|You are here: Home > Quarterly reports|
ESDN Quarterly Reports
The ESDN Quarterly Reports provide in-depth documentation of a selected topic on a quarterly basis. The current ESDN Quarterly Report is displayed below. For previous ESDN Quarterly Reports click here.
ESDN Quarterly Report September 2011
Sustainable development governance & policies in the light of major EU policy strategies and international developments
This Quarterly Report (QR) provides an overview and analysis of sustainable development (SD) governance and policies at the EU and Member States level. Currently, the framework for SD governance and policy in the European Union is in a state of change. On the one hand, the EU SDS of 2006 requires the European Council in 2011 to decide “when a comprehensive review of the EU SDS needs to be launched” (para 45); a decision on the review will also influence the future of the EU SDS. On the other hand, SD issues and targets are increasingly included in other important EU policy strategies, most notably in the Europe 2020 strategy as well as the flagship initiative, “A resource-efficient Europe” (2011), and its Roadmap that was published on 20 September 2011. Additionally, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) will focus as one of its major themes on the institutional framework for SD and issues of SD governance, including SD strategy processes at the national level. All these recent developments call for a reflection on how SD governance and policies can be best addressed in current EU policy strategies and in preparation to the Rio+20 conference.
Chapter one of this QR provides a general introduction about the link between SD and governance. Chapter two focuses on the EU SDS and the Europe 2020 Strategy (incl. the resource-efficient Europe Flagship Initiative and Roadmap); it presents how SD is included in these major policy strategies and provides a table on similarities and differences of the governance processes of both strategies. In chapter three, an overview is given on one of the two major themes of the Rio+20 conference, “institutional framework for SD” and which specific recommendations have been developed as of yet for SD governance in general. Chapter four takes stock of experiences on the national level with SD governance and policies: on the one hand, experiences with NSDS implementation are provided; on the other hand, we give an overview of the new National Reform Program (NRPs) of the EU Member States that have been published in April 2011. Some conclusions are drawn in the final chapter five.
This QR is one of the background documents for the 7th ESDN Workshop (Berlin, 27-28 October 2011).
1We would like to thank our colleague at RIMAS, Katrin Lepuschitz, for the support in putting together the NRP overview. Thanks also to Megan Ahearn, University of Florida at Gainesville, for the English proofreading.
This section of the QR provides an overview of the linkages between sustainable development and governance. Although discussions about both concepts seem impossibly broad, it is necessary to reflect on their relationship and to examine the means through which different political levels (international, European, national, sub-national) and various stakeholders reconcile economic, ecological and social goals. Moreover, deliberations about the two concepts need to reflect upon the decisions made by and the interactions between economic, social and political agents and actors across multiple levels and scale (Baker, 2009).
The objective of sustainable development – namely, achieving simultaneously economic well-being, environmental protection and social equity – poses significant challenges for government institutions on all political-administrative levels, which were originally established on the basis of more sectoral concerns. The challenges associated with sustainable development are interdependent and integrated and thus require “comprehensive approaches and popular participation” (WCED, 1987, 9). In order to address these challenges, sustainable development strategies have been developed on the international and national level since the mid-1990s, but mostly in preparation for the 2002 UN World Summit in Johannesburg. They aim to outline a fully integrated process of strategic decision-making for sustainable development, including objectives and governing mechanisms (Meadowcroft, 2007a). An overview of experiences with national sustainable development strategies (NSDSs) in Europe can be found in Chapter 4 of this QR. The renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) of 2006, as the EU’s main policy document for strategic and integrated decision-making, contains principles for governance that reflect governance processes and that aim to more effectively steer the processes of sustainable development policy-making in Europe: open and democratic society; involvement of citizens; involvement of businesses and social partners; policy coherence and governance; policy integration; make polluters pay (European Council, 2006).
The link between governance and sustainable development is thus fundamental and has already been addressed in the Brundtland Report of 1987 (WCED, 1987). Generally, governance refers to the managing, steering and guiding of public affairs by governing procedures and institutions in a democratic manner, especially in relation to public policy decision-making (Baker, 2009; Jordan, 208; Lafferty, 2004). ‘Good governance’ is a specifically normative usage that prescribes certain steering procedures and institutions – based on principles, values and norms, i.e. participation, transparency, rule of law, etc. – that should be adopted to achieve preferred outcomes. The origin of good governance is associated with international organizations such as the World Bank and the OECD that developed the concept in the context of development policy. The EU has addressed good governance in its White Paper on European Governance (European Commission, 2001), defining five principles for application and designating the concept a normative standard for the Community’s policy processes.
Governance mechanisms are crucial for achieving sustainable development. ‘Governance for sustainable development’ can be defined as “processes of socio-political governance oriented towards the attainment of sustainable development. It encompasses public debate, political decision-making, policy formation and implementation, and complex interactions among public authorities, private business and civil society – in so far as these relate to steering societal development along more sustainable lines” (Meadowcroft, 2007b, 299). In turn, sustainable development can be understood as a reform agenda not only for sectoral policies, but also for cross-sectoral governance structures and processes (Lafferty, 2004, 2002; OECD, 2002). The first document to frame sustainable development as a governance reform agenda was Agenda 21, the action plan adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio 1992 (UNCED, 1992). The governance aspects of the action plan were reiterated and complemented at the UN World Summit in Johannesburg 2002 (Rio +10). The World Summit Report pointed out that “good governance is essential for sustainable development” (UN, 2002). This report also puts forward several objectives for reforming governing institutions for sustainable development, such as the integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of policy-making in a balanced manner; strengthening coherence, coordination and monitoring; enhancing participation and effective involvement of civil society and other relevant stakeholders; and strengthening educational, scientific and informational initiatives for sustainable development at all political levels. The forthcoming Rio+20 conference will again address governance issues in one of the two top themes, ‘Institutional Framework for SD’. Chapter 3 of this QR will provide an overview of the preparatory work of UNCSD in this context.
Governance for sustainable development involves some important steering requirements and challenges that we shortly describe below. They refer to a steering logic that is specific for the aim to achieve sustainable development (this section is largely based on Baker, 2009 and Berger, 2009):
Promoting sustainable development is not a blueprint nor is it about helping society reach an identified or identifiable end state. Rather, it is an open-ended and on-going process whose desirable characteristics change over time, across space and location, and within different social, political, cultural and historical contexts. Thus, promotion efforts are undertaken in the context of open-ended goals and on-going change, in short, within the context of inherent policy ambivalence. The promotion of sustainable development also has to take place amidst the complex and dynamic interactions between society, economic development, technology and nature. As Baker (2009, 5) put it: “In short, governance has to cope with the complexity and the indeterminacy of sustainable development as a steering objective. This can present problems because traditionally policy-making starts from the basis that effective steering requires clear goals.”
The sustainable development concept includes a very strong inter-generational element. However, long-term decision-making presents particular governance problems, as it adds to uncertainties. The further into the future we project, the weaker our knowledge base becomes. This means that steering for the long-term requires institutional flexibility to enable institutions to both anticipate and handle unforeseen problems or opportunities. However, it is not easy to include long-term thinking into current modes of policy- and decision-making, which are usually characterised by short-term orientation. Baker (2009, 6) argues that “governments have often only limited incentives to learn (...) new skills [for long-term policy-making], as future problems are not popular with politicians, have limited issue salience and do not bring new votes at elections.”
Due to the fact that policy-making for sustainable development involves the responsibilities of different tiers of government, coordination among these tiers is crucial for achieving sustainable development. In other words, governance for sustainable development requires steering activity that cuts across functional and administrative boundaries and established territorial jurisdictions. Increasingly, these complex multi-level governance structures and processes encounter economic actors and civil society organisations, such as environmental NGOs, that also operate across multiple levels. Tensions and struggles within and between the authorities and actors operating at these different levels are typical of modern political processes. This presents challenges not only for policy co-ordination and for the delineation of responsibilities, but also for ensuring transparency, accountability and the monitoring of compliance. Therefore, promoting sustainable development requires overcoming failures of co-ordination in public policies (Baker, 2009).
The concept of sustainable development fundamentally addresses the integration of various policy sectors and the coordination of different policy arenas (Jordan, 2008; Pezzoli, 1997; Sneddon et al, 2006). 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 limitations of specialisation and differentiation were increasingly evident, resulting in new awareness of the need to take environmental considerations into account within a wide range of sectoral policies. Thus, the need to co-ordinate policies and governance practices began to be keenly felt. When policy moves from concerns about environmental management to the adoption of the more encompassing sustainable development policy framework, the need for sectoral integration becomes even more pressing. The effectiveness of steering efforts to promote sustainable development is to a large measure based on the extent to which policy approaches are cross-cutting and take account of sectoral linkages. Most importantly, sustainable development calls for horizontal policy integration that balances economic, social and environmental interests and policies in a way that trade‐offs (or negative effects) between them are minimised and synergies (or win‐win‐win opportunities) are maximised (Berger & Steurer, 2009; Steurer, 2008).
The governance challenge is that governments should make their economic, social and environmental policies more coherent and establish institutional mechanisms that foster coordination between sectoral ministries and their related administrations. In practice, however, the challenges of integrating and coordinating different policy sectors seems to increase in the context of complex decision structures and established political-administrative cultures, e.g. government departments responsible for sectoral policies (‘departmentalisation’), thinking within ‘sectoral silos’ (Berger & Steurer, 2009). Moreover, the link between economic and environmental issues is most often addressed in the context of sustainable development (e.g. environmental management, green technologies, etc); social issues are usually only marginally included in the mainstream sustainable development discourse (Berger, 2009).
It has become an acceptable dogma that participation, from both economic actors and from within civil society, is a necessary quality of sustainable development governance. Agenda 21, for instance, emphasises that “one of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation” (UNCED, 1992, para. 23.2). Participatory processes are institutional settings that bring together various actors at some stage in the policy-making process. In this context, participation is expected (a) to help define sustainable development objectives, (b) to facilitate reflexivity through the exchange of relevant knowledge and information, (c) to increase the societal ownership of sustainable development policies, and (d) to foster horizontal policy integration through reconciling different stakeholder interests (Steurer, 2008). Due to the comprehensive challenge faced by sustainable development in addressing societal challenges and linking different sectoral policy issues, it seems particularly important to involve the stakeholders’ knowledge, expertise and capacities to achieve sustainable development objectives. Nevertheless, practical experience shows that the collaboration among the different stakeholder groups with different institutional and sectoral background is often problematic and finding a common language and frameworks for exchange is difficult to achieve – similar to the ‘departmentalisation’ of policy-making in governments, see horizontal policy integration (Zwirner et al, 2008).
Recent practices of governance have made a range of new tools available for the promotion of sustainable development. Besides regulation or other ‘command-and control’ instruments, other mechanisms such as marked-based tools, voluntary agreements, and information and awareness raising are increasingly used. As Baker (2009) argues, on a pragmatic level, it is hoped that the use of new instruments will help to reduce the implementation deficit with respect to environmental policy, thereby helping to achieve more effective implementation of EU regulatory and sustainable development goals. Enhanced reliance upon markets can be seen in the growing use of voluntary agreements and in the development of ‘codes of practice’ within business and industry to address environmental concerns. The EU also relies on other ‘soft’ policy tools, such as policy appraisal, including environmental and sustainability impact assessments and strategic environmental assessment, which are aimed at making policy more anticipatory, coherent and effective. As well as broadening the range of policy tools it uses, the EU has also sought to make its existing tools, in particular regulation, more amenable to its new approaches to governance. This includes introducing flexible regulatory instruments, such as framework legislation, as well as feed-in tariffs and emission trading. The EU also tries to steer with information and the so-called Open Method of Coordination (OMC). The OMC has been characterised as a soft approach compared to hierarchical governance, and even as a form of network governance (Héritier, 2002). It takes practices from market governance, such as benchmarking, target setting and peer review, and uses them to fix guidelines and set timetables for achieving set goals within the member states.
Another important tool for steering and achieving sustainable development is the use of overarching policy strategies. The chapters below address the experiences with the EU SDS and NSDSs in more detail, and provide an overview on the new Europe 2020 Strategy processes. Due to the fact that sustainable development is included in several other policy strategies, notably in the Europe 2020 Strategy and its Flagship Initiatives, it is worthwhile to remember the key characteristics for a policy strategy to achieve sustainable development, put forward byUNDESA in 2004:
In June 2006, the European Council adopted an ambitious and comprehensive renewed EU SDS for an enlarged EU2 as a result of an extensive review process that started in 2004. The renewed EU SDS is a single and coherent strategy on how the EU will more effectively live up to its long-standing commitment to meet the challenges of sustainable development. It recognises the need to gradually change our current unsustainable consumption and production patterns and to move towards a better-integrated approach to policy-making. It reaffirms the need for global solidarity and recognises the importance of strengthening our work with partners outside the EU, including those rapidly developing countries, which will have a significant impact on global sustainable development. The overall aim of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy is to identify and develop actions to enable the EU to achieve a continuous long-term improvement of quality of life through the creation of sustainable communities that are able to manage and use resources more efficiently, are able to tap the ecological and social innovation potential of the economy, and are able to ensure prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion.
The EU SDS sets out overall objectives and concrete actions for seven key priority challenges, mostly for the period until 2010:
Additionally, the renewed EU SDS includes two cross-cutting policies that aim to contribute to the knowledge society:
Although having a focus on environmental issues, the renewed EU SDS tries to balance economic, social and environmental objectives more evenly. However, the strategy does not clarify the relationship between economic growth3 and SD (see also ESDN QR, December 2008).
To improve synergies and reduce trade-offs, a more integrated approach to policy making is proposed in the EU SDS, based on better regulation (impact assessments) and on the guiding principles for sustainable development (adopted by the European Council of June 2005). The external dimension of sustainable development (e.g. global resource use, international development concerns) is factored into EU internal policy making and through integration of SD considerations in EU's external policies.
The EU SDS has been developed as a strategy for the whole EU. It, therefore, proposes governance mechanisms for improving the coordination with other levels of governments (vertical integration) and calls upon business, NGOs and citizens to become more involved in working for sustainable development (stakeholder participation). Education, research and public finance are stressed as important instruments in facilitating the transition to more sustainable production and consumption patterns.
Since monitoring and follow-up are crucial for effective implementation, the renewed EU SDS contains a governance cycle: every two years, the European Commission is to produce a progress report on the implementation of the strategy at the EU and Member States level. This report forms the basis for discussion at the European Council, which will give guidance to the next steps in implementation. The first progress reportwas issued on 22 October 2007 (European Commission, 2007) and was based on an SD indicator set and the Monitoring Reports of Eurostat4 (the last indicator report was issued in 2009; a new monitoring report is due in 2011) as well as on the national reports on implementing the EU SDS.
In July 2009, the Commission adopted the 2009 Review of EU SDS. It underlines that in recent years, the EU has mainstreamed sustainable development into a broad range of its policies. In particular, the EU has taken the lead in the fight against climate change and the promotion of a low-carbon economy. At the same time, unsustainable trends persist in many areas and in those areas, efforts need to be intensified.
The renewed EU SDS states that the Council at the latest in 2011 will decide whether a comprehensive review of the strategy is necessary.
BOX: The EU SDS in brief
The strategy Europe 2020 was published by the European Commission in March 2010 and adopted by the European Council in June 2010 with the sub-heading ‘A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ which represent the three “mutually reinforcing priorities” (EC, 2010, p.3) of the strategy:
Five EU headline targets are to be achieved by 2020 which “are representative of the three priorities of [the strategy] (…) but they are not exhaustive” (ibid.):
The EU headline targets are then translated into national Europe 2020 targets that reflect the different national situations and circumstances.
To reach these targets, seven Flagship Initiatives have already been put in place. The first three are presented as describing ‘smart growth’ and these are:
Two flagship initiatives represent the idea of ‘sustainable growth’:
The remaining three flagship initiatives are to contribute to the achievement of ‘inclusive growth’:
BOX: The 7 flagship initiatives
The Europe 2020 Strategy is organised around a thematic approach and more focused country surveillance:
The reporting of Europe 2020 and the Stability and Growth Pact evaluation has to be done simultaneously, while keeping the instruments separate and maintaining the integrity of the Pact. This means proposing the annual stability or convergence programmes and streamlined reform programmes simultaneously:
The "Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines" are generally linked to the headline targets and are the following:
Monitoring and the European Semester
Monitoring of the Europe 2020 Strategy is integrated into the "European semester" that is the new European governance architecture that was approved by the Member States on 7 September 2010. The European Semester means that the EU and the Eurozone countries will coordinate ex-ante their budgetary and economic policies in line with both the Stability and Growth Pact and the Europe 2020 Strategy. The six month cycle of the European Semester starts in January of each year, when the Commission presents its Annual Growth Survey, including a review and a forecast, integrating macroeconomic, thematic and fiscal surveillance. The spring meeting of the European Council, based on the annual growth survey, takes stock of:
It provides policy orientations covering fiscal, macroeconomic structural reform and growth enhancing areas, and advises on linkages between them.
The Member States then present their medium-term budgetary strategies in their Stability and Convergence Programmes and set out actions to be undertaken (in areas such as employment, research, innovation, energy or social inclusion) in their National Reform Programmes. In April, these two documents are sent to the Commission for assessment. Based on the Commission’s assessment, the Council issues country-specific recommendations to Member States in June/July (country specific recommendations of 2011 can be downloaded from the Europe 2020 website). This means that policy advice is given to Member States before they start to finalise their draft budgets for the following year, and that the European Council assesses the overall progress in implementing the strategy on a yearly basis. Policy recommendations could be addressed to Member States both in the context of the country reporting as well as under the thematic approach of Europe 2020.
The Euro Plus Pact
Council of the EU ministers
European Economic and Social Committee
Committee of the Regions
European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund
National, regional and local authorities
BOX: The Europe 2020 in brief
Following it is shown a comparative table of the Europe 2020 strategy and of the EU SDS.
Based on the analysis of the 7 Flagship Initiatives of Europe 2020, we developed a table that shows how the Flagship Initiatives include the key challenges of the EU SDS and thus take up SD issues.
It is important to note that this exploration does not claim to be exhaustive but is only a first step of a more thorough analysis that could be undertaken only when all the ‘roadmaps’, policies and actions that operationalise the objectives the Europe 2020 Strategy will be then published. Since the 7 Flagship Initiatives provide a framework for the respective policy fields they cover, they are necessarily rather general and sometimes even vague, and they often make references to policies that have not been developed and presented yet. However, we believe that this overview is a useful starting point for discussion and further reflection.
Starting from a breakdown of the EU SDS key challenges, we checked if the respective Flagship Initiative mentioned them. More specifically, since each EU SDS key challenge is compounded by several ‘operational objectives’, we tried to understand if and how many of these were mentioned in the documents of the Flagship Initiatives:
BOX: Cross check of EU SDS objectives with EU2020
As can be seen in the table above, looking at the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives as an overarching framework might suggest that almost all EU SDS key challenges seem to be somehow included, with the notable exception of “global poverty & SD challenges” (which is not addressed in 5 Flagship Initiatives). However, it is not so straightforward as to discuss the quality of this inclusion.
Firstly, a good number of operational objectives are very poorly addressed. In the documents of the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives, these are mentioned only in one Flagship Initiative. For example, under the key challenge Sustainable Transport, the operational objective “Achieving a balanced shift towards environment friendly transport modes to bring about a sustainable transport and mobility system” is mentioned only in the Flagship Initiative A resource efficient Europe.
Secondly, some other operational objectives are not addressed at all in the flagship initiatives. Only the first EU SDS key challenge - Climate Change and clean energy - seems to be comprehensively addressed by Europe 2020’s Flagship Initiatives. With regard to the key challenge Sustainable Transport, two operational objectives are not mentioned within the flagship initiatives:
Concerning the third key challenge, namely Sustainable consumption and production, although it seems generally addressed, we have noted that the following two operational objectives are mentioned only in the flagship initiative A resource efficient Europe:
The key challenge Conservation and management of natural resources seems comprehensively addressed mostly in the flagship initiative A resource efficient Europe. However, the operational objective “Contributing effectively to achieving the four United Nations global objectives on forests by 2015” is never mentioned.
With respect to Public Health (fifth EU SDS key challenge), one can detect a very poor consideration of its operational objectives; in particular, the following operational objectives of the key challenge are not mentioned at all under the Flagship Initiatives:
In addition, two other operational objectives seem to be very poorly addressed, namely: (1) Further improving food and feed legislation, including review of food labelling, and (2) Improving information on environmental pollution and adverse health impacts.
The key challenge Social inclusion, demography and migration appears to be particularly thoroughly addressed by the Europe 2020 Strategy. However, we noted that one operational objective under this EU SDS key challenge is never mentioned, specifically: “Reducing the negative effects of globalisation on workers and their families”.
In case of the seventh key challenge - Global poverty and sustainable development challenges – it seems especially poorly addressed. Half of its operational objectives are not covered at all:
The remaining operational objectives of this key challenge are also rarely considered within the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives.
The flagship initiative “A resource-efficient Europe” called for a roadmap "to define medium and long term objectives and means needed for achieving them". On 20 September 2011, the European Commission's Roadmap for a resource-efficient Europe was adopted. The Roadmap builds upon and complements the other initiatives under the resource efficiency flagship, in particular the policy proposals towards a low carbon economy.
The Resource Efficiency Roadmap sets out a vision for the structural and technological change needed up to 2050:
The Roadmap sets also a series of milestones for the year 2020, illustrating what will be needed to put Europe on a path to resource efficient and sustainable growth. Therefore, it provides a framework explaining how policies interrelate and build on each other, in which future actions can be designed and implemented coherently. The inter-linkages between key sectors and resources and their associated EU policy initiatives are also outlined in the Communication. In particular, milestones and actions (either for the Commission and/or for Member States) are envisaged in the following areas:
Finally, three sectors are recognised as having a major responsibility for environmental impacts: Nutrition, Mobility and Housing. Since these sectors are also key to address the challenges in energy and climate change, the Commission wants to maximise synergies among EU policies using the Resource Efficiency Flagship in combination with other EU complementary long-term strategies and the measures included in the Roadmap. Again, also these three sectors are assigned with milestones for 2020 and suggested actions. In particular:
Transforming the EU into a more resource efficient economy will require concerted action across a wide range of policies. This is why the Commission is putting attention particularly on governance and monitoring and proposes to launch a joint effort with stakeholders to work on defining the right indicators and targets for guiding actions and monitoring progress. At the same time, the concrete necessity is recognised of investing in the transition towards a resource efficient Europe while, on the other hand, supporting resource efficiency internationally: by 2020 resource efficiency will be a shared objective of the international community, and progress will have been made towards it based on the approaches agreed in Rio.
We have conducted a brief analysis of the content and discourse reflected in the Resource-Efficient Europe flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy, focusing primarily on the causal relationships present in the Flagship Initiative communication by the European Commission. We used some tools of discourse analysis and an adapted causal mapping methodology primarily on descriptions of the context and policy measures as well as on justifications for policy intervention. The results are presented in the following figure.
There is a number of presented ‘means’ (policy measures intended to achieve an increase in resource efficiency and their features; presented in the upper part of the figure). The document does not establish any obviously meaningful relationships between the proposed measures – be they integrative (groupings of measures into policy mixes for achieving joint effects) or distributive (assigning of measures to concrete sectors or resources). In some cases it is not entirely clear whether the concepts presented are seen as causes or effects of an increase in resource efficiency. In this respect the draft Roadmap (see below) provides a fuller picture.
On the whole and as presented in the communication of the European Commission, the resource-efficiency flagship initiative seems to have two large areas of effects. Conceptually we can link them to the central statement characterising resource efficiency, ‘doing more with less’. The first area of effects is attributable to the ‘doing more’ part of the statement (the area on the lower left side of the figure): more innovation, more productivity, more employment, more products, more trade and as a result more economic growth.8 The second area of effects is linked to the ‘with less’ part of the statement (the area on the lower right side of the figure): fewer inputs (i.e. reduction of overall resource use), less costs, less reliance on resources, less waste and emissions, less damage to ecosystems. There should also be, of course, some linkages between these two areas of effects, e.g. lower costs would positively affect some of the economic performance concepts on the left, and employment, economic performance or benefits to consumers would positively influence quality of life. There seem to be several major end-goals: EU’s economic performance (focusing in particular on competitiveness, job creation and several sectors such as agriculture, transport or energy), resilience of EU’s economy to resource scarcities, improvement of life conditions in developing countries and quality of life for present and future generations.
Resource efficiency is a concept linking these two areas of effects and facilitating their relationship of dynamic interdependence. It is not entirely clear which of the two areas of effects, ‘doing more’ or ‘with less’, would be preferred in case of a conflicting trade-off. It would seem that historically the ‘doing more’ area has been preferred.9 It is important to add, however, that the higher the factor or resource efficiency improvement, the more ‘manoeuvring space’ to defuse trade-offs is created between these two areas.
Resource efficiency is thus presented as a solution to the conundrum of economic development and quality of the environment, a conflict which has been perceived since the late 1960s. It also seems to have the ambition to replace the concept which has occupied that exact spot in the global environmentalist discourse since mid-1980s: sustainable development. However, as presented in the Commission communication document, the resource-efficiency flagship initiative is first and foremost an economic and ‘economising’ project. Through a number of strategies it discursively ‘economises’ the nature–society relationship: (i) its central objectives seem to put the wellbeing of the economy before that of nature or people; (ii) it commodifying nature through ‘resources’ which can be measured, managed, priced and exchanged (note that already the term ‘environment’ serves as a ‘technicised’ and instrumentalised interpretation of nature); (iii) ascribing a certain privileged positions to businesses; and (iv) on the one hand, isolating an amorphous mass of EU population as passive beneficiaries of a well-working economy, and on the other hand, providing a way to participate through adoption of consumer identities.
The Flagship Initiative also presents an ambiguous relationship towards regions outside of Europe. On the one hand, it sets goals benefitting the developing countries (reduction of food insecurity, poverty reduction in resource-reliant developing countries) and achieving an efficient global use of scarce resources, but on the other hand, the non-EU area is seen as a source of risk (a place where employment might be ‘shifted’), as a necessity for economic prosperity of the EU (a market for exports by EU manufacturers, a source of raw materials necessary for the EU industry) and as a problematic partnership (i.e. a direct competition with ‘partners’ such as Japan or China in the speed of implementation of resource-efficiency policy initiatives).
Interestingly, the following draft Roadmap used a different language and, presumably, was written by a different group of authors. It would seem that the Roadmap attempted to shape a new discourse – one where the relationship between ‘economy’ and ‘the environment’ would not be in conflict. A circular, reflexive and iterative perspective (e.g. life cycle, rebound, re-use, re-cycle) had a key position in this discourse, as well as a metaphor of a ‘safe operating space’ within certain limits/planetary boundaries. This discursive strategy is, however, not without problems (the Roadmap wanted, for example, to overcome ‘having to protect the environment from economic activity’). The Roadmap presented a much more elaborate set of measures which were distributed into a grid along five dimensions – aspects of the transformation of the EU economy, key resources, key sectors and governance aspects as well as time (the Roadmap utilised three time horizons – immediate or short-term action (2011–2014), medium-term milestone of 2020 and long-term vision of 2050; for more details see above). It attributed a much more pronounced role to scientific knowledge and the argumentation in the document was also significantly more in line with what can be seen as Western academic discourse patterns – e.g. the analysis aiming at structural causes, elaborated causal relationships in general, ways of usage of figures and quantitative data, usage of references etc. In contrast to the Flagship Initiative, it was also closer to ‘sustainable development’ as it is understood in the pro-environmental discourse even though its primary thrust was still economic (the object, the ‘needed policy framework’ etc.).
In comparison to the draft the final version of the Roadmap published 20 September 2011 contains several certain key modifications in language, style and framing which make the Roadmap slightly more similar to the Flagship Initiative communication. One of the most pronounced differences lies in the framing, i.e. the justification of the Roadmap: where the draft Roadmap used the metaphor of the scale of economic activity as a reason for nearing or overstepping the limits as the ‘big picture’, the final Roadmap places the resource-efficiency project in the context of the need ‘to further develop our wealth and wellbeing’. There are new formulations which have the function to place the functioning of markets mechanisms in regards to resource scarcity in a more positive light as well as to weaken the acceptance of regulation by the reader. This can be illustrated on the issue of environmental taxation: the final Roadmap emphasises the negatives related to taxation and where environmental taxation is promoted it is justified by fiscal revenues and competitiveness, whereas in the draft the environmental taxation was presented as correcting market failures; in the final Roadmap a quantified objective for environmental taxation is placed at the current level of best-performing Member States, whereas the draft called for a ‘substantial increase’. In several places of the final Roadmap there is a slight return to business-friendly rhetoric and businesses are mainly presented in the role of needing to face the burden of rising costs and having to make the ‘sensible’ move to resource efficiency. The final Roadmap also seems to place a slightly larger responsibility on the consumers. Another marked feature is a slight move away from the circular perspective which was one of the key ‘models’ of the draft Roadmap and an increased emphasis on the economic functions of resources (resources as being critical for concrete sectors or economic activities, as business opportunities or as risks to the economy). In several places the reformulations reflect a move away from the more critical and detached style characteristic for the academic discourse (‘we are far away from ... a “circular economy”’) towards a more positively-sounding and objective-led style characteristic of policy documents (‘as we move towards ... a “circular economy”’). The changes in the proposed measures and milestone between these two versions – which particularly in the dimension of governance and monitoring seem to be significant – would, however, require a more detailed analysis that we can provide here.
In 2012, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) will be hosted again in Rio de Janeiro, 20 years after the first Earth Summit in 1992. The conference, commonly referred to as ‘Rio+20’, will have three objectives:
The Conference will address two themes:
Due to the topic of this QR, this section focuses on the second theme that considers “the governance of sustainable development globally, regionally, nationally and locally - the role of institutions, processes, structures, guiding principles, integration, coordination and communication in providing an enabling framework for implementing commitments to sustainable development” (Stakeholder Forum, 2011, p.4).
Institutional framework for Sustainable Development10
The main question of this theme addresses is: “How do we strengthen the institutional framework for sustainable development at all levels?”
Over the years, a number of institutions have been formally established to enhance the convergence between economic, social and environmental goals:
There is a growing interest to find out whether explicit changes to the institutional framework for sustainable development would help in bringing about greater coherence between the different goals.
Although a number of suggestions along these lines have been made, the Report of Secretary-General points out one major goal, that is:
“to clarify that sustainable development is not restricted to the environmental pillar, and therefore that the test for sustainable development lies in the extent to which its three components are brought together.” (UN, 2010, p.23)
In addition, there are five points that the report highlights in terms of necessary changes for the institutional framework for sustainable development:
The Commission on sustainable development is the most important institution for global sustainable development governance and, therefore, represents the high-level forum for sustainable development within the United Nations system. In the context of the institutional framework for SD, three other entities are of major importance:
Within the United Nations, also the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs has played a role in enhancing system-wide coherence over economic and social goals. Besides this, UN-Water, UN-Energy and UN-Oceans have been established to promote system-wide coherence in the areas of their competence. On the other hand, for a wide range of sectors under Agenda 21, no sectoral mechanisms exist and there is the necessity for the United Nations to consider the utility of creating a new inter-agency mechanism to ensure future coordination on sustainable development.
In addition, progress towards sustainable development needs to be supported by institutional reform, not only at the global level, but also at the national level. National councils for sustainable development (NCSDs) have been a major institutional innovation, bringing non-governmental stakeholders directly into policy consultations and decision-making processes. National sustainable development strategies (NSDSs) have proved to be key for sustainable development.
Recently, the High Level Dialogue on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) was held in Solo (Indonesia) on 19-21 July 2011 with the objective of supporting the preparatory process for RIio+20. Among other topics, the discussion reviewed progress in institutional development at various levels and identified remaining problems - namely, implementation gaps, lack of coherence and integration, added pressure of emerging challenges (i.e. scarcities of natural resources and sinks).
A key issue addressed by the High Level Dialogue Discussion Paper was to promote sustainable development governance at the national and local levels. With this objective, several suggestions were offered for discussion.
With respect to ‘Strategies to improve cross-sectoral coordination and coherence in implementation of the sustainable development agenda’, a special attention is given to NSDSs which are regarded as a good and flexible way to develop a national approach to sustainable development with stakeholders, and in so doing ensuring that not only are sectors dealt with effectively but also that a cross-sectoral integration is approached.
Particular appreciation is assigned to the approach suggested by the European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN) to NSDSs, in which NSDSs are built around 7 key points:
In the High Level Dialogue’s discussion paper it is therefore advanced:
Within the aim of ‘Enhancing the contribution of civil society to decision-making at national and local levels’, a first key message has to be highlighted: “Government coordination at the national level would have a great impact on the ability of the UN and IFIs to coordinate at a global level”. With this in mind, since in many countries Ministries of Environment are not among the key Ministries of State, it is suggested to establish a unit within the office of the Prime Minister or Foreign Minister to seek policy and strategic coherence among government departments operating within intergovernmental arenas.
The national level
National Councils on Sustainable Development
There have also been weaknesses of enabling conditions of NCSDs; e.g., they are easily abolished if not created under a legal mandate as governments or priorities change. They need to be adequately funded and most have not been. The most successful ones have been linked to the Office of the Prime Minister (Finland and Philippines).
It is then suggested that UNCSD 2012 could reactivate and reinvigorate the national multi-stakeholder forums, such as National Councils for Sustainable Development, to follow up UNCSD 2012, with mandates for:
In light of the focus of UNCSD 2012 on the green economy, such councils might consider establishing or strengthening their relationship with national economic councils which already exist in many countries.
The subnational level
Therefore, it is suggested to increase the role for subnational level government in implementing sustainable development agreements, and to forward the establishment of multi-stakeholder subnational councils on sustainable development to help facilitate this role.
The local level
Possibly one of the most significant chapters of Agenda 21, as far as inspiring a sector of society, was that regarding Local Authorities initiatives to support the agenda. By 2002, over 2000 Local Agenda 21s had been established around the world. Local authorities have been playing an increasingly significant role in taking global agreements to the local level. Over the last twenty years, local authorities have developed programs and projects to promote a participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that addresses local sustainability, while protecting global common goods.
Therefore, local sustainable development governance has today become a reality in many countries. It now features the active inclusion of a wide range of public, private and voluntary sector actors in carrying out policy on the ground.
With regards to the local level, though, the suggestion for UNCSD 2012 is to consider a similar text to 1992: (i) to encourage local government to take the lead in bringing together local stakeholders and (ii) to work on taking forward the recommendations from the UN Conference at a local level.
BOX: Main points for strengthening the Institutional Framework for SD (High Level Dialogue, Solo)11
At the end of the High Level Dialogue, in order to move the discussion forward the IFSD, the so-called ‘Solo Message’ was presented by the Chair with the aim of focusing the attention on the following important needs:
In preparation of RIO+20 conference, the European Commission wrote a communication to put forward the position of the European Union (EC, 2011). In this document, the Commission supports the objectives of the Rio+20 Conference to start of an accelerated and profound, world-wide transition towards a green economy and to launch the needed reform of international sustainable development governance.
In respect to the first objective, the European Commission argues to be a strong supporter of the green economy which is seen as an effective way of promoting sustainable development, eradicating poverty and addressing emerging challenges and outstanding implementation gaps. Therefore, the green economy is addressed as the necessary way to deliver the right kind of growth and development while, at the same time, improving human well-being, providing decent jobs, reducing inequalities, tackling poverty and preserving the natural capital. The way to achieve the transition to a green economy must therefore take into consideration three policy dimensions that are interlinked:
Also, the Commission argues for a renewed impetus to sustainable development that considers not only the creation of a shared vision for change, but also considers the necessity of a framework for specific action to deliver results. Therefore, four key points are suggested:
While agreeing with the need to strengthen sustainable development governance, the EU Commission clearly backs the points raised by the Solo Message presented above.
With an eye on the European situation, the communication briefly presents the initiatives undertaken for sustainable development by the EU in the past years with a mention of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Particular attention is devoted to the Europe 2020 Strategy, presented as the key policy development in this regard, with the aims to:
The importance of the Europe 2020 strategy is therefore remarked:
“Rio+20 will be a defining moment for sustainable development, both in the EU and globally. Its outcome will inspire the EU's strategy and actions for sustainable development, and in particular help further shape the EU Europe 2020 strategy as an effective tool for delivering on sustainable development.” (EC, 2011, p.4)
This chapter provides an overview of national policy strategies, and their related governance processes, that aim to implement the EU SDS and the Europe 2020 Strategy. This first sub-chapter takes stock of National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs), and by so doing, gives an overview of experiences with SD governance in the EU Member States. The second sub-chapter gives an overview of National Report Programmes, the main implementation tools at the national level of the Europe 2020 Strategy. It lists the NRPs of all EU Member States and looks into their similarities and differences.
NSDSs are considered to be among the prime tools for realising governance for sustainable development (SD). They date back to 1992 and Agenda 21 which suggested that:
“[g]overnments (...) should adopt a national strategy for sustainable development ensur[ing] socially responsible economic development while protecting the resource base and the environment for the benefit of future generations”.
Many countries started preparing their own NSDSs towards the end of 1990s, culminating in a relatively speedy preparation in most of the European countries shortly before the 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. In addition to Agenda 21 and the linkage to the Rio commitments, NSDS development was spurred by further UN’s work, by OECD and by the EU through the European Council’s Presidency Conclusion from Gothenburg 2001, which marked the first EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS). NSDSs received highest attention internationally during 2000–2004 with a watershed of guidelines and assessments of early NSDS attempts by scholars, practitioners and international agencies12. On the basis of the renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EC, 2006), all EU Member States were asked to finalise their NSDSs (if they had not prepared one before) by 2007 and to address linkages between their NSDSs and the EU SDS in future NSDS reviews.
NSDSs aim “to mobilize and focus a society’s efforts to achieve sustainable development” (Carew-Reid et al. 1994). They should provide a forum for societal articulation of a vision of the future, as well as a framework for processes of negotiation, mediation and consensus, and capacity building (ibid.). According to Agenda 21, NSDSs “should be developed through the widest possible participation” and “build upon and harmonize the various sectoral economic, social and environmental policies and plans that are operating in the country” as well as be “based on a thorough assessment of the current situation and initiatives”. After the first experiences with NSDSs, it has been understood that in order for NSDSs to remain continuously relevant as well as improve over time, they need a cyclical, iterative process with results of monitoring and evaluation feeding further debate and objective setting13.
NSDSs should serve to achieve better policy coordination and integration in several dimensions:
NSDSs also became increasingly understood as vehicles for an ambitious governance reform, marrying the better regulation/good governance agenda with the principles of sustainable development (see EC, 2005; Steurer, 2009). The goal is therefore:
NSDSs are very different from country to country. There is no blueprint for NSDSs. According to the European Commission (EC, 2004), NSDSs can take the form of:
In addition, NSDSs also differ in scope, objectives, topic areas and measures (as well as the mechanisms of their implementation). Given the differing contexts NSDSs were developed in, they vary also in terms of their mandate (to what extent they are binding for sectoral ministries or sub-national authorities) and institutional setup (organisations responsible for their implementation, institutional mechanisms for policy coordination or stakeholder involvement).
Typically, the Ministries of Environment are responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the National Sustainable Development Strategies.
This sub-chapter is based on a comparative overview of NSDS processes for 29 European countries that was undertaken for the ESDN Quarterly Report of September 2010. This QR provided an overview of NSDS processes in the 27 EU Member States, plus Norway and Switzerland, on the following topics:
(i) General profile of NSDSs in Europe
In total, 28 countries have developed an NSDS and one country has a strategic approach on SD but no strategy document (The Netherlands).
The NSDS processes vary across countries. Only a few have managed to place it at the core of their national policy planning (i.e. Latvia, Poland), linked the strategy with the general government program (i.e. Switzerland), or reached a better coordination of objectives and goals with other government documents. In most countries, NSDSs are one policy strategy among many other policy strategies. Furthermore, although SD is an overarching concept, the NSDSs have not developed into overarching policy strategies for all governmental departments.
Regarding institutional anchoring of NSDSs, the main coordinating bodies for NSDS processes are usually the Ministries of Environment (in 19 out of 29 countries). Ministries of Environment seem to have the best developed capacity and knowledge for SD. However, they often lack resources and high level political profile compared to other government ministries. In some countries, NSDS processes are now coordinated by the Prime Ministers Offices or State Chancelleries (e.g. Germany, Estonia).
(ii) Vertical policy coordination mechanisms
In most countries, the NSDSs are only a binding a policy strategy for the national government. A notable exception is Austria, the only country in Europe that has adopted a federal SD strategy, binding both for the national and the regional level, and for which appropriate mechanisms are provided.
Generally, vertical policy coordination mechanisms vary substantially across countries. One can broadly distinguish three groups of countries:
(iii) Horizontal policy coordination mechanisms
The concept of SD does not only emphasise the need for vertical but also for horizontal policy coordination, i.e. the integration of different policy sectors. Generally, all EU Member States have developed various forms of inter-ministerial and cross-departmental mechanisms for coordinating the implementation of NSDSs objectives. The format of these mechanisms varies from inter-ministerial working groups to committees or networks.
Roles of horizontal mechanisms
The inter-ministerial institutions share all of the aforementioned roles in horizontal policy coordination, but also display some differences. Horizontal mechanisms which are steered from inter-ministerial bodies at the administrative level have more a preparatory policy-making function. They do not replace any usual decision-making mechanisms. In contrast, the countries locating the horizontal policy coordination institutionally at the higher-level also share a political guidance and steering function. This function is reflected in influencing the pace of implementation of the NSDSs in sectoral policies. In countries such as Germany and Austria, where the horizontal mechanisms have not only a preparatory policy function but also decision-making competences through the Chancellary, an increased linkage of political leadership with horizontal coordination is considered to be the case. In cases where horizontal mechanisms are coordinated by hybrid regimes (e.g. NCSDs), they serve an agenda setting4 and advisory function to the government on SD issues, providing recommendations based on its wide consultation processes with various societal actors.
Various implementation tools for horizontal policy integration have been developed in the countries such as
(iv) Evaluation and review
NSDSs are not only strategic documents but also foster strategic processes. As NSDS processes need to adapt to new situations and challenges constantly, the evaluation of these policy processes and the achievement of the NSDS targets are important and have been introduced in almost all European countries. The review processes of NSDSs can take three forms:
Countries usually employ the findings of their reviews to improve the development of a renewed NSDS or the implementation of their current NSDS. The contribution of the reviews is particularly important because it reveals that countries seem to experience similar problems:
(v) Monitoring and indicators
Monitoring is an observational activity, mostly based on a set of quantitative indicators. The higher and stronger the link between indicators and policy objectives in the NSDSs, the more measurable are the deliveries of the strategy. This section shortly outlines the status quo in development and revision of the set of indicators, and their utilization in the NSDS review process:
(vi) Participation and consultation processes in NSDSs
During the development of their current NSDSs, all countries have brought in contributions from across government ministries, and have involved stakeholders from various sectors and interest groups. Governments are making substantial efforts in broadening the involvement of stakeholder groups in order to strengthen the ownership of the NSDSs. Additionally, new mechanisms and tools are developed to better engage societal stakeholders in policy-making processes. As for the institutionalization of the participation processes, one can observe three different trends:
In many countries, National Councils for Sustainable Development (NCSDs) are under revision: the purpose is to make them more independent and less influenced by governments.
Consultation with stakeholders is felt to be useful during the review or revision processes of the NSDSs and that the results have provided direction in the further implementation of the NSDSs. Civil society seems to be more responsive in countries where NCSDs are very active. Therefore, these mechanisms play an important role in making the society aware of crucial SD issues. Consultation and participatory mechanisms (through councils or other bodies) display common functions:
The National Reform Programmes14 (NRPs) are core documents provided by the European Member States for achieving the Europe 2020 targets. These reports translate the Europe 2020 targets into national targets and propose measures for achieving them (see table on NRPs of all 27 EU Member States).
By the end of April 2011, all EU Member States drafted an NRP on the basis of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines. We analysed the NRPs of all 27 EU Member States based on their general structure (chapter level) and on information found in executive summaries. We investigated inter alia the structure of the NRPs and the key measures to achieve the Europe 2020 targets. The analysis, which can be found in some detail below, reveals interesting results on a number of issues.
An overview of the national ministries which are responsible for the corresponding NRPs reveals a clear picture: In most Member States, for which the responsible institutions could be identified, Ministries of Finance and/or Ministries of Economy are responsible for the NRPs (DE, FI, NL, ES, IT, AT, GR, MT and SI) the. Some Member States have assigned responsibilities directly to their Government Offices or corresponding institutions (HU, PT, UK and FR). Furthermore, the NRPs vary substantially in length – from about 30 pages (e.g. Finland and Austria) to 160 (Italy).
Table: Europe 2020 EU headline targets15
The EU Member States have been assigned different targets for the corresponding headline target areas of the Europe 2020 Strategy according to the burden-sharing principle and each individual Member State’s capacity in order to achieve the Europe 2020 target collectively. The headline targets are shown in table above and vary considerably between Member States due to specific reasons mentioned before:
R&D / innovation:
Climate change / energy:
Whereas the overall EU target of renewable energy accounts for a share of 20 % (of EU energy consumption), the picture on the Member State level is rather diverse: Sweden, Finland and Latvia have to fulfil a target share at the higher end of the scale between 40 and 50 %, while, for example, the Netherlands, Belgium or the Czech Republic strive for a share between 10 and 15 %.
The target of energy efficiency increase accounts for an overall EU share of 20 % (equalling a total of 368 million tonnes of oil equivalent – mtoe), which varies considerably across Member States. Countries like Germany and France have reduction targets of around 35 mtoe, whereas Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece and Ireland share targets of around 3 mtoe.
In the area of tertiary education, the EU strives for a target of 40 % of the 30-34 year-olds completing third level education (or equivalent). Most of the Member States account for a target of between 30 to 40 %, whereas exceptions on the higher end of the scale are found in Ireland and France with a share of 60 and 50 % respectively.
Poverty / social exclusion:
According to the analysis of NRP chapters and of information included in the executive summaries, we found interesting results regarding the key measures for achieving the Europe 2020 targets. About two-thirds of MS have an increased emphasis on the economic aspects of (i) economic growth, (ii) employment and (iii) competitiveness. The predominance of socio-economic issues within the NRPs is due to the fact that Integrated Guidelines for implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy on the EU Member States level mainly focus on employment and economic policies16. In fact, 5 out of 10 guidelines can be explicitly linked to socio-economic aspects, which consequently affect the structure and focus of the corresponding NRPs. Apart from this issue, minor attention is given to the areas of social inclusion, energy and climate change as well as environmental protection.
As we have stated before, the NRPs mainly focus on socio-economic issues, however, interesting differences in terms of focal measures can be found among individual Member States. To illustrate this difference, we describe two opposite examples, namely Germany and Sweden. The key measures taken into account by the German NRP are mainly structured across socio-economic aspects to strengthen growth and employment. Germany includes the challenge of climate change and energy efficiency (e.g. enhancing funding for energy-efficient and climate friendly housing) to safeguard domestic demand as a basis for economic growth. On the other hand, the Swedish NRP more explicitly points to environmental, climate and energy challenges by specific resource, climate and energy policies (e.g. policies for sustainable resource use of maritime resources or technology strategies for waste management).
In conclusion, our analysis suggests that the overarching framework set out in the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines sets the direction of the NRP towards socio-economic aspects in order to stimulate economic growth and employment; however, some EU Member States explicitly include issues to deal with environmental, climate and energy issues.
This QR has the main aim to describe and analyse sustainable development governance and policies in the context of the major EU policy strategies, EU SDS and the Europe 2020 Strategy. It also includes aspects of SD governance as outlined in the preparatory documents of the Rio+20 conference. We present in this last chapter some conclusions drawn from the analysis above that should stimulate discussions on SD governance and policies in Europe:
2 It was developed on the basis of the Gothenburg EU SDS of 2001.
3 Growth is the main objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy together with employment.
4 The Eurostat monitoring report, based on the EU set of sustainable development indicators, provides an objective, statistical picture of progress towards the goals and objectives of the EU sustainable development strategy. It is published every two years and underpins the European Commission’s progress report on the implementation of the strategy.
5 Under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), stability programmes are produced annually by Eurozone countries; other EU countries produce convergence programmes.
6 This new set replaced the 24 guidelines that were adopted for the Lisbon strategy.
7 Also six non Euro area countries that have chosen to sign up: Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
8 Note that most of the relationships between effects are not directly mentioned in the text.
9 Also note that on more than one occasion environmental protection measures are framed as threats to competitiveness.
10 The following sections are based on the UN documents and UN web-pages.
12 Most notably Heidbrink & Paulus, 2000; OECD, 2000; UK DFID et al., 2000; Kirkpatrick et al., 2001; OECD, 2001a; Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002c; Dalal-Clayton et al., 2002; IIED et al., 2002; UNDESA, 2002; EC, 2004; Swanson et al., 2004.
13 See for example: UNDESA 2001b, Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002a, OECD 2001b.
14 A complete list of EU MS NRPs can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/tools/monitoring/recommendations_2011/index_en.htm
16 Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines, http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMM_PDF_SEC_2010_0488_F_EN_RECOMMANDATION.pdf
Baker, S. (2009) In Pursuit of Sustainable Development: A Governance Perspective, Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 29 June – 2 July 2009, http://www.esee2009.si/papers/Baker%20-%20In%20Pursuit%20of%20Sustainable.pdf
Berger, G. (2009) Governance for Sustainable Development: Concepts, principles and challenges, Paper presented at the Eurofound Expert Meeting: Industrial Relations and Sustainability, Brussels, December 3, 2009
Berger, G. & Steurer, R. (2009) Horizontal Policy Integration and Sustainable Development: Conceptual remarks and governance examples, ESDN Quarterly Report, June 2009, http://www.sd‐network.eu/?k=quarterly%20reports&report_id=13
Berger, G. & Zwirner, W. (2008) The Interfaces between the EU SDS and the Lisbon Strategy: Objectives, governance provisions, coordination and future developments, ESDN Quarterly Report, December 2008, http://www.sd-network.eu/?k=quarterly%20reports&report_id=11
Carew-Reid, J., Prescott-Allen, R., Bass, S., and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1994) Strategies for national sustainable development: a handbook for their planning and implementation. London: Earthscan, IUCN and IIED
Dalal-Clayton, B., and Bass, S. (eds.) (2002a) Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. London: OECD, UNDP, Earthscan
Dalal-Clayton, B., and Bass, S. (2002b) Bridging the Knowledge Gap in SD Strategies: Research Partnerships for Sustainable Development. IIED WSSD Opinion. London: IEED
Dalal-Clayton, B., Swiderska, K., and Bass, S. (2002) Stakeholder Dialogues on Sustainable Development Strategies: Lessons, Opportunities and Developing Country Case Studies. London: IIED.
EC (2004) National Sustainable Development Strategies in the European Union: A First Analysis by the European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: EC.
European Commission, European Governance – A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 final, 2001, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf
European Commission (2005) Draft Declaration on Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development, COM (2005) 218 final, 2005, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0218:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2007) Progress Report on the Sustainable Development Strategy 2007, COM(2007) 642 final, 2007, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0642:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2009) Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies: 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM(2009) 400 final, 2009, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0400:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2010) EUROPE 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, 2010, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2011) Rio+20: towards the green economy and better governance, COM(2011) 363 final, 2011, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0363:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2011) Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM(2011) 571 final, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf
European Council (2006) Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) − Renewed Strategy, 10917/06, http://reg ister.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf
European Council (2010) Conclusions – 17 June 2010, EUCO 13/10, http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/council_conclusion_17_june_en.pdf
Eurostat (2009) Sustainable Development in the European Union - 2009 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-865/EN/KS-78-09-865-EN.PDF
Gjoksi, N., Sedlacko, M. & Berger G. (2010) National Sustainable Development Strategies in Europe: Status quo and recent developments, ESDN Quarterly Report, September 2010, http://www.sd-network.eu/?k=quarterly%20reports&report_id=18
Heidbrink, K., and Paulus, S. (2000) Strategies for sustainable development in the thicket of national planning processes: from convergent concepts to coherent actions in development cooperation. Bonn & Eschborn: GTZ
Héritier, A. (2002) “New Modes of Governance in Europe: Policy-making without Legislation”, in A. Héritier (ed.) Common Goods: Reinventing European and International Governance, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefied
IIED, UNDP, and UK DFID (2002) National Strategies for Sustainable Development: New Thinking and Time for Action. London: IIED.
Jordan, A. (2008) The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, pp. 17-33.
Kirkpatrick, C., George, C., and Curran, J. (2001) Development of Criteria to Assess the Effectiveness of National Strategies for Sustainable Development. A report prepared for UK DFID. Manchester: IDPM University of Manchester.
Lafferty, W.M. (2004) “Introduction: form and function in governance for sustainable development”, in Lafferty W.M. (ed) Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 1-31.
Lafferty, W.M. (2002) Adapting Governance Practice to the Goals of Sustainable Development, http://webs.uvigo.es/dialogos/biblioteca/goals.pdf
Meadowcroft, J. (2007a) National Sustainable Development Strategies: Features, Challenges and Reflexivity, European Environment, 17, 2007, pp. 152-163.
Meadowcroft, J. (2007b) Who is in Charge here? Governance for Sustainable Development in a Complex World, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9/3-4, pp. 299-314.
Pezzoli, K. (1997) Sustainable Development: A Transdisciplinary Overview of the Literature, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40 (5), pp. 549-574.
OECD (2000) National Strategies for Sustainable Development: A Guide to Key Issues and Methods for Analysis. Donor-developing country dialogues on national strategies for sustainable development. Rolling draft, 1 June 2000, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001a) Policies to Enhance Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Studies. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001b) Strategies for Sustainable Development: Practical Guidance for Development Co-operation. Paris: OECD DCD/DAC (2001) 9.
OECD (2002) Governance for Sustainable Development: Five OECDS Case Studies, Paris: OECD.
Sneddon, C. et al. (2006) Sustainable Development in a post-Brundtland World, Ecological Economics, 57, pp. 253-268.
Steurer, R. (2008) “Strategies for Sustainable Development”, in: Jordan, A. & Lenschow, A. (eds.), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability, London: Edward Elgar, pp. 93‐113.
Steurer, R. (2009) Sustainable Development as a Governance Reform Agenda: An Aggregation of Distinguished Challenges for Policy-Making. InFER Discussion Paper 1/2009. Vienna: BOKU.
Strandenaes, J.-G., Sustainable Development Governance towards Rio+20: Framing the Debate, Stakeholder Forum, http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/JGS-SDC-final.pdf
Swanson, D., Pintér, L., Bregha, F., Volkery, A., and Jacob, K. (2004) National Strategies for Sustainable Development: Challenges, Approaches and Innovations in Strategic and Co-ordinated Action. Winnipeg & Eschborn: IISD and GTZ.
UK DFID, IIED and CAPE ODI (2000) Strategies for sustainable development: can country-level strategic planning frameworks achieve sustainability and eliminate poverty? [on-line]. URL: http://www.nssd.net/working/syn/ finalsyn.htm (accessed June 14, 2005).
UN (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, United Nations New York, http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf
UN (2010) Progress to date and remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits in the area of sustainable development, as well as an analysis of the themes of the Conference. Report of the Secretary-General, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/302/56/PDF/N1030256.pdf?OpenElement
UNDESA (2002) Guidance in Preparing a National Sustainable Development Strategy: Managing Sustainable Development in the New Millenium. Outcome of the International Forum on National Sustainable Development Strategies, Accra, Ghana, 7-9 November 2001. New York: UNDESA.
UNCED (1992) Agenda 21, United Nations New York, http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
UNDESA (2004) Assessment Report on National Sustainable Development Strategies: the Global Picture 2003, Division for Sustainable Development, New York, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/nsds/assessmentreport_2003.pdf
UN High Level Dialogue Discussion Paper (2011) High Level Dialogue on strengthening the institutional framework for sustainable development, http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/SOLO%20DISCUSSION%20PAPER_TEXT.pdf
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press (Brundtland Report)
Zwirner, W. et al (2008) Participatory Mechanisms in the Development, Implementation and Review of National Sustainable Development, ESDN Quarterly Report September 2008, http://www.sd-network.eu/?k=quarterly%20reports&report_id=10