"Governance for Sustainability" by Reinhard Martinsen, City of Hannover

Informed Cities Forum 2010
14-16 April 2010
in Newcastle upon Tyne

Governance for Sustainability
Reinhard Martinsen, Hannover


Index
G-FORS Project
Project Results
Conclusions
Recommendations

Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 2


Sustainability Governance and Knowledge

EU vision of sustainability

Governance: key factor to enable knowledge transfer
Why draw upon different forms of knowledge to inform
policies?



Consortium
University West of England (United Kingdom,
Darmstadt University of Technology (Germany),
University of Warsaw (Poland),
University of Twente (The Netherlands),
Politecnico di Milano (Italia),
University of Gothenburg (Sweden),
Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (Norway),
Panteion University (Greece),
Institute of Regional Development and Structural Development,
Pecs (Hungary),
Institute for Regional Development and structural Planning,
Erkner (Germany)
Eurocities (Belgium)
Metropolitan Region/ City of Hannover (Germany)



Coordinators
Leader of the Consortium:
Metropolitan Region Hannover
represented by City of Hannover,
Lord Mayor’s Office - International Unit
Scientific Coordinators:
Rob Atkinson, Hubert Heinelt, Ulf Matthiesen
Technical Coordinator:
Reinhard Martinsen
Duration
February 2006 – May 2009 (38 months)



Objectives of Research
To examine how governance systems and
institutional settings filter knowledge
in local decision-making
and facilitate or impede the achievement
of sustainability.



Key Question
How do the concrete institutionalization and
practical enactment of certain governance modes
impact upon the effectiveness and legitimacy of
policies aimed at sustainability objectives by
using and developing different types of
knowledge?



Scientific approach/ methodology
• Mix of political and sociological theoretical
approaches to power and governance
• Qualitative methodology through 18 case
studies in 9 European countries
•

• focusing on implementation of
2001 EU Directive on Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) and
1996 EU Air Quality Framework Directive (AQM)
2004 EU Emission Trade Directive (ET)



Methodological Frame
Meta governing
Images knowledge
Ethics forms
arguing

Second order governing
Institutions & policies
Effectiveness & legitimacy
Vote (arguing & bargaining)

First order governing
Action/implementation
Effectiveness
arguing & bargaining
(in the shadow of hierarchy)



Governance modes
Coordination of societal interactions by
hierarchy (based on majority decisions or the
organisation structure of a firm/administration)
non-hierarchical networks relying on bargaining
non-hierarchical networks relying on arguing
the market (by prices according to supply/demand)



Knowledge
Knowledge includes certain assumptions about
causality as well as normative judgements about
what a problem is about and how it should be
solved.
Knowledge always has to do with processes of
sense making and with the improvement of
capacities to act (speech acts included


The “Flower” of knowledge forms 9



Project Results
•The conceptual frame
•National case studies
•Comparative Conclusions
•Handbook for Practioners

: www.g-fors.eu

published by separate books
(2008 and 2010)



Comparative Conclusions

• In terms of governance modes
hierarchy was the dominant form within
the particular governance arrangements
identified - networks and market modes
operated in ‘the shadow of hierarchy’

• Particular mix of these modes within
governance arrangements varied from
country to country and from case study to
case study, sometimes within the same
country



Comparative Conclusions
• Identified strong elements of path-
dependency
• But this was not immutable and change and
innovation were possible
• In all cases expert/scientific knowledge from
Knowledge Bundle 1 (Experts) dominant
• Case studies show the three dimensions of
sustainability – consistency,
comprehensiveness and aggregation – are
hard to reconcile
•Trade off between them


For policy-makers in the fields of SEA and local air quality in European countries:the combination of governance and knowledge forms is impo


Key messages for policy-makers
For policy-makers in the fields of SEA and local Air
Quality Management in European countries:
The combination of governance and knowledge
forms is important to achieve sustainability objectives
of local policies.
For EU policy makers:
Implementation of the spirit of SEA and air quality
directives depends on the types of governance in
place at national level. European countries should be
encouraged to cooperate and exchange information
in these fields.



New knowledge and European added value
• The project identifies different forms of
knowledge in policy making and demonstrates
that these different forms of knowledge contribute
to sustainability objectives of local policies.
•It also shows how different domestic governance
arrangements filter knowledge in or out.
•We can learn from good practice examples.



Recommendation
G-FORS was not designed as a cooperation project
with local authorities. The local level acted within the
frame of the field studies.
As most of the case studies have been finished before
the G-FORS research there were no direct contact with
local policy makers.
The results have been transferred directly to a wider
audience of local actors by Eurocities during the
project.



Recommendation
The 18 case studies in 9 European countries gave a
large basis for recommendations concerning SEA and
AQM for actors on the European and national/local
level.

Air Quality Management and
Strategic Environment Assessment:
A Decision-Makers’ Handbook



More information of G-FORS project

www.g-fors.eu

Thank you for your attention


Some of the issues for practice
AQM:
problematic territorial source of the AQ problem
– beyond admin. boundaries: economic activities, topography…
choice of implementation model (right tiers/strategies)
– Horizontal coordination
– Vertical integration
– Narrow implementation

contested measurement of the problem
– Problem definition
– Who should produce data?
– Role of non expert knowledge in data collection

low visibility of the AQ problem

integrating use of relevant expert and local knowledge

Lessons to draw from the SEA case studies
Recommendations on governance for sustainability

►The role of SEA (inform the plans, facilitate transparency,
legitimacy and stakeholder “buy-in”, inform options for wider
debates) needs to be clarified

• A tick-the-box approach harms the potential of SEA as a tool
for sustainable policies

• SEA must help institutionalise environment policies across
departmental structures and priorities

• SEA must be integrated seamlessly into national planning
systems

Lessons to draw from the AQM case studies
Recommendations on knowledge for sustainability (2)

►The complexity of AQ issues must be addressed so that levels of public
participation in policy-making can increase

• Regional/ local strategies (awareness campaign, regional/local
information and communication networks and involvement of NGOS and
stakeholders, e.g. health interests) must address the problem of low public
participation

►Low visibility of AQ problems limit policy integration between the various
tiers of government as policy makers have not access to local knowledge,
hence no understanding of particular local circumstances that need to be
addressed

• Policy-makers must understand that different forms of knowledge are key
variables to understand local AQ issues and how to solve them

Lessons to draw from the SEA case studies
Recommendations on governance for sustainability

► Policy makers can facilitatethe process of learning by integrating more
actors in SEA process, using independent bodies or experts to arbitrate
between actors, facilitating dialogue, changing the policy management,
establishing baselines

• Policy-makers should consider forms of consultations mechanisms to
ensure that contributions from different sectors / spatial scales and cross
boundary working be enabled and inform both the plan making and SEA

• Policy makers need to accept that conflicts between different stakeholders
within the SEA consultation process brings about a political dimension to
the plan making that may require institutional or/and procedural changes
to ensure transparency and secure consensus

Case Studies - AQM
Six case studies (Germany, Italy, UK, Hungary)
• EU regulations state that there is a problem
but offer no solutions
• Strong implication that local action is needed
• But targets and sanctions largely absent
• Local actors argued the ‘problem’ cannot be
fully resolved locally

Case Studies - AQM
• Issue largely ‘invisible’ (i.e. a non-issue) to the
wider public
• Considerable scientific and technical
knowledge available
• Knowledgescape dominated by
expert/scientific knowledge and institutional
knowledge.
• Conflicts between scientists/experts regarding
the knowledge base and its use, not least over
causes and measurement

Case Studies - AQM
• Governance arrangements hierarchical
• Some evidence of networks (bargaining)
• Governmental actors (professionals and
politicians) played a key role - degree of their
involvement varied at different points in the
policy process.
• A lack of specific European procedural
regulations

Case Studies - SEA
8 Case studies
Model 1
• SEA viewed a sectoral ‘environmental tool’
imposed by higher authorities
• A ‘tick box’ approach adopted
• Little attempt to consider SEAs wider
implications or to open up the process to
other actors

Case Studies - SEA
Model 2
• SEA viewed as an opportunity for politicians to
foster a network mode of governance that
‘aspired’ to arguing
• Politicians seemed to view it as a strategic
political tool that could be used to achieve
particular ends

Summing up

• Can distinguish between hierarchies in terms
of the extent to which they regulate processes
or outcomes
• The SEA directive sets general outcome
standards and prescribes hierarchical
regulation of the process, not the outcomes. It
regulates how to produce an SEA, but does
not bind local actors to any specific outcome

Summing up
• Case studies show the three dimensions of
sustainability – consistency,
comprehensiveness and aggregation – are
hard to reconcile
• Trade off between them

"Governance for Sustainability" by Reinhard Martinsen, City of Hannover

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à "Governance for Sustainability" by Reinhard Martinsen, City of Hannover

Similaire à "Governance for Sustainability" by Reinhard Martinsen, City of Hannover (20)

Plus de ICLEI Sustainability Management & Urban Governance

Plus de ICLEI Sustainability Management & Urban Governance (20)

"Governance for Sustainability" by Reinhard Martinsen, City of Hannover