EN EN
EN
EN 1 EN
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
National Sustainable Development Strategies in the European Union
A first analysis by the European Commission
April 2004
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4
3. Analytical framework................................................................................................... 5
4. Preparation of NSDS.................................................................................................... 7
5. Content of national sustainable development strategies ............................................ 11
6. Implementation and review of NSDS ........................................................................ 17
7. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 19
3
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro1
, the “Earth Summit” adopted Agenda 21, a plan of action to
stimulate progress towards sustainable development (SD). Chapter eight of Agenda 21
recommends that governments draw up national sustainable development strategies (NSDS)2
.
The 1997 Special Session of the UN General Assembly set a target date of 2002 for their
elaboration. In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) reiterated this
recommendation: the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation urges countries to make progress
in the formulation and elaboration of NSDS and begin their implementation by 20053
.
Following the outcome of Johannesburg, the Environment Council conclusions of 17 October
2002, urged Member States to implement these strategies and…
“promote … an exchange of information concerning their sustainable
development strategies or plans” (point 25).
The Brussels 2003 spring summit also concluded that:
“in order to deliver the full set of reforms proposed in Göteborg, it is crucial
that EU institutions and the Member States take action to enhance the
effectiveness and coherence of existing processes, strategies and instruments”.
This review of the 15 Member States (MS) and the 10 acceding countries (AC) aims to
contribute to the fulfilment of the above Council Conclusions. It is also an input to the
forthcoming 2004 review of the European Union’s own Sustainable Development Strategy
(EU SDS).
Many MS and AC have only recently adopted national strategies and have not yet fully
implemented them, while the remainder are still actively preparing their strategies. Given this,
it would be premature to assess their implementation, let alone their impact. Therefore this
review aims to take stock of progress in preparing NSDS and initial attempts at their
implementation. It also aims to gain new insights into the structure and scope of the available
national strategies as well as the different institutional and procedural settings for their
preparation and implementation. Another aim of this review is to lay the basis for the
subsequent identification of emerging best practices and innovative processes for the
preparation, implementation and monitoring of NSDS, especially with regards to improving
the coherence of sustainable development policies across sectors and levels of governance.
Special attention is paid to the links between NSDS and the EU’s own SD strategy adopted in
Gothenburg in 2001, as well as with the international commitments made at the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002.
1
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
2
Chapter 8.7 of Agenda 21 states that: “Governments, in cooperation, where appropriate, with
international organizations, should adopt a national strategy for sustainable development based on,
inter alia, the implementation of decisions taken at the Conference, particularly in respect of Agenda
21”.
3
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, Chapter H§162(b) says that States should: “take immediate steps
to make progress in the formulation and elaboration of national strategies for sustainable development
and begin their implementation by 2005”.
4
2. METHODOLOGY
The analysis compares the key characteristics of the publicly available NSDS documents.
Summary documents of national plans were consulted whenever they were available. This
was complemented with relevant information found on official country websites. The
outcomes from the 2002 The Hague4
and 2003 Vienna5
conferences on NSDS were also
instrumental.
Other strategy documents support the preparation and implementation of NSDS. These
include: strategies for economic development, spatial planning, environment, scientific
support programmes, as well as thematic strategies. These documents were consulted when
considered relevant to the analysis.
The analysis focuses on the following three questions:
• How was the NSDS prepared? In particular what were the institutional and procedural
settings for the preparation of the NSDS? What was the role of civil society?
• What is the main focus and content? In short, what are the key themes, the main
objectives and measures? What is the level of policy integration and coherence, and what
are the links with other strategies (sectoral, local, regional, EU, global)?
• How is implementation of the strategy organised? Notably which institutional
mechanisms are foreseen? Are there indicators to measure progress? What, if any, are the
procedures for review and evaluation?
For each MS and AC, a summary country profile was drafted and sent to national
representatives for comments and validation. These country profiles form the basis for this
synthesis report and can be found in the annex.
However, a number of knowledge gaps limit the scope of the analysis. These include:
• Most documents analysed do not reveal how policy choices were made. That is, how the
various economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of policy actions were
balanced and weighted against each other. It is therefore unclear which criteria were used
for including specific policy measures in the NSDS and making possible trade-offs. Nor
was it possible to determine to what extent methodically sound ex-ante impact assessments
were used to inform these policy choices. The analysis therefore focuses on the
institutional mechanisms for policy preparation.
• Few of the earlier NSDS have at some point carried out ex post evaluations of progress in
implementing the provisions of the strategy. On this matter, given the limited sample, only
an analysis of the indicators used for reviewing progress and a description of the
review/evaluation process itself were considered meaningful. Consequently, no
conclusions could be drawn on the real impact of the NSDS on policy making and
unsustainable trends. Neither was it possible to determine potential obstacles to their
implementation.
4
National Strategies for Sustainable Development: “Facts, Faces and Future Challenges”, The Hague, the
Netherlands 16-18 June 2002.
5
Sustainable Development in an Enlarged Union: Linking National Strategies and Strengthening
European Coherence, Vienna, Austria 27-29 April 2003.
5
3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Following the publication of the Brundtland report in 1987, sustainable development has
become a central policy goal in many countries and at global level. This is a result of the
realisation that due to current patterns of production and consumption the planet’s
development path neither meet the needs of large parts of the world’s population (e.g. because
of low levels of economic growth and employment, the imbalanced distribution of wealth and
the adverse effects on the quality of the environment) nor secure the ability of future
generations worldwide to meet their needs (e.g. because of the pressures and impacts exerted
on the planet’s natural environment and its life carrying capacity) This realisation resulted to
the call, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992,
for inventing a new model of development that would reconcile the aspirations for economic
well being, social cohesion and the preservation of our natural environment. It was also
recognised that such a goal could not be achieved without profound changes in our economic
and social structures and our behaviour. Moreover, it was also acknowledged that to achieve
SD meant both addressing a number of concrete issues (e.g. economic and social development
as well as reverting unsustainable environmental trends) and reforming the policy making
process itself, with a view to enhancing public participation and ensuring policy coherence.
Given the wide range of issues, differences in emphasis and mechanisms that SD can cover, it
is useful to have a reference framework before attempting a comparative assessment. For the
purpose of this analysis, both the EU SDS experience and the OECD/UNDP guidelines for
good practice6
in preparing, implementing and evaluating NSDS have provided such a
framework.
3.1. The EU SD strategy
In developing the EU strategy for sustainable development and in line with the above, the
Commission started from the Brundtland definition of sustainable development. That is…
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
This is generally interpreted in a broad sense as offering a vision of progress that integrates
and balances social, economic and environmental concerns. However, this very broad scope
makes it very difficult to reach a consensus about what it actually means in practice, with
the ensuing risk that sustainable development becomes an “empty box” into which all existing
economic, social and environmental policies are dropped and simply re-labelled, while
changing very little.
To avoid this outcome, the Commission aimed to draw out some key ideas linked to the
Brundtland definition on which there would be a very wide consensus, and to build an
operational strategy on them. They include:
• A focus on quality of life - Sustainable development must imply striking the “right”
balance between the different factors (economic, social, and environmental) that contribute
to our overall quality of life and that of our children. This may involve making trade-offs,
and so it is an inherently political task. Pursuing sustainable development implies looking
at long term issues, while acting now. It is also a dynamic process, as public priorities
evolve over time, and technology open up new possibilities and risks. Political priorities
6
Barry et al.: Sustainable Development Strategies: a resource book, OECD & UNDP, 2001
6
may also vary from place to place or from country to country. Nevertheless, a number of
sustainable development principles can guide countries in their choice.
• A responsible approach to managing resources - Sustainable development also implies
that we should ensure that the consumption of resources and their associated impacts do
not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment and that the linkages between
economic growth and resource use should be broken.
• Coherence in policy making - In many cases interdependencies or “spill-overs” between
sectors are not fully taken into account, so policies in different sectors pull in opposite
directions. This undermines their effectiveness and wastes resources. Improving coherence
means better exploiting the potential synergies between policy areas, and dealing with
unavoidable trade-offs in a transparent and responsible manner. Policy integration should
go furthest where there is a high level of inter-dependence, and hence the potential gains
from better co-ordination are expected to be greatest.
• In addition and in order to focus attention and effort, the strategy also identified a limited
set of concrete priority areas: two socially unsustainable trends (ageing and poverty
eradication) and four environmental priority areas for action: climate change, environment
and health, transport and land use, and nature and biodiversity. The latter are “slow
burning” issues with high environmental, social and economic spill-overs, and involve
high risks to people’s quality of life.
In sum, sustainable development is partly about “objectives” (what type of outcomes we want
to achieve) and partly about “means” (what policies do we need to achieve these outcomes).
Sustainable development therefore puts a premium on open debate about political
priorities, in the context of a representative and accountable political system. In this debate
we end up very quickly in a discussion of institutional questions, and facing difficult problems
of reforming how policy decisions are made and by whom. Sustainable development is
therefore closely connected to the issue of governance.
3.2. OECD/UNDP concept of National Sustainable Development Strategies
The OECD/UNDP resource book on SDS states that NSDS should provide a strategic
approach to help achieve a country’s desired long term sustainable development path,
containing clearly defined long term and intermediate policy objectives, and specific actions
and a timetable to achieve them. They should also contain provisions for monitoring and
evaluating progress, and for periodic reviews. When developing NSDS, countries therefore
have to set up appropriate information, coordination, participation, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms as illustrated below.
7
Source: Barry et.al. (2001): Sustainable Development Strategies: a resource book, OECD & UNDP
The extent to which NSDS can bring about positive change in unsustainable trends will to a
large extent be determined by the quality of the underlying mechanisms for preparation,
implementation and evaluation. The OECD and UNDP consider therefore that getting the
process right is key to achieving a sustainable growth path.
With this in mind, this review focuses on analysing the key mechanisms for preparation of the
NSDS (chapter 4), the content of the strategies (chapter 5), and the implementation and
review/evaluation mechanisms set in place (chapter 6).
4. PREPARATION OF NSDS
4.1. Most EU 25 countries have by now a national SD strategy
A total of 20 of the 25 MS and AC have developed a national strategy and are currently
implementing them. This includes nearly all current Member States (with the exception of
Spain7
), and four of the ten accession countries (Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia). The
other countries are in the process of preparing their NSDS. Cyprus and Slovenia do not have a
NSDS but touch upon the three dimensions of sustainable development in their National
Development Plans (NDP). From an environmental perspective it is also worth mentioning
that all AC, with the exception of Malta8
, have developed National Environmental Action
Programmes (NEAP) whose aim is to integrate environmental considerations in other policy
fields and to adopt and implement the European Union’s Environmental Acquis.
Some Member States, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and the UK, developed
NSDS at a very early stage before or shortly after the 1992 Rio conference and have since
regularly updated them. Initially these were mainly focused on the environmental dimension
7
Situation at the end of January 2004
8
Malta has a number of strategies for specific environmental issues, such as pesticides control, animal
welfare and fisheries conservation. The Rural Development Plan also addresses environmental issues.
Vision
Goal
Objectives
Participation
mechanisms
Negotiation
and conflict
management
Prioritising,
planning and
decision
making
Financial
resources
mobilisation
and distribution
Change management
mechanisms including
pilot activities
Communication
and awareness
raising
Monitoring and
accountability
Strategic assessment
- environment
- economic
- social
Information system
- track trends,
issues and needs
- research and
analysis
8
of sustainable development, but gradually encompassed more elements of the social and
economic dimensions.
Table 1: date of adoption of NSDS in relation to the adoption of EU SDS in 2001
Before 2001 After 2001 Under preparation /
revision
Member States The Netherlands (1),
Sweden, Finland,
United Kingdom (1)
and (2), Luxemburg,
Belgium (1)
Austria, Denmark,
Ireland, Germany,
Sweden Italy,
France, The
Netherlands (2)
Portugal
Spain, Belgium (2)
Acceding Countries Poland Slovakia, Lithuania,
Latvia, Cyprus
Hungary, Estonia,
Czech republic,
Slovenia, Malta
Strategies are updated and improved in the light of new knowledge and changing national and
international circumstances. Several countries reviewed their NSDS in the context of the
preparations for the September 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg. For others this was the sign to begin the preparation of their NSDS. Many paid
specific attention to integrate the key elements of the European Union’s SDS, adopted at the
Göteborg Council in June 2001.
4.2. The need for coordination: a spur to institutional creativity
Given the many dimensions to be taken into account in the preparation of NSDS, coordination
of the different policy areas was one of the first key issues to address. To meet the need for
coordination and aiming to make their commitment more visible, MS and AC have often
created new ad hoc institutions for coordinating the preparation of their NSDS.
4.2.1. Government-led vs. mixed structures
The organisation responsible for preparation of the NSDS is typically an inter-ministerial
body, composed of high level representatives from all relevant Ministries. Exceptions to this
are Italy, Slovenia, Ireland and Luxemburg9
, where individual Ministries or agencies remain
responsible for preparing the draft SDS, and consult other Ministries and stakeholders at a
later stage.
This largely common coordination structure hides substantial differences in the responsible
body’s composition and leadership. There are two distinct compositions:
• Coordination structures exclusively composed of representatives from government.
These countries include Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden, the
Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom.
9
Luxemburg is preparing a new legal framework where an Inter-ministerial Commission will be
responsible for preparing the draft version of the future sustainable development plans.
9
• Coordination structures composed of a mix of government representatives and key
stakeholders. This is the case for Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Ireland,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
4.2.2. Environment ministries in the forefront
The strategy is the collective responsibility of the entire Government, but Environment
Ministries often play a key role, as shown in table 2. This is most likely due to historical
reasons and the perception that the key priority of sustainable development is to limit damage
to the life carrying capacity of the environment.
France, Finland, Portugal, Germany, Malta, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have placed the
responsibility for coordination directly under the Prime-Minister’s office in order to achieve
maximum coherence between the social, economic and environmental dimensions of
sustainable development. This could also be an indication of the priority attached to the
strategy, a sign of political commitment to its implementation and a means of ensuring
engagement of the different stakeholders.
Table 2: Which government ministry or agency has the lead on the NSDS preparation?
Slovenia, Cyprus Institute for Macroeconomic Analysis (Nat. Development Plan)
Denmark Environmental Protection Agency holds the Secretariat
Luxemburg, Italy, Greece,
Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Ireland, Belgium10
Environment Ministers
Austria Environment Minister in collaboration with other key Ministers
The Netherlands Environment Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister
Germany Minister of State serving the Chancellery
Estonia Prime Minister, Economy and Environment Ministers
Finland Prime Minister, but secretariat is in Environment Ministry
France Prime Minister and Minister for Sustainable Development
Latvia Prime Minister and Minister for the Environment
Portugal, Lithuania, Malta Prime Minister
4.3. Common but differentiated stakeholder participation & public consultation
Most countries analysed strive to ensure a broad participation of stakeholders and public
consultation as a means of achieving the broad consensus needed for society to accept,
support and engage in the structural changes that sustainable development implies.
Participation and consultation help build this consensus, allow people to express their
preferences and needs, and help the identification of the provisions needed to address them.
10
Initially, in Belgium, the responsibility was assigned to a Secretary of State for SD.
10
They also help to mobilise actions by all actors, which is crucial for successful
implementation of any SD strategy. Both are therefore essential components of NSDSs.
4.3.1. Stakeholder participation
Nearly all EU 25 countries have some form of institutional structure for the participation of
stakeholders in the preparation of the NSDS. However, these structures vary substantially
across countries in terms of the status, timing and breadth of involvement of stakeholders in
the policy process.
Stakeholders can either be organised in National Councils for Sustainable Development
independent of the inter-ministerial working bodies, or they can form an integral part of the
working bodies (table 3). In both systems stakeholders provide regular advice to the Ministers
responsible for the preparation of the NSDS, but in the latter case usually occurs earlier in the
process. On the other hand, independent Councils could be better placed to provide objective
critical reviews of existing policies.
Table 3: organisation of stakeholder participation
Independent Integrated
Member States Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Italy,
Spain, Sweden, Netherlands,
United Kingdom
Austria, Finland, Ireland,
Portugal
Accession Countries Cyprus, Hungary Czech Republic, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta
Institutional participation is in certain cases, like in Latvia, fairly inclusive, and tries to
associate besides the traditional social partners all groups and organisations directly or
indirectly affected by the strategy, including minority groups mentioned in Agenda 21.
Finland requested stakeholders to develop their own sustainable development programmes,
which were then included in the Government’s evaluation programme for sustainable
development. France and Portugal emphasised the importance of including regional and
provincial representatives in the preparation of the NSDS. In some other countries, however,
institutional participation is limited to the key social, economic and environmental players.
The level to which stakeholders are involved in the actual policy process reflects countries’
past institutional settings and preferences.
4.3.2. Public consultation
Nearly all countries complement the formal participation of organised stakeholders with some
form of consultation of the general public. This consists of the organisation of public
hearings, thematic and sectoral workshops, national stakeholder conferences, and website
consultations to allow comment on draft versions of the NSDS. This form of consultation
fulfils the double aim of providing information to citizens on the government’s intentions and
of involving them in determining political priorities.
Many public consultations however came very late in the policy process. Hence, they only
marginally influenced the strategy’s content and broad orientations. Some countries did
involve the public in the early stages: the Netherlands in part based their NSDS on a prior
11
review of actions and visions developed by Dutch society (incl. citizens, industry and
scientific research centres). In a preparatory report, Belgium inquired social groups on their
views with regard to sustainable development, and fed this information into the NSDS.
France organised public hearings on its proposed Environmental Charter, and the visions
expressed were taken into account in the drafting of the NSDS. These countries went even
further in trying to build public ownership by organising the strategy according to the
different groups of actors that need to be engaged.
4.3.3. The role of Parliament
The role played by the national Parliament in the preparation and adoption of the NSDS is not
always clear. Sweden, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia submitted their NSDS to
Parliament for approval, and Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia did the same for their National
Environment Programmes. France consulted its Economic and Social Committee and
Parliament at the end of the NSDS’s preparatory process. Portugal consulted its Parliament in
preparation of its Framework Strategy. In future, the Belgian Federal Parliament will help
guide the preparation and implementation of the NSDS through the organisation of a yearly
debate on desired path towards sustainable development. The Irish Parliament established a
special sub-committee to monitor and examine sustainable development issues.
The mechanisms for preparing NSDS vary substantially between the countries surveyed. This
diversity is also reflected in the content of the NSDS.
5. CONTENT OF NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
The following section identifies the key characteristics of the content of the different NSDS.
First their central purpose and focus is described. Next, the priority issues are highlighted
and compared to the environmental priorities in the EU-SDS. Finally, the mechanisms and
tools for horizontal (across departments) and vertical (across levels of government) policy
coherence are discussed.
5.1. Framework strategies vs. action programmes
The NSDS reviewed are intended as either framework plans for future policy making or
concrete action programmes, but usually contain elements of both.
• Framework strategies set out general policy directions and guidance for sustainable
development, combined with broad lines of action for specific problem areas. Their main
objective is to change the processes of policy development and implementation. They are
often complemented by separate, more detailed (sectoral) action plans or annual working
programmes.
• Action programmes contain concrete, short and medium term objectives, with strict
timetables and detailed measures. A few NSDS belong to this category
• Mixed approaches describe those NSDS, which are intended to be framework documents,
but which also contain very detailed policy actions.
12
Table 4: tentative classification of National Sustainable Development Strategies
Framework strategies Action Programmes Mixed
Member States Austria, Denmark,
Finland, Greece,
Poland, Spain, Portugal
The Netherlands Belgium, France, UK,
Germany, Ireland,
Luxemburg, Sweden,
Accession
Countries
Latvia, Cyprus (Nat.
Dev. Plan), Estonia,
Czech Republic (draft
NSDS)
Lithuania Slovakia
The OECD/UNDP resource book on SDS advocates that NSDS should contain a combination
of both strategic long term policy guidelines and intermediate objectives with more specific
actions. The EU SDS also followed a mixed approach.
5.2. Broadly similar aims, but different focus
5.2.1. Three dimensions generally covered
A better integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable
development is one of the main reasons for developing a NSDS. Almost all countries cover
the three dimensions, although in different ways. For instance, whereas some countries (e.g.
Sweden, the UK, Lithuania and Poland) include considerations in relation to competitiveness,
innovation and economic growth, others do so to a much lesser extent. Italy took a two
dimensional approach and focused its strategy on decoupling economic growth from
environmental degradation. In the choice of topic treated many countries still put more
emphasis on the environmental pillar, reflecting what they perceived to be the main concern
of sustainable development and the institutional responsibility for the elaboration of the
strategy. At the same time, reflections on the ways to ensure that environmental policy is costeffective
(e.g. through the increased use of market-based instruments) are not well developed
in the Strategies.
Table 5: Focus and scope of NSDS
Environment Three dimensions Three + additional
Member States Italy Austria, Germany, Finland,
Denmark, Greece, Ireland,
Luxemburg, Portugal, Spain
(draft), Sweden, UK
France (cultural, regional,
governance), Belgium
(governance), the
Netherlands (governance)
Accession
Countries
Hungary Cyprus (NDP), Estonia (Draft),
Slovenia (NEDS)
Slovakia (cultural)
Slovenia (cultural)
Poland (cultural)
Lithuania (regional)
Czech Republic (cultural)
13
5.2.2. Additional dimensions
A few countries, mainly accession states, have explicitly added a cultural dimension to their
strategy, emphasising local traditions, value systems, arts and the preservation of historical
and cultural heritage as an integral part of sustainable development. This is the case for
Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic (draft plan), Estonia (draft plan), Slovenia (Strategic
Economic Development Plan) but also France. Other countries, such as Finland and
Lithuania also implicitly recognise the importance of the cultural dimension through the
choice of specific policy priorities and measures.
Several also focus on education and training as a key area for action with a view to
changing unsustainable behaviour and preferences over time.
Countries have generally included an international dimension in their NSDS, thereby
acknowledging that national consumption and production patterns have consequences that
reach beyond a country’s territory. Bilateral and multilateral agreements often form the basis
for choosing policy priorities in the NSDS (e.g. climate change, protection of biodiversity…).
Countries usually include a separate international section in their NSDS. Common themes
treated are trade and environment (Doha-round), foreign aid and international solidarity
(Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development), and the outcome of the
WSSD. Other issues include capacity building, urban development, sustainable tourism, and
debt reduction for the poorest countries.
Governance is also often considered as an additional dimension of sustainable development
in NSDSs. This acknowledges that for unsustainable trends to be averted, not only policies do
policies need to be changed, but also the way they are developed. NSDSs are instrumental in
guiding this change in policy making, through increasing policy coherence and integration.
5.3. Similar priorities but various methods for clustering
Most countries include a fairly large number of priority areas. Others, like France or Belgium,
take an even more holistic approach (in line with Agenda 21) and cover a broader scope.
Many strategies however lack prioritisation, with the associated risk of diluting important
priority areas in a sea of other policy actions and hampering the implementation of the
strategy.
5.3.1. A similar breadth of issues …
The NSDSs reviewed cover a wide variety of social, economic and environmental issues,
including:
• Sectoral issues such as sustainable energy, transport, agriculture, industry, chemicals,
SMEs, development of service sectors, government, tourism, fisheries, forestry, water, etc.
• Cross-sectoral issues such as biodiversity, climate change, atmosphere, noise, soil,
radioactivity, marine environment, waste, nature protection, desertification, environment
and health, ageing, gender equity, poverty, employment, education and training, social
cohesion, cultural diversity, minority groups, security, research and innovation,
governance, competitiveness, trade, overseas development aid, production and
consumption, corporate responsibility, etc.
• Territorial issues such as regional, urban and rural development, landscapes, coastal
zones, spatial planning and land use change, infrastructure, etc.
14
5.3.2. … clustered in different ways
In an attempt to increase policy coherence and to prompt mobilisation, countries usually
cluster the policies contained in their NSDS into a limited number of categories. The
following types of policy cluster were identified:
• Broad cross cutting objectives: an example of this approach is given by Austria that
clustered its priority areas around achieving (1) a better quality of life, (2) becoming a
dynamic business location, (3) protecting the living space and (4) fulfilling Austria’s
international commitments. Within each broad category several thematic, sectoral and
geographic issues work together towards the common objectives. Others took a similar
approach, including, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Estonia (draft plan) and the Czech
Republic (draft plan).
• Actor-centred strategies: the French strategy is an example of this approach, in which
some actions are clustered around the role of citizens, regions and provinces (“territoires”),
economic actors and Government. Poland followed a similar approach, focussing on
actions by society, the economy and the state. Belgium added a section to its NSDS
dedicated to strengthening the role of key groups (women, children, foreigners and
refugees, in accordance with the provisions of Agenda 21).
• The classical three pillar approach: that is the addition of social, economic and
environmental objectives. The United Kingdom distinguishes between objectives and
measures for a sustainable economy, for building sustainable communities and to manage
the environment and resources. It adds a fourth category of objectives and measures for
international co-operation and development, as well as a category for horizontal measures.
Other countries that follow this approach are Belgium, Greece, Finland, Lithuania (adding
a regional dimension). There are many cross references between the three clusters.
• Mix of sectoral, thematic and geographic issues: the German NSDS is an example of
such an approach, which focuses on eight priority areas: (1) climate change, (2) mobility,
(3) animal welfare, (4) demographic change, (5) education and training, (6) innovation, (7)
land-use planning and (8) global responsibilities. Other countries that have a similar
approach include Ireland, Latvia, and Slovakia.
A particularity of AC’s worth noting is that many of the priority areas are centred on
contributing to the multiple goals of bridging the economic and social development gaps that
exist with current MS, and adoption of the environmental acquis, while preserving the cultural
identities.
A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis is a tool used by some
countries for the selection of policy priorities. Cyprus for example used this tool for the
development of its National Development Strategy. Portugal did the same for the preparation
of the Implementation Plan of its Framework Sustainable Development Strategy
5.4. Policy coherence and integration
The search for more policy coherence and better integration of social, economic and
environmental development goals is stated by many countries as one of the explicit aims of
the NSDS. Countries have had varying degrees of success in providing institutional and
procedural arrangements and policy measures to enhance horizontal and vertical policy
coherence in their strategies.
15
5.4.1. Horizontal integration
Besides coordination mechanisms and provisions for stakeholder consultation, horizontal
measures include tools such as guidelines for policy (Belgium), the use of Impact Assessment
(United Kingdom), SWOT analysis (Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus) or spatial planning (France),
as well as cross-sectoral policy measures such as fiscal reforms, education and training,
capacity building and communication, and stimulating the production and dissemination of
technical innovations.
An interesting example of how policy coherence can be further increased comes from the
Netherlands, where every Ministerial department has to explain in its financial statements for
the coming year how it will take account of the different dimensions of SD in preparing and
implementing policy. The United Kingdom implements a similar approach, requiring each
government department to present a report of the sustainable development impacts of
measures for which it is requesting funding, as part of its regular two-yearly spending review.
Table 6: measures for horizontal integration in NSDS
The EU SDS also contains several horizontal policy recommendations. They aim to tackle
some of the most important common causes of unsustainable trends, and include “getting
prices right”, consultation with stakeholders, improved communication, better regulation
through sustainable impact assessment, and investing in science and technology.
5.4.2. Vertical integration
This section looks at how coherence between levels of governance is promoted, i.e. how
NSDS are linked to European, regional and sub-national strategies for sustainable
development.
i) EUSDS – NSDS coherence
11
IA: impact assessment; SIA: sustainability impact assessment; SEA: strategic environmental
assessment; IEA: integrated environmental assessment
IA11
Central
guiding
principles
SWOT
analysis
SIA SEA and
IEA
Spatial
planning
Fiscal
reforms
Education,
training &
commu-
nication
Capacity
building
Innovation
and R&D
MS Denmark
Belgium
Ireland,
Portugal
Belgium
Finland
France
Lux. NL
Sweden
UK
Denmark
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Spain
Germany
Sweden
France
Greece
Lux
Sweden
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Ireland
Italy
NL
UK
Sweden
Greece Italy
Lux.
Portugal
Sweden
Belgium
Italy
Belgium
AC Cyprus
Slovakia
Slovenia
Hungary
Slovakia
Slovenia
Lithuania
Cyprus Lithuania
16
Despite having been adopted prior to the EUSDS, the NSDSs from Belgium, Finland, Ireland,
Luxemburg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, also, not surprisingly, contain
objectives and measures for policy areas covered in the EUSDS (see above). Poland did not
include climate change because they already have achieved their emission reduction target
under the Kyoto protocol.
On the other hand, the NSDSs of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Slovakia, and Sweden were established after the EU SDS was adopted. They all
contain references to the EU SDS and include the four European environmental priority areas
in their own priorities, sometimes explicitly, sometimes as part of a broader policy area.
Belgium and Estonia go even further and explicitly base their new draft NSDS on the content
of the EUSDS.
ii) Regional SDS
• Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland) came together to draft
a Nordic strategy for sustainable development (currently being revised for the 2005-
2008 period), in which they coordinate measures of particular regional importance. Issues
covered include climate change, biodiversity, natural and cultural environment, the sea,
chemicals, food safety, energy, transport, agriculture, business and industry, fisheries,
hunting and aquaculture, forestry, knowledge, instruments and resource efficiency, public
participation and local agenda 21.
• A regional Baltic Sustainable Development process was initiated in 1996 between the 11
countries concerned (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Russia,
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and the EU, together with a list of
intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), international financing institutions (IFIs), and
regional networks of cities and regions and international and regional non-governmental
organisations (NGOs). The Baltic Agenda 21 project sets out future development visions
for a number of key sectors of the economy, such as energy, fisheries, forestry, agriculture,
transport, tourism, education and training, spatial planning and industry, and attaches
specific action plans to them.
iii) The sub-national governmental level
In many countries regional and local authorities manage substantial economic, social,
environmental and spatial planning activities. They are also key players when it comes to
involving the public in decision making.
Mechanisms for establishing links between the national and local or regional level frequently
mentioned in NSDSs are:
• Support for the development of local Agenda 21 projects
• Support for networking between local authorities,
• Funding and capacity building for local and regional SD
• Help in the development of local and regional SDS.
The Dutch NSDS gives general guidance for SD at the local level, which is then to be tailored
to the local situation. The UK’s NSDS makes local Agenda 21 strategies and regional
17
strategies compulsory from 2000 onwards. The UK government also issued guidance on
Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks (RSDF). In its “actors-centred” strategy,
France devotes one of the sections to the “territoires”, a notion that encompasses both regions
and sub-regional levels of governance.
However, detailed information on the extent to which there are fully fledged local or regional
sustainable development strategies in the EU 25 and how intimately they are linked
to/incorporated in the NSDS is lacking.
5.5. Concluding remarks on the content of NSDS
The diversity in approaches taken in NSDSs is striking, yet they do show similarities in terms
of key themes present, and ways to increase policy coherence. Strategies, however, often lack
sufficient prioritisation of issues and the interlinkage between social, economic and
environmental dimensions (including the identification of possible trade-offs and ways to
mitigate them, e.g. through impact assessment and transition models) is usually weak. A
feature commonly missing is an estimation of the financial and budgetary implications of the
NSDS and the integration of SD priorities in the budgetary process. Nor do most strategies
seem to contain an assessment of the administrative workload their implementation might
entail.
6. IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW OF NSDS
6.1. Institutional settings for implementation
The institutional mechanisms for implementation of the NSDS vary depending on the specific
constitutional circumstances of each country. They are not necessarily identical to the
mechanisms for preparation, although the same broad categories appear. In some cases, such
as in the UK, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Greece and Italy, one Minister has the overall
responsibility for coordination of the implementation (usually the Minister for the
Environment or the Prime Minister). However, the whole of Government remains politically
responsible, and in all countries each Ministry, regional or local authority (in respect of the
subsidiarity principle) is responsible for the actions that fall under its authority.
Some interesting cases of institutional mechanisms were noted:
• France has set up a network of high level administrators in each Ministry responsible for
co-ordinating the implementation of the NSDS. Plans exist to organise joint study trips for
these administrators to other EU capitals to learn from their experiences. The study trips
should also enhance contacts between administrators, with the aim to improve
collaboration between them.
• Belgium created a similar network of SD cells, one in every Ministry. The cells are
responsible for the co-ordination of each Ministry’s responsibilities, and are assisted in this
by a permanent inter-ministerial secretariat.
• Spain also foresees the creation of an institutional body whose function will be to increase
and deepen co-operation between Ministries.
• In some cases, like in Ireland, Denmark and Austria, Government departments or interministerial
commissions lead in the development of more detailed annual working
programmes to give effect to the strategy.
18
• Stakeholders sometimes participate actively in the implementation. In Finland, for
example, several sectors have drawn up their own programmes and strategies for
sustainable development, some of which have been developed in co-operation with the
administration.
To assist with the implementation, Belgium included in its NSDS a set of policy guidelines
for decision makers. This is part of a mechanism aimed at building capacity within the
administration, and enhancing knowledge about sustainable development. Cyprus, in its
Environmental programme, and Sweden in its NSDS also foresee measures to reinforce
administrative capacities.
A lack of a legally binding basis means that NSDS mainly rely on the political commitment
of the government in place and the engagement of the different stakeholders for its
implementation. Implementation also depends on how target audiences appropriate the
objectives set out in the strategy. Involvement of all stakeholders in the preparation of the
strategy may enhance this.
6.2. Indicators for monitoring progress
There are often significant discrepancies between the intentions set out in the strategies and
what is or can be realised in practice. This can have many causes. For instance, despite the
search for mutually reinforcing objectives and measures, conflicts can remain between the
social, economic and environmental objectives when it comes to putting the policies into
practice. It is therefore important to foresee procedures and instruments for monitoring and
reviewing progress in implementing NSDS.
6.2.1. Responsibilities
The institutional responsibility for reporting on progress is usually in the hands of the interministerial
working groups. This happens in the form of yearly or periodic progress reports,
based extensively on the use of indicators for sustainable development. Some countries have
also created institutional procedures for evaluations by independent experts. Belgium, for
example, attributed this task to its Federal Planning Bureau, in which a task force on
sustainable development periodically reports on the achievements and quality of the federal
government’s policies for sustainable development. The results of these expert reports feed
into the preparations for the next NSDS, thus closing the policy cycle.
6.2.2. Large variations in indicator frameworks
The NSDSs usually include indicators to allow for close monitoring of the objectives and
measures contained in the NSDS. Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, France,
Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Latvia and others, have developed separate
periodic publications on indicators for sustainable development. These contain a list of core
and more detailed indicators for sustainable development, and only partially cover the content
of the NSDS. Because of differing national circumstances, objectives and measures, it is not
surprising to see large variations in the indicators used to monitor progress. Nevertheless,
together they commonly cover the three social, economic and environmental dimensions of
SD, with often a predominant focus on environmental issues. They are mostly split into
several sub-themes with one or several indicator for each theme, and often arranged in a
DPSIR12
framework. The vast majority of indicators, however, only cover individual sectors
12
Driving force, Pressure, State, Impact, Response
19
or topics and do not provide information on interlinkages between different dimensions.
Efforts are nevertheless being progressively stepped up to devise such indicators13
.
Estonia and Slovenia include a number of composite indices to their NSDSs, such as the
Human Development Index, the Index for Environmental Space, the Ecological Footprint, and
the Genuine Saving Rate. Ireland includes the development of satellite green accounts14
. The
Netherlands is also working on a set of indicators for determining Sustainable National
Income (SNI). Austria is developing a set of indicators which will consider not only the
scientific-technically based measurement values, but also aspects of people’s perception. It
will also cope with relations and interlinkages. Regular updates are made to account for
changing priorities, and new data availabilities.
The lack of sound data to construct indicators for the follow-up of all aspects of the NSDS,
notably the interlinkages between the different dimensions of SD, is a problem shared by
many countries. Efforts exist in all countries to fill the gaps. The indicators are often produced
by networks consisting of Ministries, research institutes and the government’s statistical
office. Countries base their selection of indicators to a large extent on the indicators work
performed within the framework of the OECD, the UN, and the EU (e.g. structural indicators
and the international task force on sustainable development indicators set up by Eurostat),
facilitating comparison between countries. Denmark and Belgium also submitted the choice of
indicators to public consultation.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The review of NSDS in the 15 Member States and 10 acceding countries highlights the
variety of approaches taken in their preparation, coverage, implementation and review. It also
points to the common challenges confronting each country. We are at an early stage in a
learning process for the establishment and implementation of NSDS. The analysis therefore
illustrates the opportunities for joint action between the Member States and the
Commission, notably for identifying good practices, pooling knowledge and exchanging
experience.
7.1. Common challenges
Some of the biggest difficulties faced by many countries include:
• Getting the process right: institutional and procedural arrangements to a large extent
determine the success of a strategy in fostering integration, tackling cross-cutting and longterm
issues, and positively influencing unsustainable trends. Countries have been creative
in designing new institutions for this, but many barriers hinder their effectiveness. The
active, high level participation of key Ministries and the strong political support to achieve
what can be far reaching policy changes is necessary yet often lacking. Furthermore,
Ministries do not always have a good, let alone a common understanding of sustainable
development. Moreover, administrators have many difficulties to think “outside the box”
and, for example, take account of spillovers from their policy areas. Finally, apart from a
13
One should mention the work of the SDI Task Force on drafting a framework for sustainable
development indicators. The Task Force is organised by Eurostat and includes representatives from 16
countries (12 MS + 2 EFTA countries + 2 AC), several Commission DG’s, the EEA, the OECD and the
UN-CDS.
14
Eurostat is financing a pilot project in several MS to devise satellite green accounts, the so-called
NAMEA and SERIEE projects.
20
handful of countries, like the UK, NSDS show a lack of clear provisions to inform tradeoffs
and systematically assess costs and benefits that allow policy makers to take informed
decisions that reflect people’s preferences.
• Creating a sense of ownership: the review has shown that the processes often do not
sufficiently guarantee the full participation and engagement of all actors concerned.
Strategies also focus predominantly on actions to be taken by the government. A lack of
understanding of the concept of sustainable development, and the limited time and
resources to execute the measures contained in the NSDS, can also reduce the feeling of
ownership within the administrations themselves, whose priority will often remain focused
on achieving sectoral objectives. This lack of ownership can be part of the cause for
discrepancies between what is planned and what is actually done. A bottom-up approach
will increase the sense of ownership, but is a very time consuming and resource intensive
exercise.
• International collaboration: the public good and trans-boundary character of many
unsustainable trends renders policy action difficult if there is insufficient collaboration
across national boarders and between different levels of government. It is hard to organise
stable long term coalitions that prevent countries from free riding, in other words countries
benefiting from the action of others without making their own contribution to reducing the
problem.
• Finding a coherent vision or an agreed path for long term development: the objectives
and measures contained in the NSDSs are often a mixed bag or assembly of individual
actions. Therefore they are not always integrated into a broad framework, so that NSDSs
fail to pick up on or make use of interlinkages. Many decisions that are contrary to the
aims of NSDS also prevail. This is also reflected in the OECD’s country review of
NSDS15
, which concluded that "in most cases … goals pertaining to each dimension of SD
are simply listed alongside each other and can hardly been described as integrated into a
single strategy”.
• Prioritisation and concretisation of policies: addressing questions of policy coherence
becomes more difficult the larger the number of policy areas addressed by the NSDS. A
lack of prioritisation can be noted in many NSDS, and reflects the difficulties that
countries face to design NSDS with concrete, realistic and credible intermediate targets
and measures. Many objectives lack a concrete understanding of what they actually imply
and how they should be reached. The OECD review concludes that “there are often no
priorities among the goals…no indication of the time frame over which they can be
achieved, and little follow-up in terms of concrete actions”.
• Financial implications of the NSDS: the implementation of NSDS may require important
shifts in both policy priorities and budgets. Vested interests both in government and society
at large can hamper this process and allow only marginal shifts to occur, that are
insufficient to fundamentally change unsustainable trends.
• Matching intentions with action: to what extent NSDS remain declarations of intent or
actually have contributed substantially to changing the policy measures and the way they
are made, in many cases remains to be seen. However, there is no sign of a reversal for the
majority of unsustainable trends. Furthermore, insufficiently strong mechanisms for
15
OECD (2004): “Draft Final Report to Ministers, Ad hoc Group on Sustainable Development », §121.
21
monitoring and peer review of the NSDS can weaken a strategy’s effectiveness to foster
change. For many countries, effective monitoring of progress remains a difficulty.
Important data gaps prohibit reliable monitoring of measures. There are also large
uncertainties in establishing causal relationships between measures and changes in the state
of a problem.
7.2. Opportunities for joint action:
There is clearly a need to pool experiences and to develop a more systematic identification
and exchange of good practice between all actors involved (representatives from
Governments, National Councils, stakeholders and scientists) on issues such as:
• Key success factors in the preparation and implementation of NSDS.
• Institutional and analytical approaches to help policy makers identify policy priorities, look
for synergies and make trade-offs between conflicting objectives.
• Approaches to involving stakeholders in the process of developing and implementing
NSDS and for engaging the public through effective communication.
• Selection of credible objectives and effective use of milestones
• Efficiency of institutions and instruments to measure and evaluate progress towards
sustainable development
• Efficient horizontal measures and policy guidelines that link sectoral and thematic issues,
and increase policy coherence across sectors
• Experiences in use of geographic approaches to manage unsustainable trends in an
integrated fashion
• Experience in integrating cultural considerations in sustainable development policies
• The development of education/training and life long learning programmes geared towards
different decision making levels and type of actors, to promote a better understanding of
the concept, content and implementation of the many aspects of sustainable development.
There is also the need at EU level to increase synergies and complementarities between
national and European efforts on sustainable development in order to maximise the
effectiveness of policies at each level and to avoid conflicting policy measures. Formally the
national and EU strategies show a great deal of consistency because they address the same
broad issues. However, this does not guarantee consistency in the objectives and measures
taken. A more permanent exchange of information on good practices (e.g. through a dedicated
internet portal) is therefore necessary.
The review has shown that the EU and national strategies are at least to a certain degree
compatible in their choice of both thematic and horizontal priority areas. Further analysis may
well identify actions within these areas that could be managed more coherently. The planned
review of the EU-SDS will provide an opportunity to do this as well as to integrate more
closely the EU’s internal and global commitments (WSSD, Doha and Monterrey). It will also
be the occasion to introduce more clarity between different European processes (Cardiff,
Lisbon, Gothenburg and Johannesburg) and instruments (Extended Impact Assessment and
Indicators for Sustainable Development).