coordination challenges and innovations in 19 national sustainable development strategies 2006 world...

World Development Vol. 34, No. 12, pp. 2047–2063, 2006� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

0305-750X/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.03.003www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Coordination, Challenges, and Innovations in

19 National Sustainable Development StrategiesI

AXEL VOLKERYEuropean Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

DARREN SWANSONInternational Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada

KLAUS JACOBEnvironmental Policy Research Centre, Berlin, Germany

FRANCOIS BREGHAStratos Inc., Ottawa, Canada

and

LASZLO PINTER *

International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada

IThe oppersonalPolicy R* The pa

Approac

fur Tech

Canada,

http://w

Berlin C

would li

anonym

Schemm

Eby, Ga

IUCN; A

and by

Furtherm

Pezzack

Roland

Berlin, G

Summary. — In this article, we study 19 developing and developed countries to identify key chal-lenges, approaches, and innovations in strategic and coordinated action for sustainable develop-ment at the national level. We are interested in the institutional fabric of implementingsustainable development. What are governments actually doing to organize the processes requiredfor this? What are the institutional innovations in this regard and what kind of typologies can beidentified?

inions expressed here do not reflect any official opinion of the European Environment Agency. They reflectopinions of the author and have been developed when the author was affiliated with the Environmental

esearch Centre, Berlin.

per has been developed as part of the project ‘‘National Strategies for Sustainable Development. Challenges,

hes, and Innovations in Strategic and Coordinated Action’’ that has been funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft

nische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Foreign Affairs

and Environment Canada. The final project report and all country case studies can be downloaded at:

ww.iisd.org/measure/capacity/sdsip.asp. An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the 2004

onference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change, December 3–4, 2004 in Berlin. We

ke to thank all discussants for their comments. We are grateful for valuable comments provided by three

ous reviewers of World Development. We acknowledge the support and information provided by Jan-Peter

el and Harald Lossack of GTZ from the Government of Canada; Lynn Berthiaume, Lyn Ponniah, John

ry Pringle, Nancy Hamzawi, Sandra Scott, Cynthia MacRae, Jennifer Moore, and Catherine Coleman from

ndrew Deutz, Tabeth Chiuta, and Kirsten Rohrmann from the UN Division for Sustainable Development

all government officials who provided input and feedback toward the development of the case studies.

ore, we would like to thank all case study authors: Mary Jane Middelkoop, Barbara Sweazey, and Julie

from Stratos Inc., Canada and Simone Klawitter, Doris Tharan, Stefan Lindemann, Mireia Tarradell,

Zieschank, and Aleksandra Zlobinska from the Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universitat of

ermany. Final revision accepted: March 13, 2006.

2047

http://www.wri.org/wri/governance/pdf/ncsdsgfed/philippines.pdf

2048 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Despite some true progress made, our findings indicate that countries are still at the early stagesof learning toward effective action for sustainable development. This applies both to developingand developed countries. Key unsolved challenges include (a) coordination with the nationalbudget, (b) coordination with sub-national level sustainable development strategies, and (c) coor-dination with other national-level strategy processes.
� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words — sustainable development strategies, developing and developed countries, model ofstrategic management, tool box

1. INTRODUCTION

For over a decade now, the United Nationshas been asking countries to pursue strategicand coordinated action for sustainable develop-ment through the creation of national sustain-able development strategies (NSDS, see for anoverview UN DSD, 2004). Whereas the con-cept of sustainable development has establisheditself successfully as a central guiding principlefor many different political institutions at alllevels of public and corporate decision making,its translation into concrete action proves to bea much more difficult challenge (Lafferty, 2004;Lafferty & Meadowcraft, 2000; OECD, 2002).Five years after the Earth Summit in 1992, aSpecial Session of the United Nations came toa disappointing progress review: single successstories were outweighed by the overall failureof countries to give appropriate political weightto meaningful implementation (Brown, 1997).

This review led governments to agree on thetarget of having a NSDS introduced by 2002,the year of the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) in Johannesburg. Beingpushed by the OECD (OECD-DAC, 2001)and the United Nations (UN InternationalForum on National Strategies for SustainableDevelopment, 2001), nearly all countries inten-sified efforts and subsequently adopted new orrevised NSDS shortly before or after the WSSD(Jorgens, 2004).

A meaningful translation of the rather broadparadigm of sustainable development into con-crete action encounters many problems. Inter-national agencies (OECD, 2002; OECD-DAC,2001; UN DESA, 2002) as well as academicscholars (Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002; Janicke& Jorgens, 2000; Martinuzzi & Steurer, 2003)have developed a number of criteria of goodpractice for NSDS. They have been broadly re-flected and repeatedly discussed in recent years.The list of criteria comprises the developmentof long-term visions and their linkage toshort-term action, institutions for horizontal

and vertical coordination, broad participationby societal stakeholders, and a constant moni-toring of action.

It is, however, also a well-known fact thatthese approaches clash with the core functioningprinciples of the modern government, like thedivision of sectoral responsibilities, path-depen-dencies of policy development, or the mode ofnegative coordination. Governmental discretionfor long-term action is further constrained bythe shortness of election and budget cycles.

In response to these clashes, strategies forsustainable development were often introducedas a tool to initiate change by learning and con-tinuous adaptation rather than by challengingthe existing institutions and power structures.Such an approach has been characterized as astep-by-step procedure: ‘‘developing an under-lying vision through consensual, effective, anditerative process; and going on to set objectives,identify the means of achieving them, and thenmonitor the achievement as a guide to the nextround of this learning process.’’ (Dalal-Clayton& Bass, 2002).

After more than a decade of strategic andcoordinated action for sustainable developmentin many countries it is time to draw a balance:what are the achievements so far? How has theinstitutional landscape developed, both indeveloping and developed countries? How farare countries re-organizing their institutionalstructures to comply with the needs of inte-grated and long-term decision making, learning,and adaptation? Do remarkable differencesbetween developing and developed countriescontinue to exist or do trends converge?

During the last few years, a number of studieshave assessed progress at the national level. Re-cently, attention has been shifted from contenttoward procedural and institutional aspects(Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002; Steurer & Martin-uzzi, 2005). This article contributes to this grow-ing body of knowledge by comparing challenges,approaches, and innovations in strategic andcoordinated action in 19 developing and devel-

COORDINATION, CHALLENGES, AND INNOVATIONS 2049

oped countries. Building on current thinking wedevelop a simple model that embraces importantaspects of strategy management such as leader-ship, planning, implementation, monitoring,coordination, and participation. Our findingsfor 19 countries are featured to create a prag-matic toolbox to assist governmental managersand policy makers. 1

This article proceeds as follows: In Section 2,we will discuss our analytical framework and ap-plied research methods. In Section 3, we presentempirical findings, organized around the tenetsof strategic management and with a special focuson coordination challenges. For each of the as-pects of strategic management, the challenges,and findings will be described briefly at first, fol-lowed by a short highlighting of the best-practiceexamples. Section 6 concludes our research find-ings, focuses on possible trends and discusses thequestion whether the current reforms in institu-tional structure of governments in both develop-ing and developed countries are suited wellenough for the shifts that the implementationof a strategic sustainability approach of contin-uous adaptation and learning, implies. 2

2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ANDRESEARCH METHODS

The successful integration of cross-cuttingissues such as sustainable development ingovernmental practice can be described as afunction of (European Commission, 2004;Steurer & Martinuzzi, 2005; SRU, 2004):

—Leadership: governmental institutionshave to develop an underlying vision; andconcretize this vision further by setting over-all objectives; this process has to be backedby a high-level political commitment.—Planning: governmental institutions haveto set up a process to identify the means ofachieving objectives (institutional mecha-nisms, programmatic structures, and specificpolicy initiatives).—Implementation: governmental institutionshave to employ and finance a mix of policyinitiatives regarding to the requirements ofplanning.—Monitoring, review, and adaptation: gov-ernmental institutions have to develop,monitor, and report of the indicators tomeasure: (1) progress in implementing policyinitiatives and (2) the economic, social, andenvironmental state of the country.

These four stages of strategic managementcorrelate well with the stages of the continuousimprovement approach to managing sustain-able development strategies developed in the2002 Sustainable Development Resource Book(Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002). Additionally,we focus on two of the cross-cutting aspects ofstrategic management as identified in Dalal-Clayton and Bass (2002), namely coordination(e.g., with other strategy process, other levelsof government financing mechanisms) and com-prehensive multi-stakeholder participation. Puttogether with the information gathered in ourcase studies we get a roadmap of the challengesahead (see Figure 1). We do not assume thatpractical processes follow such a linear modeland are also aware that aspects overlap. Butdeveloping such a roadmap is useful as a heuris-tic tool for the comparison of 19 countries.

Our case studies are mainly based on inter-views with government officials, governmentalreports, and evaluation reports by internationalagencies. The data are based primarily on selfreporting and therefore, we abstain from evalu-ating the implementation of the strategies. Giventhe broad spectrum of issues covered in the na-tional strategies, a comprehensive evaluationwould have required a much broader study withmuch more data than we were able to collect.

Research was conducted on 19 developed anddeveloping countries from around the worldand for efforts both pre- and post-WSSD.Countries studied were Brazil, Cameroon, Can-ada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany,India, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, the Phil-ippines, Poland, South Africa, South Korea,Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom aswell as the European Union. The criteria forcountry selection included to have (a) a goodmix of developed and developing countries, (b)broad geographic representation, (c) no exten-sive coverage in previous research, and (d)inclusion of at least some potential leaders anda diversity of approaches. National sustainabledevelopment focal points had the opportunityto provide feedback on the case studies, butsuch contact was not successful in all cases.

3. CHALLENGES, TOOLS,AND INNOVATIONS

(a) Leadership

The challenge of sustainable development con-cerns all departments and levels of government.

• Type of strategy approach

• Demonstrating commitment and focus

• Incorporating the inter-generational SD principle

• Incorporating the interdependency SD principle

• legal basis

• Institutional basis

• Policy assessment

• Accountability

• Financing

• Mix of policy initiatives

• Tracking progress toward strategies

• Understanding SD trends

• Learning & Adaptation

1. Leadership

2. Planning

3. Implementation

4. Monitoring Coordination

Participation

• With budget processes

• With other strategies

• With other levels of government

• Institutionalizing participation

• Building Trust

Figure 1. Roadmap to the challenges for strategic and coordinated action for sustainable development, put into relation

with the key tenets of strategic management. Source: Swanson et al. (2004, p. 7) (on the basis of Dalal-Clayton and

Bass, 2002).


A valid commitment of all relevant actors canonly be bought in by active leadership thatprovides clear directives and track recording.Commitment has to be underpinned by opera-tionalized and quantified objectives. At its best,it reflects a profound understanding of sustain-able development covering the interdependencyamong economic, social, and environmental sys-tems as well as the needs of current and futuregenerations (OECD-DAC, 2001).

Table 1. Leadership challeng

Challenges Approaches

Choosing approaches forthe strategy process

• Comprehensive str• Cross-sectoral stra• Sectoral strategies• Integration with ex

planning process (

Demonstrating commitmentand focus

• Quantified and timobjectives (seven o

• Constitutional pro

Inter-generational principle of SD • Long-term objectiv

Addressing the linkages betweeneconomic, social, andenvironmental sustainability

• Integrated policy a• Strategic sustainab• Cross-cutting strat

Note: Some of the countries pursue more than one approaSource: Swanson et al. (2004, p. 7).

In how far are these aspects covered in thestrategies of our sample? Findings can be sum-marized as follows (also see Table 1):

The choice of the strategic approach often re-flects long-standing institutional framework-conditions, policy cultures, and regulatorystiles. One approach might fit the specificcircumstances for action in one country, butmay fail to address the circumstances for actionin another country. Countries have to adopt an

es, tools, and innovations

and tools Examples and innovations

ategy (15 countries)tegy (four countries)(Canada)isting

Mexico)

• United Kingdom, Philippines• Cameroon and Madagascar

PRSPs• Canada• Mexico

e-boundf 19 countries)visions

• Germany• Switzerland

es • Sweden, Denmark

ssessmentility assessmentegy objectives

• United Kingdom• Switzerland• Germany

ch.


approach that meets their specific needs and fitswith their institutional framework conditions—there is no single recipe. Sustainability can alsobe differently understood and thus strategicallyoperationalized, according to the circumstan-ces: For example, the eradication of povertywith the provision of basic human needs canbe the focus of strategic efforts in a developingcountry, whereas the change of production andconsumption patterns and the quality of lifemight be target areas of action in a developedcountry. We observe four main approaches thatall serve to address the aims of SustainableDevelopment: comprehensive and multi-dimen-sional (e.g., Philippine National Agenda 21,German national sustainable developmentstrategy); cross-sectoral (e.g., the combinationof the SD strategy with the poverty reductionstrategy paper (PRSP) in Cameroon); sectoral(e.g., Canada Departmental SD Strategies, alsoUnited Kingdom); and the integration of SDinto existing planning processes (e.g., MexicoNational Development Plan). All of the differ-ent approaches in common aim at a betterincorporation of issues of sustainable develop-ment within the decision making of relevantdepartments of the government.

Leadership can be demonstrated if a commit-ment is validated to achieve clearly definedobjectives. Quantified objectives and targetsare a common standard to strengthen commit-ment (see Lafferty & Meadowcraft, 2000).Seven of the 19 countries studied have such sys-tematically developed quantifiable and measur-able targets for sustainable developmentobjectives. Germany’s SDS, for example, pro-vides 21 objectives that at the same time servesas progress indicators. Cameroon’s PRSPframes 14 policy fields and 193 specific mea-sures (each with a target date for achievement)within seven priority areas. The UK strategyis centered around four main objectives, sup-ported by a set of headline indicators and tar-gets as well as a set of 10 guiding principlesand approaches. Sweden and Denmark alsohave a good record on setting concrete objec-tives and measures for core areas.

However, it is not the quantity of objectives,but their quality that determines leadership. Allcountries are struggling to commit themselvesin an encompassing, yet explicit manner. Thestrategies are either a collection of alreadyexisting policy objectives or contain vaguelyformulated new objectives.

Whereas the triggering of learning processeshas been stressed as an important aim, the

strategies themselves are often the result ofbargaining between different actors, reflectinginterest conflicts and seeking compromise.However, sometimes strategies contain singleobjectives that are worth highlighting, sincethey go beyond the traditional, short-termagenda of policy development. This is the case,for example, for the UK strategy and its mid-term climate protection goal or the objectiveof a drastic reduction in land use by nearly75% until 2020 in the German NSDS.

Constitutional provisions are another ap-proach to demonstrate commitment. Switzer-land proves an interesting example: The newconstitution from 1999 elevates SustainableDevelopment to the status of a national goal.It further imposes a binding requirement forsustainability action on all levels of the govern-ment, as well as incorporating sustainabilityaspects into its foreign policy goals. A similarapproach can be observed for the EuropeanUnion that has prominently anchored the prin-ciple of Sustainability in the Treaties (formerart. 3 and 6 EU-Treaty) (see Nollkaemper,2002). These articles have often been referredto when new policy proposals for promotingaction on sustainable development had to belegitimized.

Regarding the inter-generational principle ofsustainable development, setting long-termobjectives contributes to a better inter-genera-tional objective. But only five of the countriesconsidered a strategy outlook that was explic-itly inter-generational, that is, spanning up-wards of 25–30 years into the future (Sweden,Denmark, Germany, the Philippines, and Mex-ico). However, the underlying scenarios extrap-olate current trends, but they do not investigatethe possibility of alternative future develop-ments and discuss the implications for robustpolicy making.

All countries studies showed a rather weakperformance regarding the linkages among eco-nomic, social, and environmental dimensions.In many cases, NSDS are a simple compilationof economic, social, and environmental objec-tives and initiatives, but did not contain a fun-damental notion of how issues, objectives, andinitiatives influence each other—either posi-tively or negatively. The tools observed thatwould help improve understanding of the link-ages among economic, social, and environmen-tal systems are Integrated Policy Appraisal(e.g., as in the United Kingdom) or StrategicSustainability Assessment (e.g., as in the caseof Switzerland; cf. Radaelli, 2004). It should


just be highlighted that the United Kingdomwas one of the first countries to start with theintegrated policy assessment of draft legislationand has continuously extended its applicationsince then. It is now organized and overseenby a well staffed unit at the Prime Ministers Of-fice which provides guidelines and assistance tothe different departments and which is also enti-tled to review the quality of the IAs. Also, theEuropean Commission has recently installedan ambitious approach of ex-ante impactassessment of draft legislation (Jacob, Hertin,Bartolomeo, Volkery, & Wilkinson, 2004).

(b) Planning

Planning is a part of the strategic manage-ment cycle that governments have the mostexperience with. Key challenges include (1)establishing a clear legal mandate for the plan-ning process, (2) thinking strategically aboutinstitutions to head the process and implement-ing them, and (3) a reliable assessment ofplanned policy plans, programs and initiatives.Findings can be summarized as follows (alsosee Table 2):

Establishing a clear legal mandate: Only fivecountries (Canada, European Union, Republicof Korea, Mexico, and Switzerland) had a clearlegal mandate for the strategy process. Oneexample to learn is Canada’s amendment tothe Auditor General Act in 1995 that estab-lished a clear mandate whereby 25 federaldepartments are required to submit sustainabledevelopment strategies to Parliament everythree years. This approach has functioned quitewell in the past regarding the delivery of strate-gies, at least. Also, the already discussed provi-sions in the treaty on the European Unionunderpin many activities such as the develop-ment of the European NSDS, the Cardiff-Pro-

Table 2. Planning challeng

Challenges Approaches and tool

Legal basis • Enactment as law

Institutional basis • Green Cabinet• Home outside of environment de• Inter-departmental Commission

Policy assessment • Strategic Environmental Assessm• Strategic Sustainability Assessme• Integrated Policy Assessment

Source: Swanson et al. (2004, p. 16).

cess for Environmental Policy Integration(EPI), or the integration of sustainability con-cerns into the better-regulation strategy of theLisbon Process. In Mexico, the integration ofsustainability concerns into overall develop-ment planning is required by the constitution.The integration of sustainability concerns hasnot been achieved consistently across all sectors,but it has lead to some success in a couple of sec-tors like energy or transport, at least. Increasingthe effectiveness of institutional arrangements:In 10 countries, strategy processes had institu-tional grounding in the environment depart-ment which limited the extent of influenceacross government. In nine countries, responsi-bility laid with the office of the Prime Ministeror President or other central steering insti-tutions (namely Cameroon, China, EuropeanUnion, Germany, Philippines, Poland, UnitedKingdom, Republic of Korea, Switzerland,and with some ramifications also Madagascar),and in a few more countries there is a sharing ofcompetences but no strong central coordination(Canada, Costa Rica, and Morocco). 3

The shift of responsibility for coordination tothe central institutions within governments hasto be regarded as a crucial major innovationsince sustainability issues gain more importanceon the political agenda. However, it has to beacknowledged that insufficient personal capa-cities in these institutions often constrain aneffective coordination of the strategy process.But it must also be acknowledged that centralcoordination by the Prime Minister’s office al-lows other proponents to take a more activerole behind the scenes. Environmental minis-tries, for example, are then no longer obligedto moderate between contradictory positionsof other departments, but can actively push.This experience has been reported for at leastfor Germany, the United Kingdom, the Euro-

es, tools, and innovations

s Examples and innovations

• Canada, EuropeanUnion, Mexico

partments• Germany, United Kingdom• Philippines, China, Sweden• Switzerland

ent (eight countries)nt

• European Union• Switzerland• United Kingdom


pean Union, or Switzerland. Another innova-tion in this line are the so-called Green Cabi-nets that are composed of several ministers orjunior ministers and are supported by commit-tees composed of higher civil servants. In Ger-many, for example, a Green Cabinet managesthe process. The Cabinet is coordinated bythe Chancellor’s Office and seems to be a newvenue for argumentation and interest modera-tion at a high-level of political decision making.Similar experiences can be reported for theUnited Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Philip-pines, although these countries feature aslightly different institutional design. At theCabinet level in the United Kingdom, sustain-able development policy is coordinated by theCabinet Committee on the Environment. Inaddition, each department designates a GreenMinister to sit on the Cabinet Sub-Committeeof Green Ministers. Each Green Minister isresponsible for ensuring that environmentaland sustainable development considerationsare integrated into their departmental strategiesand policies. Switzerland has chosen a similarapproach, but on a lower level: here, a director-ate-level inter-departmental established by theFederal Council coordinates the process ofNSDS implementation. In the Philippines, theresponsible Philippine Council for SustainableDevelopment (PCSD) is chaired by the vice-chairman of the National Economic Develop-ment Authority. In China, responsibilities aredivided among Ministries and governmentalcommittees, such as the State Planning Com-mission and the State Science and TechnologyCommission in cooperation with the Adminis-trative Centre for China’s Agenda 21. The na-tional Agenda 21 is highly integrated into theFive-Year Planning process of China’s econ-

Table 3. Implementation challe

Challenges Approaches and tools

Responsibility • Shifting of responsibility toprime minister/president

• G

Financing • Green budgeting• HIPC debt relief• Donor coordination

• C• C• M

Mix of specificSD initiatives

• Action plans• Expenditure policy initiatives• Economic policy initiatives• Regulatory policy initiatives• Institutional policy initiatives

• D• U• Sw• So• Ph


omy, less into sectoral plans and within theoverall national environmental planning.

These innovations in planning and im-plementation illustrate the tendency to movesustainability issues into the center of govern-mental decision makings. Again, it is open toinvestigation if this remains to be a lip serviceonly or if decision making is influenced effec-tively.

Assessing specific policy initiatives in an inte-grated manner. Despite long discussions andmuch practical experience, Strategic Environ-mental Assessment (SEA) has not become astandard instrument of the government. Onlyeight out of the 19 countries used SEAs, andeven fewer countries have developed the toolfurther into instruments for strategic Sustain-ability Assessment (Switzerland, EuropeanUnion) or Integrated Policy Assessment (Uni-ted Kingdom). However, since the EuropeanUnion has adopted a Directive requiring theMember States to implement SEA, this tool islikely to become more frequent. It has also beenmade obligatory for plans and programs forwhich transnational impacts can be expectedby means of the SEA Protocol (2003) withinthe UNECE Espoo Convention.

(c) Implementation

Implementation was a major issue at theWSSD in 2002 and will continue to draw at-tention. The UN DESA and OECD-DACguidelines provide recommendations related tothis aspect of the strategic management cycle(OECD, 2002; UN DESA, 2005). Key chal-lenges include (1) establishing responsibilityand accountability for implementation ofobjectives, (2) using an instrumental mix to

nges, tools, and innovations

Examples and innovations

ermany, Mexico, South Korea, Cameroon

osta Rica, Poland, Swedenameroon, Madagascaradagascar

enmark, Madagascar, European Union, South Koreanited Kingdom, Moroccoeden, European Union, United Kingdom, Germanyuth Koreailippines


implement strategy objectives, and (3) using amix of financial arrangements. Findings canbe summarized as follows (also see Table 3):

Establishing responsibility and accountability:the implementation of SDS is a systematicweakness in all countries. Quite often, responsi-bility is housed in the Ministry of Environmentin most cases, either directly or indirectlythrough a coordinating committee or SD com-mission or council. Leaving responsibility forimplementation with departments that do nothave the authority to exert influence on otherdepartments means a non-strategic allocationof responsibility. The shift of responsibilitiesto the center of the government, that is, Officesof the Prime Minister or Presidential Commis-sions as it can be observed in a number of coun-tries, is therefore of importance for a successfulimplementation, but bears also the risk of loos-ing ownership and competencies of specializedministries.

Using a mix of financing arrangements:financing of specific initiatives often suffersfrom a simple lack of revenue. All countriesmake use of ecological taxes or levies, but fewcountries have adopted a formal strategy fortheir systematic use and the invention of newfinancing mechanisms with funds reserved forsustainable development issues. Sweden hasbeen probably the country out of our samplewith the most profound experiences in environ-mental taxation. Experiments with environ-mental tax shifting in Sweden began in 1991when it raised taxes on carbon and sulfur emis-sions and reduced income taxes. In 2001, thegovernment increased taxes on diesel fuel, heat-ing oil, and electricity while lowering incometaxes and social security contributions. Six percent of all government revenue has now beenshifted. The introduction of Emission Tradingwithin the European Union will also spur fur-ther efforts for climate protection among itsmember states. Germany, Sweden, and UnitedKingdom are currently all pursuing an ambi-tious climate protection policy.

Mixing specific initiatives and instruments: allcountries have adopted some mix of instru-ments. However, while a mix of policy initia-tives has been pursued, economic instrumentsappear to be under-utilized. Some of the otherstudied countries which are active in environ-mental fiscal reform and economic instrumentsare Germany, United Kingdom, Costa Rica,Brazil, and Poland. Poland initiates and pro-motes private and municipal investments whichhas attracted attention as a model for financing

important parts of sustainable development. InCosta Rica, the Capacity 21-program providedsupport for the creation of a system for pay-ments of environmental services by farmersand peasants. In Madagascar, the Donor Secre-tariat that managed donor assistance on theenvironment was gradually extended to otherquestions like food security or rural develop-ment. The secretariat now functions as aMulti-Donor Secretariat and provides effectivedonor coordination and integrated programdevelopment.

(d) Monitoring, learning, and adaptation

Monitoring is essential to the NSDS process.Management is possible only if a measurementof achievements takes place. Challenges includethe establishment and integration of (1) processmonitoring and (2) outcome monitoring. Also(3) institutions have to be created that facilitateprocesses of learning and adaptation. Findingscan be summarized as follows (also see Table 4):

Process monitoring: In most countries, statisti-cal offices monitor various aspects of the econ-omy, society, or environment. But only sixcountries have developed an integrated set ofindicators to allow analysis of inherent trade-offsand inter-linkages of all dimensions of sustain-able development. These countries includedCosta Rica, European Union, Germany, Mex-ico, United Kingdom, Sweden, Philippines,Switzerland, and Morocco. The United King-dom appeared as a consistent innovator throughsuch approaches and tools as indicators andreporting; sustainable development audit com-mittees and spending reviews; a Task Force fornational strategy revision; and the funding ofsustainable development research networks.Information in the United Kingdom is also pro-vided in the annual Green Ministers’ reportwhere performance is searchable by departmentand by subject and include an assessment of per-formance against government-wide standardsand objectives. Canada has institutionalized aCommissioner of the Environment and Sustain-able Development, situated in the Office of theAuditor General that regularly audits govern-ment’s overall performance on environmentand SD. Findings of reports have led to direct re-sponses by departments. Spending review is alsoexecuted for the PRSP process in Cameroon andMadagascar.

Outcome monitoring: Even more elusive todetect from the research were formal and infor-mal approaches to outcome monitoring. Some

Table 4. Monitoring challenges, tools, and innovations

Challenges Approaches and tools Examples and innovations

Process monitoring • Process (output)-type monitoringand reporting (nine countries)

• Auditing agencies• Spending reviews• Minister’s reports

• Canada, United Kingdom• Canada• United Kingdom, Cameroon

and Madagascar PRSP• United Kingdom

Monitoring outcomes • National SD indicators andreporting (nine countries)

• National accounts statistics• Auditing agencies• Auditing committees• Independent advisory bodies

• European Union, Morocco• Sweden, South Korea• Canada• United Kingdom• United Kingdom

Learning and adaptation • Independent agencies and committees• Task Force or strategy revision• Advisory councils• Progress reporting• Research networks• Public consultations

• Canada, United Kingdom, Philippines• United Kingdom, Philippines• Mexico• Sweden, Germany, European Union• United Kingdom• India, Cameroon



countries operate batteries of indicators, suchas the 65 indicators of the National Committeefor SD Indicators in Morocco. Others havetransitioned to aggregated headline indicators,such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Ger-many, and the European Union. Aggregatedindicators facilitate understanding and commu-nication of overall progress and performance,but there is a risk of information loss if aggre-gated indicators are not supplemented by moredetailed lists of component indicators. Swedenand South Korea are interesting examples inso-far as they have established first sets of indica-tor systems to measure the progress towardsustainable development with a reduced set ofintegrated indicators. The United Kingdomand Canada have made the most elaborateuse of auditing committees or independentadvisory bodies. Creating separate bodies thathold an ownership promises on the one hand,that the process is taken seriously. It bears therisk, on the other hand, that departments resistrelevant recommendation since they see themas being superimposed.

Learning and adaptation: Most rarely to de-tect were functioning mechanisms to learn fromintegrated monitoring and to make subse-quently critical and necessary adaptations.One tool for learning is strategy progress re-ports that can be seen in countries like Swedenor Germany. The SD Spring Review in theEuropean Union gives a broad basis for a

long-term learning process: Progress reportswill be submitted by the European Commissionto the European Council each spring and theSDS shall be assessed at the start of each ofthe Commissions term of office. Heads of Gov-ernments take notice and decide further priori-ties. The evaluation of the sectoral strategies forsustainable development by the Commissionerfor SD in Canada is a powerful institution sincethe Commissioner is part of the General Audi-tor and has considerable independence fromthe Government. In the United Kingdom, thereview by a dedicated parliamentary committeeis worth mentioning. However, independentcomprehensive evaluations of the strategiesand their implementation were not found as asystemic process feature.

4. COORDINATING THE INTEGRATIONOF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION

Coordination is a central requirement formaking SDS processes work since it cuts acrossall aspects of the strategic management cyclethat has been used for our analysis. Deficits incoordination contribute significantly to manyof the serious deficits described above. Ourcross-country comparison indicates that theissue of sustainability is gradually moving intothe center of the government, at least onpaper, and that this tendency is visible both in


developing and developed countries: GreenCabinets, special divisions within the PrimeMinisters’ or Presidents’ office, Presidentialcommissions, inter-departmental committees,external auditing committees, or independentagencies—there are many ways to houseresponsibilities outside the environmentaldepartment and they experimentally diffuseamong developing and developed countriesalike. On the one hand, this reflects the growingimportance of the issue. On the other hand,coordination demands have not been met inmost cases due to capacity overloads of steeringinstitutions and unresolved problems of differ-ent understandings of the broad concept of sus-tainability.

The challenges as well as the institutions inresponse are very similar to the requirementsfor EPI. Many innovations in efforts to inte-grate concerns of sustainability in decisionmaking are rooted in instruments and strategiesfor EPI (Jacob & Volkery, 2004).

In all countries studied there is a constantgap between the content of the strategy andits actual impact on governmental policy. Clearinformation about responsibilities for strategyimplementation is one side of the coin, infor-mation about the actual impact on governmen-tal policy making is the other side. For trackingprogress toward coordinated action for Sus-tainable Development on the national level,we have focused in detail on three major as-pects of the coordination challenge, namely:

1. coordination of strategy objectives andinitiatives with the national budget process;

Table 5. Coordination challen

Challenges Approaches and to

With nationalbudgeting processes

• Incentive structures• Spending review• Environmental taxes• Links to national planning

With other strategyprocesses

• Comprehensive SD strategprovide framework for oth

• Inter-departmental coordi• Institutional home for nat• Cross-sectoral workshops• Cross-cutting issues• Green Cabinets

With sub-national andlocal strategy processes

• Municipal SD strategies• Local Agenda 21 process

Denmark, Costa Rica, an

Source: Swanson et al. (2004).

2. coordination with other strategyprocesses;3. coordination with sub-national and localstrategy processes.

Beyond the design of more or less comprehen-sive written strategy documents, it is these threeareas of action where talk about sustainabledevelopment is turned into action (see Table 5).

(a) Coordination with the national budgetingprocess

Budget processes are central to the function-ing of the government: it is the availability andspending of resources that reveals whether ornot sustainable development is taken seriously.Sustainability has to be reflected in expenditureand revenue generation. Creating incentivestructures, implementing spending reviews,shifting taxes, and creating better transparencyand responsibility through green budgeting areexamples of the tools.

In all countries studied, the vision and objec-tives created through a SDS process still has lit-tle influence on national budget expendituresand revenue generation. National sustainabledevelopment strategies still remain at theperiphery of government decision making.Most countries studied had mechanisms inplace whereby government departments pre-pare plans that articulate proposed expendi-tures. However, these plans seldom align withthe NSDS and are not subject to a sustainabil-ity impact assessment. More elusive to findfrom the research is a country, where the over-

ges, tools, and innovations

ols Examples and innovations

process

• PRSPs and HIPC debt relief• United Kingdom• Sweden• Mexico, Philippines

ies thater strategies

nating committeesional SD counciland action areas

• United Kingdom• Canada• Philippines• Morocco• Germany, Canada, Cameroon,

Madagascar, South Korea• Germany, United Kingdom

(e.g., China,d South Korea)

• Denmark• South Korea


all budget plan contains transparent informa-tion about the impact of overall spending onsustainability and charts a way for improvingthe performance.

A number of interesting approaches andinnovations however, were observed in our re-search. For example, the requirement for imple-mentation of key priority areas in PRSPs toreach the Heavily Indebted Pour Countriesdebt relief completion points, results in atten-tion from the national budgetary process (e.g.,Cameroon and Madagascar). The trade-off thathas been acknowledged, however, is that thePRSP feels less country owned (GTZ, 2000, p.12). The irony is that the NSDS, which are typ-ically more country owned, have less pressureon them to be implemented (GTZ, 2000).

The United Kingdom emerged as an innova-tor in their approach of spending reviews. Alldepartments are required to produce a sustain-able development report that outlines the po-tential SD impacts related to public spendingrelated to proposed policies, plans, and pro-grams. While departments appear to be strug-gling with this requirement, the Governmenthas been developing tools and guidance to as-sist with the process. In Canada, the 25 govern-ment departments are required to prepare adepartmental SD strategy every three years.However, it is still the situation where annualdepartmental plans submitted to the Parlia-ment remain a document distinct from depart-mental SD strategies. While some departmentshave recognized inherent similarities and haveintegrated the two documents, most depart-ments have not.

Another notable approach is through theintroduction of a tax shift. For instance, coun-tries where environmental taxes represent alarge portion of the government revenues, canbe said to have better integrated the SD intothe budgeting process. The most prominentexample for this approach is Sweden (as de-scribed above). Integrating SD principles intoexisting development planning processes is an-other approach. This is Mexico’s SD strategyapproach. The 2001–06 National DevelopmentPlan is translated into a set of programs whichserve as long-term policy guides and are thebasis for much of the public spending. Whilethis approach does create more direct linkageswith the national budgeting processes, it comeswith the disadvantage that the SD strategy andits included objectives are not developed in ascomprehensive a manner as that which occurswith separate SD strategies.

Additionally, the Philippines Agenda 21has provided a conceptual framework forinteg- rating SD concerns in the country’s med-ium- and long-term development plans. ThePhilippine Agenda 21 was integrated into theMedium-Term Philippine Development Plan1993–1998 (MTPDP) which is the master planfor development in the Philippines. At thebroadest level, the Philippine National Devel-opment Plan for the 21st Century (Plan 21),or Long-Term Philippine Development Plan2000–2025 (LTPDP), uses Philippine Agenda21 as its overall guiding framework. Conse-quently the later MTPDP 1999–2004 also inte-grates SD concerns.

(b) Coordinating with other strategy processes

Governmental departments execute a varietyof strategies that run independent from theSustainability process, that is, action plans,or specific targeted programs. The degree towhich these strategies are reformulated due tothe requirements of the NSDS or substitutedby new strategies indicates the coordinationleverage of the overall NSDS. Coordinationbetween the SD strategy and other strategyprocesses is a challenge in all countries studied.The comprehensive, multi-dimensional SDstrategy tends to exhibit more coordinationthan the sectoral and cross-sectoral strategyapproaches due to their overarching nature.For example, the national SD strategy in Ger-many is linked to the strategy of fiscal consol-idation, social renewal, and the promotion ofrenewable energy. But these strategies weredeveloped independent of the SD strategy.So, while in the German case there was co-ordination among the SD strategy and otherstrategies, the SD strategy did not provide anoverarching framework for action, but rather,it was more of a summary of existing strategies.This case highlights a challenge that is commonto many of the comprehensive, multi-dimen-sional SD strategies—that the SD strategy atthis early point in time in their use, is more apost-rationalization of existing action, ratherthan stimulation for new action. The UK na-tional SD strategy appears to operate moreon the other end of the spectrum relative toGermany in that the UK strategy outlines theunderlying goals of sustainable development,and commits the government to establishingnew decision-making processes, institutions,instruments, partnerships, and communicationprocesses.


For countries which pursued either cross-sec-toral or sectoral SD strategies, the extent ofcoordination among strategies was minimal.For developing countries such as Cameroonand Madagascar, the PRSP process containedminimal discussion of the environment or thenational environmental management strategyprocess that was in place in both countries. InCanada, there was little visible coordination.Canada has recognized the difficulty and hasdeveloped a number of coordinating mecha-nisms including a Deputy-Minister level Co-ordinating Committee on SD and the Inter-departmental Network on SD Strategies. How-ever, it would appear that these coordinatingmechanisms have not yet matched the level ofcomplexity inherent in the inter-dependenciesof economic, social, and environmental sustain-ability.

The Philippines case highlights an innovativeapproach for coordinating among differentstrategy processes. The National Economic andDevelopment Authority (NEDA) was desig-nated as the lead government agency for thePCSD. The fact that the PCSD Secretariat islocated in the NEDA premises and that na-tional planning in the Philippines has a highcomponent of multi-sectoral integration hasfacilitated the work of the PCSD. In Morocco,through a national integration workshop, keyrecommendations from each of the sectoralworkshops were brought together to producea cohesive, integrated Environmental ActionPlan (PANE). In turn, this plan was then linkedthrough cross-sectoral action areas with Mor-occo’s three other national development plans:the Economic and Social Development Plan(1999–2003) (PDES); the Plan to CombatDesertification (PAN/LCD); and the LandManagement Plan (SNAT).

As previously mentioned, Germany’s nationalSD strategy established cross-cutting themesto guide measures. Other examples are PRSPsand national environmental strategies whichhelp mitigate the silo approach (e.g., Cameroon,Madagascar, and South Korea). Many countrieshave articulated cross-cutting issues and actionplans such as climate change action plans, or-ganic farming action plans, or land-use reduc-tion plans. Denmark has a rich tradition in thisregard. Action plans are also a common tool atthe European level, especially under the frame-work of the 6th Environmental Action Program,where thematic strategies are developed.

Finally, Green Cabinets are a tool for helpingto coordinate with other national strategy pro-

cesses (see described above). Germany and theUnited Kingdom are examples of this, whereCabinet Committees have been set up to coor-dinate the overall process of strategy develop-ment.

(c) Coordination with other levels of the gov-ernment

Activities for strategic and coordinatedaction are underway at all levels of the gov-ernment ranging from the local/community,to state/provincial, to the international level.Coordination among these different levels willbe critical for leveraging important changes.Such coordination is inherently more difficultin federal states where powers are dividedbetween levels of the government, that is,Germany or Canada. On the other hand, thedivision of powers and the multiple layers ofthe government in federal states might also pro-vide more possibilities for the invention anddiffusion of innovations.

Some countries have coordinated nationaland local level SD action through local Agenda21 processes. Our analysis in this regard impliesonly that SD action occurred, and did notstudy the degree to which specific SD objectivesand actions were coordinated at the two levels.Among these countries are Denmark, SouthKorea, China, and Costa Rica.

For example, in Denmark, there is a planthat most municipalities in Denmark willdevelop a local strategy and a local set of indi-cators within one year—and 70% of municipal-ities are succeeding. In South Korea, 213 outof the 249 regional government units haveadopted a Local Agenda 21. One importantreason for this was the reform of the regionalgovernment in 1995 that gave the local govern-ment greater regulatory power, for example, inthe area of air quality standards. South Korea’sNational Action Plan of Agenda 21 fosteredlocal Agenda 21s through financial and capac-ity support. The government also helped estab-lish the Korean Council for Local Agenda 21 inJune 2000 to better coordinate the implementa-tion process.

Many of the countries studied also madelinks between national SD and internationalSD priorities. National objectives dealing withclimate change mitigation and adaptation arean example of this. However, the Swedish casestudy introduced an innovative way of linkingGovernment operations with the aim of con-tributing to fair and sustainable global develop-


ment. Trade, agriculture, security, migration,environmental, and economic policies are topromote global development. A poverty andhuman rights perspective shall permeate the en-tire policy. With this bill, the Government hasreformulated its policy in order to contributemore forcefully to the fulfillment of the UNobjectives.

5. MANAGING PARTICIPATION ANDCONSULTATION

Another possibility to enhance the capacityfor coordination is by making use of partici-pation and consultation of stakeholders. Thismight not only improve the information basisfor governmental action, but it might also helpto break up existing closed networks. Strategyprocesses that fall shy on obtaining feedbackfrom stakeholders are an indicator that theGovernment is taking sustainability not veryseriously. Participation needs effective manage-ment to be of value for governmental decisionmakers. It also needs building of trust to allowfor dialogue and learning among stakeholders.Challenges thus include (1) the institutionaliza-tion of participation and (2) the building oftrust.

Findings of our cross-country comparisoncan be summarized as follows (also see Table6):

Institutionalization of participation: Regard-ing the institutionalization of participation, awide range of approaches were pursued in the19 countries. We distinguish (1) national coun-cils for SD, (2) cross-sectoral councils, and (3)independent advisory bodies, and also (4)broad consultation via the Internet.

Table 6. Participation challen

Challenges Approaches an

Institutionalizing participation • National councils for• Cross-sectoral counci• Independent advisory• Place-based councils• Ad hoc public consult

Building trust • Use of media to obta• Negotiation and confl

and necessary part of

Source: Swanson et al. (2004).

Five of the countries studied have created apermanent multi-stakeholder council for SD:the Philippines, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil,and Germany. These councils have most nota-bly tried to facilitate social dialogue, supportinitiatives, and link them with the national le-vel. For example, the PCSD has been support-ing local initiatives on the creation of localcouncils for SD through technical assistanceand trainings. The German Council for Sus-tainable Development (RNE) has published ex-pert opinions on the elaboration and evaluationof long-term objectives and indicators forSustainable Development and has assumed acentral role in public debates on SD.

Countries with cross-sectoral SD strategyapproaches have in place or have proposedpermanent participatory bodies. This includesCameroon for the PRSP process or Madagas-car and South Korea for national environmen-tal strategy processes. Cameroon’s proposedNational Poverty Reduction Network is aninnovative example due to its wide scope ofresponsibility. The NPRN shall act as a forumfor sharing experiences and exchanging dataamong groups and as well as a framework forsocietal supervision of all activities undertakento implement the PRS. After a testing phasewith the help of UNEP, the NPRN will be opento all development players and facilitate a part-nership between civil society and Government.

The United Kingdom is an interesting exam-ple for independent advisory bodies designed toprovide expert advice. The Sustainable Devel-opment Commission was established as anindependent advisory body in 2000. It includes22 members from business, NGOs, local andregional governments, and academia. TheCommission’s role is to ‘‘advocate sustainable

ges, tools, and innovations

d tools Innovations

SDlsbodies

ation

• Philippines, Germany• Cameroon• United Kingdom• Costa Rica• Canada, Denmark,

Morocco, Poland,Sweden, Switzerland

in membersict resolution as an explicitthe participation process

• Mexico, Brazil• Brazil


development across all sectors in the UnitedKingdom, review progress toward it, and buildconsensus on the actions needed if further pro-gress is to be achieved’’ (UK Government,2004). Canada, Denmark, Morocco, Poland,Sweden, and Switzerland use a more ad hocapproach. For example, for Canada’s 25departmental SD strategies, each departmentconsults its stakeholders in the developmentof the strategies and documents the input indi-vidually. In Sweden, a series of national semi-nars and regional consultative conferenceswere used in the development of their SD strat-egy.

Building of trust: Equal treatment of allmajor societal groups during the selection ofrepresentatives in advisory bodies is a necessaryprerequisite for this task. This can be illustratedwith the Philippine Council for SD experience.The council started out in a general atmosphereof suspicion and even mistrust, fostered byyears of authoritarian rule, between the govern-ment and the civil society members, especiallyover the selection of NGO representatives (Is-berto, 1998; NCSD, 2001). Since then, a formalprocess for selection of PCSD representativeshas been developed in the civil society commu-nity. Although dissatisfaction with the processcontinues to be expressed, the process hashelped in minimizing conflicts and distraction(NCSD, 2001). Mexico has experience withsuch a formal process of selecting representa-tives through its National Consultative Councilfor Sustainable Development and its mem-bership process. The Council was originallycreated in 1995 and members were soughtthrough a summons published in newspapers,as well as posters and promotional pamphletsdistributed among various public and privateorganizations. In September 1998, a new sum-mons was published in order to re-elect 50%of the representatives in the social, business,academic, and non-governmental sectors.

Considering negotiation and conflict man-agement as an integral part of the developmentof the national SD strategy is another impor-tant approach for building trust. In Brazil, con-flict management was addressed in a forthrightmanner throughout the development of theBrazilian Agenda 21. The Brazilian Agenda21 recommended that short- and long-termnegotiations be conducted, so that there canbe a balance between the Agenda’s objectivesand the environmental, economic, and socialdevelopment strategies. These kinds of negotia-tions were a part of the consultation and devel-

opment process, with the hope of securing moreeffective implementation. But the skills invol-ved in this process must be present in allstakeholder groups, otherwise the process canreadily identify power differences and breedmistrust. The Costa Rica case illustrates theimportance that Local Agenda 21 efforts beaccompanied by the development of commu-nity building and negotiation skills at the locallevel. Without such capacity, there is the poten-tial for the process to be unnecessarily divisive.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Research for the 19 countries illustrated thatmany innovative approaches and tools havebeen developed and applied over the past de-cade, both pre- and post-WSSD. The diversityof institutions and tools for the implementationof sustainable development has been constantlyincreasing. Compared with the starting pointmore than a decade ago, the institutional land-scape for sustainable development has grownricher in its diversity. There are two interestingtrends: the issue is moving gradually into thecenter of the government—nearly half of ourcountries studied have institutionalized centralcoordination bodies, mostly located at the PrimeMinister’s or President’s Office. And broad par-ticipation and stakeholder consultation havebecome governmental standard procedures.

The issue of convergence or divergence ofinstitutional development is a key discussionat the moment. Naturally, it is assumed quiteoften that there are striking differences betweendeveloping and developed countries with re-gard to the strategic approach and capacitiesto sustainability. While this might be true forcontent issues, or for the implementation, ourcomparison of institutions and procedures in19 developing and developed countries revealsa great degree of convergence regarding thebasic institutional approaches to leadership,planning, implementation, monitoring, coordi-nation, and participation. In our country sam-ple, many countries are experimenting withthe same basic institutional innovations. Coun-tries that seek institutional or instrumental re-sponses to certain problems can rely upon acomprehensive sample of other countries expe-rience. This is an indicator that the informationexchange via international forums and net-works, like the annual meetings of the Commis-sion on Sustainable Development, basicallyfunction, despite problems.


A similar point can be made for the imple-mentation issue. The need for capacity buildingrefers to developing and developed countriesalike. Albeit, of course, on quite different levelswe find that there rarely is sufficient politicalcommitment in developing and developedcountries. Quite often the sustainable develop-ment strategy does not follow an integratedframework of goals, objectives, and measures.New agencies, bodies, or committees arefounded but often do not have appropriatestaffing, resources, and power. Central budgetsremain largely untouched. Many of the strate-gies serve partly as a means of post-rationaliz-ing the mix of policy initiatives that havealready been created from other existing politi-cal and institutional processes.

However, this is not to say that major differ-ences do not continue to exist, both regardingthe institutional context and content. A domi-nant approach has not appeared yet, also notfrom a regional perspective. There is obviouslyroom for mutual learning between countriesregarding the institutionalization of processesfor strategic and coordinated action on sustain-ability. Additionally, what lessons can be drawnfor future policy support by international orga-nizations? First, a national strategy is not simplythe solution per se. It needs more than a strategydocument and a multi-stakeholder process orga-nized around it to actually change policies forsustainable development. Strategic behavior asdemanded by the public policy literature findsits restriction in the politics of bureaucratic inter-est negotiation. Success depends on a country’sability to identify leverage points for influencingSD, to identify emerging issues, and to continu-ously learn and adapt to changes. Getting theprocess right is critically important over themedium to long term. Prerequisites are, how-ever, stronger political commitment and better

coordination. Strategic action for SD will re-main at the periphery of the government as longas it is not connected to visible incentives andsanctions that reward action or punish non-ac-tion. Strategy processes need better ownership,commitment, and a better common understand-ing among all levels of the government.

The core question is where is this supposedto come from? One approach to catalyzebetter ownership within government is throughstrengthening central coordination, probablybest through allocating relevant competenciesat the Prime Ministers or Presidents Office. Thishas to go hand in hand with a more systematicuse of integrated assessments and indicators.Strategies need, however, also to be manageable.Efforts should be directed at the most urgentproblems, and public participation processesshould be directly tailored to identify them.Increasing transparency and accountabilitythrough reporting obligations, external audit-ing, and tailored consultation can win new allies.Strong leverage can be reached throughstrengthening of coordination with the budget,that is, through spending reviews and annualgreen budgeting reports, and a strengthening ofcoordination among all levels of government.

The institutional fabric—despite all individ-ual progress—remains rather thin from anoverall perspective. This confirms the premisesfrom the public policy literature that learningleads in most cases only to changes in minor as-pects of policies. A comparison with the richinstitutional landscape that we find for eco-nomic development and cooperation, that is,that is much richer in terms of actors, rules,sanctions, inventories set of activities, andpolitical leverage, demonstrates best the magni-tude of the challenge that countries world-wideare still facing in establishing a sound institu-tional landscape for Sustainable Development.

NOTES

1. This article focuses on process rather than content.To what extent the SDS resulted in tangible progresstoward SD is another question altogether—albeit acritical one. We do not assume that a good processwill always lead to ‘‘good’’ results, but an assessmentof process provides a necessary proxy for effectivenessand can provide practical information (see for asimilar conclusion in the analysis of the effectivenessof global environmental assessment: Eckley et al.,2001; Pinter, 2002). Our research was not intended toproduce a step-by-step ‘‘how to’’ manual for SD

strategy process. Rather, this article outlines a synthe-sis of some of the key challenges, approaches andtools, and innovations at various stages throughoutthe strategy process.

2. The article is based mostly on the 19 case studiesconducted and the subsequent synthesis report (Swan-son, Pinter, Bregha, Volkery, & Jacob, 2004). For thepurpose of readability, we abstain from citing each casestudy when speaking about single innovations discov-ered.


3. Counting this way is difficult and not withoutproblems. Grounding the process in the environmentaldepartment does not have to mean that there areautomatically no central steering effects. For example,the organization of the process in Sweden or Denmark

has been quite successful. In the opposite, in countriessuch as Morocco or Costa Rica, responsibilities aredistributed among a number of departments but there isno coordination so that there is little coordinated actionin the end.

REFERENCES

Brown, K. (1997). The road from Rio. Journal ofInternational Development, 9(3), 383–389.

Dalal-Clayton, B., & Bass, S. (2002). Sustainable devel-opment strategies—a resource book. London: Earth-scan Publications Ltd., [International Institute forEnvironment and Development].

Eckley, N. et al. (2001). Designing effective assessment:The role of participation science and governance andfocus. Cambridge, MA: Research and AssessmentSystems for Sustainability, Environment and NaturalResource Program, Harvard University.

European Commission (2004). National sustainabledevelopment strategies in the European Union. Afirst Analysis by the European Commission. Com-mission Staff Working Document, European Com-mission, Brussels.

GTZ—Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusam-menarbeit. (2000). Strategies for sustainable devel-opment in the thicket of national planningprocesses—From convergent concepts to coherentactions in development cooperation. GTZ, Esch-born.

Isberto, E. (1998). The Philippine council for sustainabledevelopment: like cooking rice cakes. World Re-sources Institute, Global Topics, Governance andInstitutions. <http://www.wri.org/wri/governance/pdf/ncsdsgfed/philippines.pdf> Accessed 17.02.04.

Jacob, K., Hertin, J., Bartolomeo, M., Volkery, A., &Wilkinson, D. (2004). Ex-ante sustainability apprai-sal of national-level policies: a comparative study ofassessment practice in seven countries. Paper pre-sented at the 2004 Berlin Conference on the humandimension of global environmental change in Berlin,December 3–4, 2004.

Jacob, K., & Volkery, A. (2004). Institutions andinstruments for government self-regulation: environ-mental policy integration in a cross-country perspec-tive. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6(3),291–309.

Janicke, M., & Jorgens, H. (Eds.) (2000). Umweltplanungim internationalen Vergleich. Strategien der Nac-hhaltigkeit. Berlin: Springer [Environmental Plan-ning in International Comparison. Strategies ofSustainability].

Jorgens, H. (2004). Governance by diffusion: imple-menting global norms through cross-national imita-tion and learning. In W. Lafferty (Ed.), Governancefor sustainable development. The challenge of adaptingform to function (pp. 246–283). Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.

Lafferty, W. (2004). Introduction: form and functionin governance for sustainable development. In W.Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for sustainable develop-

ment. The challenge of adapting form to function(pp. 1–31). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Lafferty, W., & Meadowcraft, J. (Eds.) (2000). Imple-menting sustainable development: Strategies and ini-tiatives in high-consumption societies. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Martinuzzi, A., & Steurer, R. (2003). The Austrianstrategy for sustainable development: process reviewand policy analysis. European Environment, 13,269–287.

NCSD (2001). National Councils for Sustainable Devel-opment (NCSD) (August 2001—latest update):The NCSD Sustainable Development Report Repub-lic of the Philippines. <http://www.ncsdnetwork.org/global/reports/ncsd1999/phi.htm> Accessed 16-02-04.

Nollkaemper, A. (2002). Three conceptions of theintegration principle in international environmentallaw. In A. Lenschow (Ed.), Environmental policyintegration. Greening sectoral policies in Europe(pp. 22–34). London: Earthscan.

OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (2002). Sustainable development. Crit-ical issues. Paris: OECD.

OECD-DAC (2001). The DAC Guidelines: strategies forsustainable development: guidance for developmentcooperation. Development Cooperation Committee.<http://www.sourceOECD.org> Accessed April2004.

Pinter, L. (2002). Making global integrated environmen-tal assessment matter. PhD Dissertation, Universityof Minnesota.

Radaelli, C. (2004). The diffusion of regulatory impactanalysis in OECD countries: best practices andlesson-drawing. European Journal of Political Re-search, 53(4), 723–747.

SRU—German Advisory Council on the Environment.(2004). Umweltgutachten 2004. UmweltpolitischeHandlungsfahigkeit sichern. Nomos, Baden-Baden[Environmental Report 2004. Ensuring Environmen-tal Protection Capacity].

Steurer, R., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Towards a newpattern of strategy formation in the public sector:First experiences with national strategies for sustain-able development in Europe. Environment and Plan-ning C: Government and Policy, 23(3), 455–472.

Swanson, D., Pinter, L., Bregha, F., Volkery, A., &Jacob, K. (2004). National strategies for sustainabledevelopment. Challenges, approaches and innovationsin strategic and coordinated action. Winnipeg: IISD.

UK Government (2004). Sustainable DevelopmentCommission: About the Commission. <http://



http://www.ncsdnetwork.org/global/reports/ncsd1999/phi.htm

http://www.ncsdnetwork.org/global/reports/ncsd1999/phi.htm

http://www.sourceOECD.org

http://www.sd-commission.gov.uk/commission/index.htm


www.sd-commission.gov.uk/commission/index.htm>Accessed 03.02.04.

UN DESA (2002). Report of an expert forum onnational strategies for sustainable development.Accra, Ghana, November 7–9, 2001, Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations,New York, <http://www.johnnesburgsummit.org>.

UN DESA (2005). Expert group meeting on reviewingnational sustainable development strategies, New

York, October 10–11, 2005. <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/nsds/egm/crp_9.pdf> Accessed17.02.06.

UN DSD (2004). United Nations Division for Sustain-able Development. <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natinfo/nsds/nsds.htm> Accessed April 2004.

http://www.sd-commission.gov.uk/commission/index.htm

http://www.johnnesburgsummit.org

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/nsds/egm/crp_9.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/nsds/egm/crp_9.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natinfo/nsds/nsds.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natinfo/nsds/nsds.htm

coordination challenges and innovations in 19 national sustainable development strategies 2006 world...

Documents