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

716 views

Published on

For more information about the Informed Cities initiative visit http://informed-cities.iclei-europe.org or join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/InformedCities

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
716
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon TyneGovernance for Sustainability Reinhard Martinsen, Hannover
  2. 2. Governance for Sustainability Index G-FORS Project Project Results Conclusions RecommendationsInformed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 2
  3. 3. Governance for Sustainability Sustainability Governance and Knowledge EU vision of sustainability Governance: key factor to enable knowledge transfer Why draw upon different forms of knowledge to inform policies?Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 3
  4. 4. Governance for Sustainability Consortium University West of England (United Kingdom, Darmstadt University of Technology (Germany), University of Warsaw (Poland), University of Twente (The Netherlands), Politecnico di Milano (Italia), University of Gothenburg (Sweden), Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (Norway), Panteion University (Greece), Institute of Regional Development and Structural Development, Pecs (Hungary), Institute for Regional Development and structural Planning, Erkner (Germany) Eurocities (Belgium) Metropolitan Region/ City of Hannover (Germany)Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 4
  5. 5. Governance for Sustainability Coordinators Leader of the Consortium: Metropolitan Region Hannover represented by City of Hannover, Lord Mayor’s Office - International Unit Scientific Coordinators: Rob Atkinson, Hubert Heinelt, Ulf Matthiesen Technical Coordinator: Reinhard Martinsen Duration February 2006 – May 2009 (38 months)Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 5
  6. 6. Governance for Sustainability Objectives of Research To examine how governance systems and institutional settings filter knowledge in local decision-making and facilitate or impede the achievement of sustainability.Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 6
  7. 7. Governance for Sustainability Key Question How do the concrete institutionalization and practical enactment of certain governance modes impact upon the effectiveness and legitimacy of policies aimed at sustainability objectives by using and developing different types of knowledge?Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 7
  8. 8. Governance for Sustainability Scientific approach/ methodology • Mix of political and sociological theoretical approaches to power and governance • Qualitative methodology through 18 case studies in 9 European countries • • focusing on implementation of 2001 EU Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and 1996 EU Air Quality Framework Directive (AQM) 2004 EU Emission Trade Directive (ET)Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 8
  9. 9. Governance for Sustainability Methodological Frame Meta governing Images knowledge Ethics forms arguing Second order governing Institutions & policies Effectiveness & legitimacy Vote (arguing & bargaining) First order governing Action/implementation Effectiveness arguing & bargaining (in the shadow of hierarchy)Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 9
  10. 10. Governance for Sustainability Governance modes Coordination of societal interactions by hierarchy (based on majority decisions or the organisation structure of a firm/administration) non-hierarchical networks relying on bargaining non-hierarchical networks relying on arguing the market (by prices according to supply/demand)Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 10
  11. 11. Governance for Sustainability Knowledge Knowledge includes certain assumptions about causality as well as normative judgements about what a problem is about and how it should be solved. Knowledge always has to do with processes of sense making and with the improvement of capacities to act (speech acts includedInformed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 11
  12. 12. Governance for Sustainability The “Flower” of knowledge forms 9Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 12
  13. 13. Governance for Sustainability Project Results •The conceptual frame •National case studies •Comparative Conclusions •Handbook for Practioners : www.g-fors.eu published by separate books (2008 and 2010)Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 13
  14. 14. Governance for Sustainability Comparative Conclusions • In terms of governance modes hierarchy was the dominant form within the particular governance arrangements identified - networks and market modes operated in ‘the shadow of hierarchy’ • Particular mix of these modes within governance arrangements varied from country to country and from case study to case study, sometimes within the same countryInformed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 14
  15. 15. Governance for Sustainability Comparative Conclusions • Identified strong elements of path- dependency • But this was not immutable and change and innovation were possible • In all cases expert/scientific knowledge from Knowledge Bundle 1 (Experts) dominant • Case studies show the three dimensions of sustainability – consistency, comprehensiveness and aggregation – are hard to reconcile •Trade off between themInformed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 15
  16. 16. For policy-makers in the fields of SEA and local air quality in European countries:the combination of governance and knowledge forms is impo Governance for Sustainability Key messages for policy-makers For policy-makers in the fields of SEA and local Air Quality Management in European countries: The combination of governance and knowledge forms is important to achieve sustainability objectives of local policies. For EU policy makers: Implementation of the spirit of SEA and air quality directives depends on the types of governance in place at national level. European countries should be encouraged to cooperate and exchange information in these fields. Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 16
  17. 17. Governance for Sustainability New knowledge and European added value • The project identifies different forms of knowledge in policy making and demonstrates that these different forms of knowledge contribute to sustainability objectives of local policies. •It also shows how different domestic governance arrangements filter knowledge in or out. •We can learn from good practice examples.Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 17
  18. 18. Governance for Sustainability Recommendation G-FORS was not designed as a cooperation project with local authorities. The local level acted within the frame of the field studies. As most of the case studies have been finished before the G-FORS research there were no direct contact with local policy makers. The results have been transferred directly to a wider audience of local actors by Eurocities during the project.Informed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 18
  19. 19. Governance for Sustainability Recommendation The 18 case studies in 9 European countries gave a large basis for recommendations concerning SEA and AQM for actors on the European and national/local level. Air Quality Management and Strategic Environment Assessment: A Decision-Makers’ HandbookInformed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 19
  20. 20. Governance for Sustainability More information of G-FORS project www.g-fors.eu Thank you for your attentionInformed Cities Forum 2010 14-16 April 2010 in Newcastle upon Tyne 20
  21. 21. Some of the issues for practiceAQM:problematic territorial source of the AQ problem – beyond admin. boundaries: economic activities, topography…choice of implementation model (right tiers/strategies) – Horizontal coordination – Vertical integration – Narrow implementationcontested measurement of the problem – Problem definition – Who should produce data? – Role of non expert knowledge in data collectionlow visibility of the AQ problemintegrating use of relevant expert and local knowledge
  22. 22. Lessons to draw from the SEA case studiesRecommendations on governance for sustainability►The role of SEA (inform the plans, facilitate transparency, legitimacy and stakeholder “buy-in”, inform options for wider debates) needs to be clarified• A tick-the-box approach harms the potential of SEA as a tool for sustainable policies• SEA must help institutionalise environment policies across departmental structures and priorities• SEA must be integrated seamlessly into national planning systems
  23. 23. Lessons to draw from the AQM case studiesRecommendations on knowledge for sustainability (2)►The complexity of AQ issues must be addressed so that levels of public participation in policy-making can increase• Regional/ local strategies (awareness campaign, regional/local information and communication networks and involvement of NGOS and stakeholders, e.g. health interests) must address the problem of low public participation►Low visibility of AQ problems limit policy integration between the various tiers of government as policy makers have not access to local knowledge, hence no understanding of particular local circumstances that need to be addressed• Policy-makers must understand that different forms of knowledge are key variables to understand local AQ issues and how to solve them
  24. 24. Lessons to draw from the SEA case studiesRecommendations on governance for sustainability► Policy makers can facilitatethe process of learning by integrating more actors in SEA process, using independent bodies or experts to arbitrate between actors, facilitating dialogue, changing the policy management, establishing baselines• Policy-makers should consider forms of consultations mechanisms to ensure that contributions from different sectors / spatial scales and cross boundary working be enabled and inform both the plan making and SEA• Policy makers need to accept that conflicts between different stakeholders within the SEA consultation process brings about a political dimension to the plan making that may require institutional or/and procedural changes to ensure transparency and secure consensus
  25. 25. Case Studies - AQM Six case studies (Germany, Italy, UK, Hungary)• EU regulations state that there is a problem but offer no solutions• Strong implication that local action is needed• But targets and sanctions largely absent• Local actors argued the ‘problem’ cannot be fully resolved locally
  26. 26. Case Studies - AQM• Issue largely ‘invisible’ (i.e. a non-issue) to the wider public• Considerable scientific and technical knowledge available• Knowledgescape dominated by expert/scientific knowledge and institutional knowledge.• Conflicts between scientists/experts regarding the knowledge base and its use, not least over causes and measurement
  27. 27. Case Studies - AQM• Governance arrangements hierarchical• Some evidence of networks (bargaining)• Governmental actors (professionals and politicians) played a key role - degree of their involvement varied at different points in the policy process.• A lack of specific European procedural regulations
  28. 28. Case Studies - SEA 8 Case studies Model 1• SEA viewed a sectoral ‘environmental tool’ imposed by higher authorities• A ‘tick box’ approach adopted• Little attempt to consider SEAs wider implications or to open up the process to other actors
  29. 29. Case Studies - SEA Model 2• SEA viewed as an opportunity for politicians to foster a network mode of governance that ‘aspired’ to arguing• Politicians seemed to view it as a strategic political tool that could be used to achieve particular ends
  30. 30. Summing up• Can distinguish between hierarchies in terms of the extent to which they regulate processes or outcomes• The SEA directive sets general outcome standards and prescribes hierarchical regulation of the process, not the outcomes. It regulates how to produce an SEA, but does not bind local actors to any specific outcome
  31. 31. Summing up• Case studies show the three dimensions of sustainability – consistency, comprehensiveness and aggregation – are hard to reconcile• Trade off between them

×