Multi-level Environmental Governance: a concept under stress?

Local Environment, Vol. 9, No. 5, 405 412, October 2004 GUEST EDITORIAL Multi-level Environmental Governance: a concept under stress? KATARINA ECKERBERG & MARKO JOAS Introduction The past decade has witnessed a change in the world order of environmental policy making. The strongholds of national environmental policy competence gave room for international regimes beginning in the 1980s, a development that reached a peak during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Since then the direction of governance patterns has partly been reversed. However, the trend is not back towards nation states, but towards sub-national units that are reforming environmental governance patterns directly with supra-national units, such as the EU, with nation states, with inter- and non-governmental organisations as well as with other sub-national governments. Additionally, increased networking across public and private actors and shifting responsibilities from the public to the private sector has emerged, leading to new forms of environmental governance regardless of formal hierarchies. This development is especially evident in the Baltic area, including the Nordic countries. The papers in this special issue of Local Environment aim at analysing this development. This editorial will review some of the literature in the field of multi-level governance, with a special focus on that which has earlier appeared in Local Environment. There will also be a brief comment on the way those issues were discussed in a workshop on Multi-level Environmental Governance at the 6th Nordic Conference on Environmental Social Sciences in June 2003 from which the papers in this issue originate. About Multi-level Environmental Governance: some theoretical notes The traditional way to see policy making in general as a top-down system from the international level down to the local level, with nation-states as dominating actors has been considered out-dated among academics. In several theoretical studies the central position of nation states has been questioned on a general level and we are, according to scholars, witnessing a partial hollowing-out of the nation state, or institutions closely connected to it, as a political authority. Katarina Eckerberg, Umeå University, Department of Political Science, SE-901 87, Umeå, Sweden. Email: Katarina.Eckerberg@pol.umu.se. Marko Joas, Åbo Akademi University, Department of Public Administration, Biskopsgatan 15, FIN-20500 Åbo, Finland. Email: Marko.Joas@abo.fi 1354-9839 Print/1469-6711 Online/04/050405-08 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/1354983042000255315

The nation state is not disappearing from the stage (Jänicke, 2002), it is rather a change in the institutional position of the nation state. This change is at the heart of the most common definitions of governance within social sciences, including multi-level governance (Rhodes, 1996; Pierre, 2000, p. 1). This development has been even more evident regarding the environmental policy sector, than for other more institutionalised sectors (see for example, Dryzek, 1997 and Gibbs, 2000). This theoretical debate is not without empirical evidence. In the words of Sue Goss (2001, p. 1): The change from traditional local government to a more complex network of agencies involved in local governance is no longer theory. It has become practice. This was also evident in the light of the empirical papers that were presented at the workshop. As a popular catchword governance during recent years has been used to describe different things, with only one common aspect, that is change from a traditional way of management or government into a new, modern, way of management or government. Within social and political sciences, governance is used as both a concept describing the empirical efforts by organisations to adapt themselves to changes in their external environments, but also as a theoretical concept highlighting the changing role of the state in the coordination process of different social systems (Pierre, 2000, p. 3). Rhodes (2000, pp. 56 61) finds no less than seven definitions of governance. Some of the concepts are highlighting changes in management theories, either in the private sector ( corporate governance ) or within the public sector ( new public management and network theory ). These also include normative standpoints, guidebooks for certain rules of conduct within public administration ( good governance ). Another theoretical field to find debates of the concept of governance is within international relations ( international interdependence or to some extent multi-level governance ). Even theorists on a system level have used the concept to describe a change in the traditional macro-political and -economic patterns ( socio-cybernetic system and new political economy ). From a political science point of view, the core in the definition of governance is in the erosion of traditional bases of political power, i.e. the changing institutional position of the nation state (Pierre, 2000, p. 1). Pierre finds this erosion to be based on several simultaneous processes. First of all, through the deregulation of financial markets national governments have lost control possibilities to international actors as well as to individual actors (markets, business corporations). Secondly, governance implies a change in the processes of interaction between different political actors, and this despite the political and administrative level in focus at that time, in such a way that policy networks have a position of their own, regardless of states (see for example Keskitalo in this volume). Thirdly, the position of local and regional level actors has clearly been strengthened, as actors independent of national governments. This is clearly connected with networks as well. Sub-national units, local governments, civic organisations and networks introduce their own policies, or at least try to coordinate common efforts to influence policy-making processes on different system levels (see Kern in this volume). National governments have responded to these changes by introducing new elements into existing structures as well as 406

new policy instruments that involve a larger share of local communities and other actors (e.g. Jänicke & Weidner, 1997; Sairinen, 2000). This means, according to Pierre (2000, p. 1), that a simultaneous movement of political power is occurring up to trans-national levels of government and down to local communities, but in a coordinated manner. This is, according to Hooghe and Marks (2003), the first ideal type of multi-level governance where the nation-state still retains a leading role and can, up to some critical level, steer the development (see Lundqvist, in this volume, also Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003). This development can be called vertical multi-level governance. Even if the states still have a considerable level of control possibilities, this development automatically means, on the one hand, that local governments are gaining in power, including more political influence within the nation-state but to a higher extent also in an international setting. On the other hand, this also means that other units than national governments can and will influence the policy processes at the local level, through sub-governmental, trans-national networks and international organisations. This gives for example the European Union another channel to change political behaviour in local governments, something that has especially become visible regarding sustainability policies. Multi-level governance has thus been seen as a challenging approach to traditional integration theory to explain the functions of European Union (Jordan, 2001, p. 205). The second type of (multi-level) governance implies a horizontal shift of responsibilities from governmental actors/authorities towards non-governmental actors. This development can be noted on all societal levels local, regional, national and international, especially EU-level. This means that both national as well as local governments autonomous position is constrained by new political actors, different than actors participating in the normal political process. The scope of the political process is widened, and becoming more open to influences from stakeholders, thus circumscribing established forms of representative democracy (see Lundqvist, this volume). This development follows perfectly the definition of governing by Kooiman (2003, p. 4): in which public as well as private actors participate, aimed at solving societal problems or creating societal opportunities At the same time, however, it must be acknowledged that existing national infrastructures for governing will evidently give both direct as well as spill-over effects to the local level, resulting in better local possibilities to reach results with the help of governance (Sellers, 2002, 623 ff.). One interesting topic is that the multi-level governance features seem to be especially obvious in environmental policy sector. This might be a result of the fact that (local) environmental policy-making structures are of a rather recent date in many countries, for example, local level environmental administration was gradually introduced to the Nordic countries starting only 20 years ago and gaining ground in the aftermath of the Rio Earth Summit. Local Environment and Multi-level Governance Earlier issues of Local Environment hardly acknowledged the changing institutional position of local government, caused by forces described above and resulting in stronger position for the local level vis-à-vis the state-level actors, 407

including the national government. This may partly be a result of the late awakening of the local governments in general, and partly due to the fact that this young policy sector has been developing over the whole period. Hence, it is still exploring the institutional limits regarding local level influence, and any changes in responsibilities across levels of government are perhaps seen more as part of normal institutionalisation than as profound changes in policy-making structures. During the last four, five years this topic has become obviously more noticed in Local Environment. Many of the papers have discussed the complex sphere of actors taking part in local decision making and in the implementation process of environmental and sustainable development policy, including both actors within the local community and those outside. In particular, the role and influence of actors from the private sector has been highlighted. For instance, McLaren (2001) analyses the problem of how international organisations, especially private corporations, actually contribute to increasing the gap between decision makers and ordinary people and suggests solutions to improve this situation. In addition, Kidd and Shaw (2000) conclude in their study of river management in the UK that there has been a shift in the role of the state from a public sector management to a more diversified, multi-sectoral approach with many actors, with a perception that a top-down approach still prevails. The topic of top-down and bottom-up approaches appears in a few papers during the last four years, propagating largely for the latter approach as a more effective, and even ideal, mode of policy making. However, the power and influence of national government is still recognised and regarded as important. The importance of public participation and local democracy is a common theme, often in the name of Local Agenda 21, and so is the role of knowledge and information sharing as an important ingredient in policy making (see e.g. Rowe & Fudge, 2003). However, as discussed by Naka et al. (2000) in the case of forest certification, an important constraint for its implementation is the lack of information due to high costs for collecting the data required and reaching consensus on its validity across stakeholders. Several papers point to the increasing role of international, national, regional and local NGOs at promoting sustainable development at the local level. In particular, such development is noticed in East Europe, as emphasised by Wilson and Švihlová (2000). Carmin (2003) recognises NGOs as crucial actors in promoting public participation in local environmental policy and planning processes in countries that have not historically had a non-profit sector. Participation and the establishment of partnerships to promote sustainable development are further discussed in relation to the enlargement of the EU with spatial planning as a case in point (Roberts & Colwell, 2001). The authors emphasise the need for horizontal and vertical policy integration, and the importance of the local and regional levels of government to make the 6th EAP more efficient than previous EU environmental policy programmes. Similarly, in the context of practices and procedures of sustainable development in Jordan, Al-Zoabi (2001) recommends a multi-level governance approach rather than the current centralised government policy making in this country that is still in the beginning of the process. 408

It is clear from those papers in Local Environment that the administration and policy making concerning environment and sustainable development is becoming more and more complex and diversified over time. The number of actors involved in policy and decision making has increased and the growing role of local government in relation to central government is evident. The Papers in this Issue The 6th Nordic Conference on Environmental Social Sciences, organised by Åbo Akademi University and Turku University in June 2003 in Turku, Finland, was subtitled Scales, Limits and Borders Problems in Political Ecology. This title indicates one of the main concerns in contemporary studies in environmental social sciences, namely that traditional political borders do not apply for environmental problems. Most environmental problems are transboundary in character; let the boundaries be between states, regions or local political units. Ways in which political authority over environmental decision making has become redistributed, from government to governance, and across different levels, was the specific topic in the workshop on Multi-level Environmental Governance. This workshop attracted as many as 22 papers, so obviously the topic was well placed in time for research activities within the Nordic countries. In addition, the workshop attracted also a considerable number of papers from other parts of the world showing the universal theoretical and empirical interest in this topic. The organisers of the workshop, Katarina Eckerberg and Marko Joas, also editors of this volume, collected some of the best papers presented at the workshop. This special issue brings together four full papers and a viewpoint, presenting varying approaches to the research of current trends in multi-level environmental governance and covering theoretical, methodological as well as empirical issues. In this collection, different emphases are placed on the roles played by nation states, regional, sub-regional and trans-national levels respectively. A common theme across all the papers is the role of local level government, in which relations between the various levels of government and civic organisations, private enterprises and social/political networks are important units of research. The papers provide examples from the Nordic and Baltic countries on how more or less self-regulating processes are emerging at the local level within the field of environmental governance and raise important questions relating to the basis of modern democracy. Lennart J. Lundqvist examines problems of multi-level governance in the re-organisation of water management according to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) applied in Sweden. He identifies a trilemma of how to combine core values of good governance, namely tensions between effectiveness, participation and legitimacy in this process (Hirst, 2000, p. 14). The WFD requires new administrative units of water districts to be formed and stakeholders and participants to become involved in decision making, defined according to their links to spatial areas of water catchments. The water districts should follow ecosystem boundaries and thus more efficiently handle issues of water use and management. However, this runs counter to much of what has 409

historically characterised Swedish political and administrative culture with its emphasis on local governments, and devolves decision making upwards, to the new water district authorities, rather than relying on established networks at the local level. He concludes that there is an inherent conflict in this multi-level governance trilemma between organising for effective problem solving and adhering to regulatory frameworks to safeguard democratic participation and legitimacy. In particular, problems of democratic accountability, but also authority, responsibility and even effectiveness are apparent with proposed alternatives for stakeholder self-governance at the super-local sub-catchment level. Stakeholder consultations as a method for improved multi-level governance is proposed in the contribution from Carina Keskitalo. She develops a framework for the parameters that should be considered in stakeholder-focused, integrated assessments of global change, using vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities of regional and local institutions to climate change as a case in point. Here, the emphasis is made on how to better understand the socially constructed frameworks of individuals and institutions at different levels, and on how to incorporate such knowledge in order to democratise decision-making processes. She argues that baseline studies, or extended stakeholder analysis, that describe current problems as they are perceived in the communities affected by, and affecting climate change, are essential to identify the relevant issues at hand and eventually invite participants in the social processes, rather than the other way around. Stakeholder studies is a way to systematise the linkages between several levels of governance and can provide a means of anticipating large-scale impacts at a specific location, with the practical application to include identified networks of actors at all levels in consultations and reflections on the results of their practices. In Marit Reitan s paper about nature conservation policy in Norway, the multi-level governance problematic is illustrated by a tension between internationalisation of the biodiversity issue as a global commitment and a strong preference, by both international and national institutions, to put greater responsibility to the local level and increase local participation. She shows that the logic of policy making in the field of nature conservation has changed during the last decade from politics of expertise, with great reliance on scientific experts, to a process of politicisation. The level of conflict has risen and challenged the role of the professional bureaucracy in handling nature conservation policy. Issues of ownership rights and liability rules have emerged as dividing standpoints by socialist and non-socialist political parties, but also general policy goals and the role of local institutions are increasingly questioned. As described by Reitan, this development has resulted in more complex interactions between institutions at different levels of government and to increasing controversies concerning the legitimacy of national and international policies as political processes become more fragmented. Kristine Kern and Tina Löffelsend provides an analysis of how international networks contribute to sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region. These networks, representing different types of governance beyond the national state and emanating from various political processes in the region over time, promise to provide new approaches that can complement international and intergovern- 410

mental cooperation between nation states. More recently, the EU is also becoming a central actor in environmental governance in this region with its new members. Kern and Löfelsend argues that the current trends in the Baltic Sea cooperation, as observed from their studies of networking activities in the region, are well in line with the EU strategy for policy integration and development of regional policy instruments for projects in the area. They conclude that the three types of multi-level governance: international regimes, international policy networks and transnational networks, despite their respective shortcomings, can contribute to developing capacities and instruments for implementation that cannot be created by international cooperation alone. Finally, Katherine Farrell reflects upon multi-level governance from a viewpoint of epistemology, complexity and democracy. She proposes that multi-level environmental governance design can be improved through a re-conceptualisation of representation, informed by principles from complexity theory that is based on social structures and epistemological positions of those actors involved. She advocates a rethinking of the role of expert knowledge in democratic decision making, adding to it deliberative systems of community participation. Similar to Keskitalo in this volume, the point is made that stakeholder consultation processes, complemented by scientific experts as deliberants, may improve the quality of our collective epistemological models of our complex reality and thus contribute to suitable multi-level governance structures of representation and accountability. Final Remarks As has been seen, multi-level governance as a concept is interpreted in several ways and remains a rather fluid theoretical basis for empirical research. This special issue clearly illustrates this situation. The emphasis can be on the vertical or horizontal relationships and responsibilities of national, regional and local government, but also on public-private interaction and on broader issues of democracy and participation of different actors. Frequently, empirical studies of multi-level governance, especially from the local level perspective, come to the conclusion that the role of national government, even if eroded from several directions, is still central to most policy-making processes. Likewise, the tensions between representative democracy on the one hand, and partnerships and deliberative forms of democracy on the other, remain at the core of discussions around multi-level governance. References Al-Zoabi, A.Y. (2001) Sustainable development in Jordan, Local Environment, 6(2), pp. 169 180. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. (2003) Cities and Climate Change: urban sustainability and global environmental governance (London, Routledge). Carmin, J. (2003) Non-governmental organisations and public participation in local environmental decisionmaking in the Czech Republic, Local Environment, 8(5), pp. 541 552. Dryzek, J. (1997) The Politics of the Earth: environmental discourses (Oxford, Oxford University Press). 411

Gibbs, D. (2000) Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and regional development agencies, Geoforum, 31, pp. 9 19. Goss, S. (2001) Making Local Governance Work: networks, relationships and the management of change (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Hirst, P. (2000) Democracy and governance, in: J. Pierre (Ed.) Debating Governance Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance, American Political Science Review, 97(2), pp. 233 243. Jordan, A. (2001) The European Union: an evolving system of multi-level governance or government? Policy & Politics, 29(2), pp. 193 208. Jänicke, M. & Weidner, H. (Eds.) (1997) National Environmental Policies. A Comparative Study of Capacity Building (Berlin, Springer-Verlag). Jänicke, M. (2002) No withering away the nation state: ten theses on environmental policy, in: F. Biermann, R.Brohm & K. Dingwerth (Eds) Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change Global Environmental Change and the Nation State (Potsdam, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). Kidd, S. & Shaw, D. (2000) The Mersey Basin and its River Valley Initiatives: an appropriate model for the management of rivers? Local Environment, 5(2), pp. 191 209. Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance (London, Sage). McLaren, D. (2001) From Seattle to Johannesburg: anti-globalisation or inter-localism? Local Environment, 6(4), pp. 389 391. Naka, K., Hammett, A. L. & Stuart, W. B. (2000) Forest certification: stakeholders, constraints and effects, Local Environment, 5(4), pp. 475 481. Pierre, J. (2000) Introduction: understanding governance, in: J. Pierre (Ed.) Debating Governance Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996) The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies, XLIV, pp. 652 667. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000) Governance and public administration, in: J. Pierre (Ed.) Debating Governance Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Roberts, P. & Colwell, A. (2001) Moving the environment to centre stage: a new approach to planning and development at European and regional levels, Local Environment, 6(4), pp. 421 437. Rowe, J. & Fudge, C. (2003) Linking national sustainable development strategy and local implementation: a case study in Sweden, Local Environment, 8(2), pp. 125 140. Sairinen, R. (2000) Regulatory Reform of Finnish Environmental Policy. Diss., Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications A 27 (Espoo, Helsinki University of Technology). Sellers, J. M. (2002) The nation-state and urban governance toward multi-level analysis, Urban Affairs Review, 37(5), pp. 611 641. Wilson, E. & Švihlová, D. (2000) The role of local government in environmental action in Slovakia, Local Environment, 5(3), pp. 255 268. 412