06/07/2005 - Environmental
policy integration (EPI) means including environmental
considerations into other policies, with a
view to achieving sustainable development.
While political commitment to this has received
much attention, there has been less focus
on support for EPI from administrations.
A new report from the Agency presents an overview
of administrative culture and practices for
environmental policy integration in Europe,
including the EU-25, the candidate and applicant
countries, the EFTA countries and the countries
of eastern Europe, Caucasus and central Asia.
The report builds on EEA's recent state of
play review on environmental integration in
Europe.
To be effective, EPI has to be developed
and implemented as a long term and continuous
process. This underlines the importance of
changing administrative cultures in order
to institutionalise EPI and protect it from
sudden change. Administrations ensure that
policy goals continue to be respected, long
after politicians have moved to other issues.
The general picture that emerges from this
review is one of a small but growing body
of practice in getting commitments to EPI
reflected in administrations. Various mechanisms
are being employed in these efforts. Use of
EPI mechanisms is highest in a small group
of EU and EFTA countries, notably the Anglo-Saxon,
Nordic (including the Netherlands) and German-speaking
countries. Within this group, the UK, Germany,
Sweden and the Netherlands stand out as having
made special efforts to imbed EPI in their
administrations.
The EEA's evaluation uses four questions
to evaluate to what extent administrations
reflect environmental policy integration in
their daily work.
- Do regular planning, budgetary and audit
exercises reflect EPI priorities?
In the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, attempts
are made to use budgetary, planning and audit
processes to support EPI. However even these
countries have difficulties making it work.
The greatest scope for making strategic processes
work for EPI is in countries that emphasise
strategic management initiatives, including
new public management. Here, the Netherlands,
Norway and the UK are amongst the frontrunners.
Little has been made of the potential to
use auditing systems to evaluate progress
in relation to EPI. The UK is an exception,
going even further by extending beyond a purely
financial remit.
- Are environmental responsibilities reflected
in the administration's internal management
regime?
There is no evidence that EPI is included
systematically within management systems.
EMAS and similar systems could have a positive
effect here.
Countries do not seem to allocate responsibility
for EPI in all departments and at all levels,
though this is important for promoting EPI
in administrations. Development of strategic
bodies has, however, led to more senior persons
being involved.
Some restructuring has been done, with environment
units now found in several countries' sectoral
ministries. All countries have environment
ministries, though in some countries these
ministries also have other roles. It is hard
to say if such models promote EPI.
Programmes to build up capacity to cope with
EPI are rare. Some countries have earmarked
money for sector integration activities, but
funding does not keep pace with new demands.
Overall figures for investment in EPI have
not been assessed.
- Is there a strategic department/unit to
guide and support EPI?
Some countries, notably in the EU-15 and EFTA,
have established new bodies to ensure that
EPI is promoted at a strategic level, although
these bodies are frequently dealing more with
sustainable development strategies than EPI.
Senior politicians are not always involved
in these bodies on a continuous basis, and
the bodies also seem to play a relatively
passive role. A large number of advisory councils
have also been created. Not all EU countries
have strategic or advisory bodies, however,
nor are there equivalents at the EU level.
- Are there mechanisms to ensure environment/sector
coordination and communication, i.e. between
departments and between levels of governance?
EPI communication and coordination mechanisms
are rather widespread, and some countries
have permanent networks to aid communication.
Coordination and communication between levels
of governance is a challenge, particularly
the downwards communication and coordination
in federal countries. Communication can be
easier where the environment ministry has
a decentralised structure.
Technical report 5/2005: Environmental policy
integration in Europe - Administrative culture
and practices
