes, V. 76, 92
149–50; public–private partnerships Lundqvist, L. 9–10
162–3, 163; regional authorities in
33; regional sustainable development Marks, G. 31, 220
strategies 40; role of regions in the Martinuzzi, A. 44
NSDS 35; social partnership Meadowcroft, J. 2, 18
agreements 150, 161; Structural Morata, F. 215, 218
Funds 41; waste management in multi-level governance 15–16, 30–1,
146–7; waste management policy 42–4, 217–21; coordination
151, 153–4; waste management mechanisms 37–8; declaratory level
regions 158–60, 159, 160; weak 211–12; and economic instruments
sustainable development 148–9 66–7; institutional capacity 85–6;
and local initiatives in Spain 116–17;
Jänicke, M. 8, 34, 78–9, 100 Netherlands 197–9; policy
Jansen, A.-I. 2 integration 126
job creation, green 58–60 multi-level networking 84–5
232 Index
nation states and multi-level governance NGOs see non-governmental
31 organisations
National Environment Policy Plans Nilsson, M. 75
(NEPPs) (Netherlands) 192–3, 194, non-governmental organisations
195 (NGOs): in LIP in Sweden 55
national parks in Norway, initiatives in Nord-Gudbrandsdalen national park
175–87 initiative 176, 179–81, 183
national sustainable development North Rhine-Westphalia 136–8
strategies (NSDSs): In the EU 34–5; Norway: agriculture 170–1;
impact and effectiveness 44–6; composition and role of networks
Ireland 147–8, 150; policy priorities 182, 183, 184; decentralisation of
for regions 36–7; policy tools for the nature conservation 171–2;
regional level 38; provisions for governance networks 172–5; input-
regions in 35–8 based legitimacy of networks 174–5,
nature conservation: decentralisation of 184–6; interpretation of sustainable
in Norway 171–2; move to rural development 186–7; Jostedalen nature-
sustainable development in Norway use project 176, 178–9, 183; local
170–2 politics and networks 185–6; nature
Netherlands: Bijdragenbesluit Uitvoering conservation to rural sustainable
Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid (BUGM) development 170–2; Nord-
56–8, 65; central–local relations Gudbrandsdalen national park
191–2, 204; changing perceptions on initiative 176, 179–81, 183;
sustainable development 192–3, 194, participation in networks 174, 183,
195; First National Environmental 184–6; Setesdal-Vesthei Ryfylkeheiane
Policy Plan (NEPP-1) 56; funding by protected landscape 175–8, 176, 183
central government 56–8; NSDSs see national sustainable
Gemeenschappelijk Initiatief Realisatie development strategies
Duurzame Ontwikkeling (GIDO) 57–8,
65, 67; governance patterns 204–5; participation 18, 30, 67; civil society
government commitment 195; 223–4; external and internal in Spain
implementation and planning style 110–11; findings from DISCUS
203; institutional support 195–6; project 88–9; Germany 126–7;
Local Agenda 21 193, 202; long term limited in UK 64–5; LIP in Sweden
policies 202; multi-level government 55; in networks in Norway 183,
197–9; National Environment Policy 184–6; of stakeholders and citizens
Plans (NEPPs) 192–3, 194, 195; 12–13; of stakeholders in the
participation of stakeholders Netherlands 199–201; waste
199–201; policy integration 196–7; management in Ireland 160; see also
political renewal 201–2; top- citizen participation
down/bottom-up implementation Persson,Å. 75
202–3; Vervolgbijdrageregeling Peters, B.G. 14, 31, 220
Ontwikkeling Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid Pierre, J. 31, 220
(VOGM) 56–8, 66 planning, strategic 7–8, 34–5;
network governance 16–18, 172–5, 221–3 implementation of Local Agenda 21
networks: input-based legitimacy, of plans in Spain 114–16; Spain 106–8;
174–5, 184–6; see also network see also national sustainable
governance development strategies (NSDSs)
new environmental policy instruments, polder model 199–200
(NEPIs) 11, 11–12, 18–19, 30, 50–1, policy capacity 17; DISCUS project
225; in Spain 105–6; see also 79–80, 80, 82, 82–3
voluntary agreements policy diffusion, Germany 133–5
New Opportunities Fund (NOF) 63–5, policy instruments, new (NEPIs) 11,
66 11–12, 18–19, 30, 50–1, 105–6
 Index 233
policy integration 8–10, 31–2, 213–14; social partnership agreements, Ireland
Germany 126; multi-level governance 150, 161
126; Netherlands 196–7; see also EPI; Sørenson, E. 172
horizontal EPI; vertical EPI Spain: Catalonia 109; external
policy priorities at regional level in participation 110; implementation of
NSDSs 36–7 Local Agenda 21 action plans
policy transfer, Germany 127–8 114–16; instruments of local
political commitment, local, in Spain environmental policy 105–6;
103, 104, 105, 105 integration with economic
political renewal in the Netherlands development 111–12, 112, 114;
201–2 inter-departmental coordination
political system, Ireland 149–50 112–14; internal participation 111;
public–private partnerships: Germany Local Agenda 21 initiatives 108–10,
127; Ireland 162–3, 163; in new 109; local initiatives and multi-level
governance 16–18, 88–9 governance 116–17; local political
Putnam, R.D. 18, 76 commitment 103, 104, 105, 105;
research methods 102–3; strategic
regional sustainable development plans 106–8
strategies 39–41; see also national stakeholders, participation of 12–13;
sustainable development strategies limited in UK 64–5; LIP in Sweden
(NSDSs) 55; in the Netherlands 199–201
REGIONET project 2–3 Steurer, R. 44, 213–14, 216, 218
regions: Austria 33; coordination Stoker, G. 222
mechanisms in NSDSs 37–8; Structural Funds 41–2, 45, 218
definitions 32–3; engagement of sub-national level: engagement at 212;
212–13; France 33; institutional institutional capacity at 219–21; see
capacity 219–21; Ireland 33; policy also regions
priorities in NSDSs 36–7; policy tools sustainable development: ethos,
for and the NSDSs 38; provisions for mainstreaming of 84; interpretation
in NSDSs 35–8; United Kingdom 33; of 215–16; implementation of 190–1;
waste management in Ireland Länder in Germany 128–9; Spain
158–60, 159, 160; see also Local 106–8; strategies for 34–5; time
Agenda 21 frame, long-term 12–13, 202, 215;
Reporting Protocols 4–5, 13, 13, 19, understanding of 215–16; weak
20; and institutional capacity 86–7, sustainable development 149; see also
89–90; new governance 217–25; and national sustainable development
social capital 89–90, 90; sustainable strategies; regional sustainable
development 211–16 development strategies
Rio Earth Summit, impact and Sustainable Development Commission
effectiveness 1–2 39
Rothstein, B. 76 Sweden: funding by central government
Rydin, Y. 76, 222 52, 54–6; Lokala Investeringprogrammet
för Ekologiskt Hållbar Utveckling (LIP)
Schmitter, P.C. 17 52, 54–6, 65, 66
Setesdal-Vesthei Ryfylkeheiane protected
landscape 175–8, 176, 183 Thuringia 138
Sharpe, L.J. 192 Torfing, J. 172
social capital 17–18; DISCUS project Transforming Communities Initiatives
78–80, 80, 88–9; and institutional (UK) 63
capacity 92–3; interplay with local
governance 76–7; origin and types Umweltministerkonferenz (UMK)
76; and the Reporting Protocols (Conference of Environmental
89–90, 90 Ministers) 124
234 Index
United Kingdom: coordination vertical EPI 9–10, 31; see also EPI;
mechanisms in NSDSs 37; funding by horizontal EPI; policy integration
central government 62–5; Green Vervolgbijdrageregeling Ontwikkeling
Spaces and Sustainable Communities Gemeentelijk Milieubeleid (VOGM)
programme 63; multi-level 56–8, 66
governance 43–4; New Opportunities voluntary agreements, Germany 127,
Fund (NOF) 63–5, 66; policy 131–2
priorities in NSDS 36; policy tools for
and the NSDS 38; regional Warburton, I. 75
approaches in 33; regional sustainable waste management: actors in Ireland
development strategies 39; role of 154–8, 155, 157; in Ireland 146–7;
regions in the NSDS 35–6; Structural policy in Ireland 151, 153–4
Funds 41–2; Transforming Weale, A. 2
Communities Initiatives 63 Weidner, H. 8, 78–9
urban strategic plans 107–8 Wilson, D. 76, 92