Prepared by Dr Ingeborg Niestroy, EEAC

1. Rio+20 Stocktaking
SD COUNCILS and other MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
BODIES fostering civil society involvement, and:
Horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms
EEAC –
European Environment and Sustainable Development
Advisory Councils
Dr. Ingeborg Niestroy www.eeac.eu

2. Outline
1 SD strategies and Councils in Agenda 21:
Regional level - EU SD strategy
2 Diffusion of national SDSs and SDCs worldwide
and in Europe: interdependencies
3 SD Councils: Functions and capacities,
- Europe and wider discussion
4 SDCs and SDSs in Rio+20 negotations
5 Other bodies;
horizontal + vertical coordination (gov.)
6 Some governance insights
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 2

3. 1 SD strategies and councils after Rio
1992 Agenda 21: commitment for SD Strategies and
improved stakeholder involvement: Initiative to
establish SD Councils as a means for this
1997 "Rio+5": call to prepare SDSs for WSSD 2002
2002 J-burg P.o.I. Chapter XI: promotion of SDCs
2002+/- wave of SDSs and SDCs (in Europe)
2009 Decision UN GA to hold a UN Conf. on SD in 2012
2010-12 Preparation process
2012 “zero draft” as basis for negotiations:
- 1st draft on 5 Jan.  Para 59-61 on SD Strategies and SD Councils
 SDCs in Europe (EEAC) gave input
- March: "informal consultations" and “Intersessional”
- April: "informal consultations"
- 13-15 June: last PrepCom, 20-22 June: UNCSD "Rio+20"
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 3

4. 1 Regional: EU SD strategy
2001 EU SDS (Gothenburg)
2006 Revision (AT Presidency): deepened governance
- better linking EU and national level/SDSs
- SDS says that by 2011 it should be decided when
a "comprehensive review" will take place
- SD Councils are mentioned as means
2007 MSs progress reports
2009 Review, 'not revision' (SE Presidency)
2010 EU 2020: for "smart, inclusive and sustainable growth"
7 "Flagships" and Roadmaps, incl. "Resource Efficiency"
with governance (European Semester/Nat.Reform Programs)
 new +/- leading paradigm (as is 'green economy')
Since then: debate about the future+added value of the
EU SDS; possibly: review after Rio+20 conference
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 4

5. 2 Global proliferation of SD Councils
(Busch/Joergens, 2010)
Earth Council Report 2000: SDCs in more than 70 countries globally
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 5

6. 2 National SDSs worldwide ...unverified picture
(UN DESA, 2010)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 6

7. 2 EU Member States: SDSs and SDCs [1]
SD strategy from SDS reviews, revisions and other activities Participation / SDC established
UK 1994 SDS 2004/05 Review 2000 (succeeding a Roundtable
2005/06 SDSs in regions for SD, 1994)
1999 2nd SDS 2007 SD Indicators, Action plan Terminated in 2011
Finland (1990 report, 1995 2003 Progress report 1993 [mixed]
report) 2006 revised SDS, SD indicators work
1998 SDS 2009 External review
2010 Network for SD Indicators
2012 Planned start of new SDS process
Sweden 1994-99 "green 2004 revised SDS, SD Indicators - Environment Council (1968) 
Sweden“; env. object. 2006 revised SDS, SD Indicators Council for Env. Research (2011)
2002 SDS - SD Commission [mixed] (2007)
Ireland 1997 2002 Review 1999
> 2003 Reporting on indicators for all sectors Terminated 2011 ( tasks moved
> 2008 Review process; 2012 draft “FSDI” to NESC)
Luxem- 1999 2004 Law 2005
burg > 2008 Review process (2010 SDC strengthened )
2010 Revised SD law (with SDS)
Belgium 2000 2003/04 Review 1993
2004-08 Revised (2nd) SDS (‘SD plan’) (reinforced legal basis in 1997)
2010-14 Draft revised (3rd) SDS to be adopted
Germany 2002 2004 Progress Report (government) 2001
2006 SD Indicator Report (statistics office)
2008 2nd Progress Report (government)
2009 Int. Peer Review (stakeholders)
2012 3rd Progress Report in preparation
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 7

8. 2 EU Member States: SDSs and SDCs [2]
SD strategy from SDS reviews, revisions and Participation / SDC established
other activities
Austria 2002 2009 National SDS agreed (2002) *
(joint federal and regional)
Denmark 2002 SDS 2009 Revised SDS [Danish Nature Council terminated
in 2002]
Netherlands (NEPs: 1989, 1993, 1997,2001) 2007 Peer Review no SDC, other councils engaged:
2003 SD Action Programs 2008 Monitoring Report RMNO (terminated 2010), SER
[=NESC], RLG, VROM-raad
(merged to ‘RLI’ 2011)
France 2003 SDS 2005 Peer Review 1993-2003 CFDD
2006 Revised SDS 2003-2008 CNDD
2008 Progress report from 2010: CNDDGE
2010 New SDS
Czech Rep. 2004 SDS 2006 Progress report 2003 [mixed]
2007 2nd Progress report
Portugal (NEP 1995) [Annual Progress Reports, 1998
(SDS drafts 2002, 2004) 2010 Review planned,
2007 SDS institutional changes]
Hungary (NEPs 1997, 2003) [Biennial SD Action Plans] - Environment Council OKT
Nat.Env.Program 2003-08 (stakeholders) since 1995
2007 SDS - SDC established by Parliament
in 2008
Spain 2007 SDS - - Environment Council CAMA
(stakeholder type) since 2004
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 8

9. 2 Other countries in Europe: SDSs since... (really?) [3]
SD strategy from SDS reviews, revisions and other activities Participation / SDC established
Bulgaria 2007/08 Drafting, - (broad consultation in 2007/08)
no adoption
Cyprus 2007 SDS - Env. Council, was turned into an SD
Council, which did not come in being
Estonia 2005 SDS - Government Council for SD, low/no
civil society, faded away
New creation, independent, in 2010
Greece 2002 SDS 2007 Revision: new SD agenda, not adopted -
Italy 2002 SDS 2007 Revision started/ stopped -
Latvia 2002 SDS 2010 Revision: adopted by Gov. and Parl. Gov. Council for SD, low/no civil soc.
Lithuania 2003 SDS 2010 Revision started Gov. Council for SD, low/no civil soc.
Malta 2007 SDS - (but recently creating a coord. unit in PM SD council operating for some years
Office)
Norway 2007 SDS (new) 2009 Report on SD (in the national budget
in nat. budget for 2009)
Poland 2000 SDS > 2008 Revisions, new long-term (Env. council: mainly academic,
(*many) development strategy (no impl. mech.?) technical)
Romania 2008 SDS - Independent Centre for SD (UNDP
support) with civil society part.
Slovakia 2001 SDS 2005 Action Plan (Government Council for SD, no civil
2010 New Action Plan and indicators planned society)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 9

10. 3 SD Councils: Bridging the gap(s)
EU
European
stakeholder * EU – national:
organisations
SDCs cooperate
- in EEAC,
Sta k e holde rs - with EESC
/ Civ il Soc ie ty
Na tiona l Gov ernme nt
- with ESDN
Business
Prime Minister's Office - with .. NGOs /
Foreign A.
M I N I S T R Y of Trade Unions others
* EU – global:
Dev .Aid Fin Soc.A. Econ.A. Others* Env
National Env./Dev.
... NGOs
Council
EU Strategy for SD Science Only for Rio+20,
Energy SD
SD SD Internat .
Consumer NGO OECD
. . others . . * Nat. – global:
Individual SDCs
have projects
* Nat. – sub-
Regional
Re gional Gov e rnme nts
interest groups
national: varies
Local interest groups
M unic ipal itie s
/ Local Agenda 21
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 10
typical lead cooperation typical membership

11. 3 SD councils: capacities
Bridging the gaps:
• between science and policy making
• between government and civil society
• bringing different types of knowledge together (transdisciplinary)
• with the connecting capacity - 'spider in the web' - also comes
that they give impulses and foster horizontal and vertical
coordination/integration
“Keeper of the long-term view”:
reflecting in advice and activities (communication and projects)
Seeing the wood for the trees:
• keep the overview
• make links between initiatives (or: identifying needs that this
happens and make it happen)
• organise regular reflecting, stock-taking, bringing actors
together again (government/other actors could do this, but ...)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 11

12. 3 SD Councils: Stimulate informed debate as
• Advisor: all SDCs do
- by considering / integrating different dimensions, emphasising process-oriented thinking
- by involving (more) stakeholders in drafts, fact finding and discussing advice
- by following-up advice by further evaluation and feed-back loops
- freedom of agenda setting has awareness raising effects
• Agent: the core identity, most do
- being in contact with the relevant government departments at working level
- using a variety of formats for dialogue with civil society, scientists, politicians, business,
relevant institutions, across different levels, sectors, going regional ...
- triggering actors not yet involved
- initiating redesigning research for SD
- some aim to change market patterns
• Communicator: meanwhile more SDCs also do
- new/fresh/other means of communication/media use
- political communication (schools, youth, elderly / contests in design etc.)
- addressing recommendations to others than government
- involving the interested/wider public, e.g. SD “panel”
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 12

13. 3 SD Councils in Member States (April 2012)
Fully functioning SD Councils …and/or 7 (8) (AT), BE, DE, EE, *FR,
HU, IE, LU, PT, UK
[+ some regional ones]
Stakeholder Environment Councils 4 (6) ES, HU, NL, SI
(PL, SE)
SD Centres/Agencies 2 HE, RO
Economic-Social Committees with SD tasks 3 FR, IE, NL
Mixed bodies 1 (4) (CZ), FI, (MT), (SE)
Government bodies with low/no civil society 3 LT, LV, SK
involvement / not working
No SD/Environment Council 5 BU, CY, DK, (IT), UK
Total: Councils in around 15 Member states, plus HR
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 13

14. 3 SD Councils: some discussion items
• different models of councils
composition: mainly discussed “how much government” in the
council / independence [*in Europe: in some countries; elsewhere:
see next slide]
• alternative means/institutions for the 3 functions:
* advice / bridging science and policy-making:
consultant, “chief scientist”, ad hoc committees
* agent:
government (or ...?) organises stakeholder meetings / consultation
* communicator: other role for media?
* for all (?): transformation of the Economic-Social committees?
• advantages of councils:
- some group identity + permanence/continuity (vs. ad hoc
formations) contribute to better dialogue and bridging (of
disciplines, sectors, ... interests)
- efficient (low costs)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 14

15. 3 SD Councils (2): wider views
• Governmental / mixed models
Due to different views on the aimed function, in many countries
outside Europe also/predominantly such models
• Horizontal/vertical integration
* While it is in the spirit of Agenda 21/WSSD that SDCs should be a
means for improving civil society involvement, this objective has
remained ambiguous in the JPoI (Chapter XI):
• "Further promote the establishment ... of SDCs and/or coordination structures at
the national level, ... , in order to provide a high-level focus on SD policies. In that
context, multi-stakeholder participation should be promoted."
• More clarity?
* coin bodies without stakeholder participation as "multi-sectoral"
or "inter-departmental" (steering) bodies / groups / committees
* coordination as core task of government departments, while non-
state actors may give impulses, support implementation by being
involved and contribute early in the process(es)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 15

16. 4 SD Councils in the Rio+20 "zero draft"
• Para 61: "We underline the need for more coherent and integrated planning and
decision-making at the national level. We therefore call on countries to establish
and strengthen, as appropriate, national sustainable development councils to
enable them to coordinate, consolidate and ensure the mainstreaming of cross-
cutting issues in the highest decision-making bodies, with the integration and full
participation of all stakeholders."
•  Focus on the policy coordination function, and stakeholder
involvement rather annexed
• EEAC proposed para 61:
"We underline the need for more coherent and integrated planning and decision-
making at all levels, as well as strengthened civil society participation. We
therefore call on countries to establish Sustainable Development Councils or
similar multi-stakeholder bodies that bring in new ideas, set the agenda, change
market patterns, make participation schemes work and stimulate informed
debate. The challenge lies in linking possible long-term futures and threats with
solutions and decisions. We expect the (new) UN Council for Sustainable
Development to establish working links to national and sub-national Sustainable
Development Councils or similar multi-stakeholder bodies."
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 16

17. 5 Informal SD Networks, EU – national level
• EEAC – European Env. and SD Advisory Councils
* Informal bottom-up network of national and sub-national advisory
councils for environmental policy and SD
* Since 1993, with some steps of institutionalisation 1996 / 2001 / 2005
(subscription fee, central secretariat, own legal person)
* Objectives: sharing knowledge and experience, developing joint advice
for EU env. and SD policies (only for Rio+20: global)
* Global – regional link: rather exceptional for Rio+20
• ESDN – European Sustainable Development Network
* Informal bottom-up network of SD administrators
in national Ministries, plus other participants
(... similar to SDplanNet AP...)
* Since 2002, with some institutionalisation in 2005 (financial contribution,
central secretariat)
* Objectives: providing updated information on national SD
strategies/policies; sharing knowledge and experience; feeding into the EU
SD strategy process: profiled itself as alternative to the 'SD coordinators
meeting' (which has not been convened by the Commission)
* Global – regional link: not done / weak (even within one Ministry)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 17

18. 5 EESC – European Economic and Social Committee
– 'a bridge between Europe and organised civil society'
• Formal EU advisory institution (since 1958) composed of
representatives of civil society organisations /business;
governance background corporatist, with some widening:
three 'groups': employers, employees, various interests
• Members are nominated by EU MSs; proportionate representation
• Established an "SD Observatory" (2006) in response to the EU SD
strategy: a sub-committee preparing opinions on SD Policies
• Informal: EESC coordinates a low key network of national ESCs in
the EU (exist in 20 MSs), but not in particular on SD (so far)
• Global – regional link:
- Sub-committee for external relations adopts opinions on internat.
issues (development, trade, foreign affairs...)
- Relations with ESCs in non-EU countries: strengthen civil society
- Divers committees, incl. Round-tables with ESCs in Brazil, China,
India and Russia
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 18

19. 5 Horizontal and vertical coordination (gov.)
Horizontal: Inter-departmental bodies ("multi-sectoral"), e.g.
•EU Commission: Inter-service steering groups, (Sustainability) Impact
Assessment ("IA": economic, social, environmental) of all policy proposals since
2003, improving coordination and science-policy link (e.g. LIAISE)
•Member states
Germany (similar: Belgium, other mech. in place: NL, FR, FI, AT...)
- State Secretary Committee for horizontal coord. at federal level, chaired by the
DG of the Chancellery (PM Office), with Interdepartmental Working Group
- Parliamentary Advisory Council (for SD Impact Assessments)
Vertical:
•National – EU
- Council of Ministers: the existing cross-cutting formation ('General Affairs
Council') has never taken up SD  the Environment Council deals with it, and
sometimes the European Council
- bottom-up: ESDN network, SD administrators (often from MinEnv)
•National – EU – Global
- "Working Party for International Environmental Issues" (WPIEI) in the
Environment Council; at nat. level: weak links - even within the MinEnv
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 19

20. Germany - Institutional framework
Chancellor
Angela Merkel
State Secretary
German Council Commission Interdepartmental
for Sustainable working group
Development Director-General of
Fed. Chancellery
(PM Office)
National
SD - Strategy
German "Laender"
Parliamentary (sub-national),
Advisory Council Municipalities, Civil
for SD Society, Business

21. 6 Governance insights from own study:
"and – and" .. "mix/balance/moving towards ‘ends’"
Leadership D FIN Ownership
(is performed) (is fostered)
P
Top-down P B D UK S FIN Bottom-up
Firmness
Firmness, D UK ALL Flexibility
Monitoring
Framework D FIN NL Action
document focus
www.eeac.eu ingeborg.niestroy@eeac.eu
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 21

22. 6 ... found in other theory development
• "Metagovernance" (Meuleman, 2008)
- smart mix of the three basic governance styles:
hierarchy, market, network
- adapted to specific phases + situations
• "TransGov" (IASS / In 't Veld, 2011)
- social reflexivity
- knowledge democracy / transdisciplinarity
- 'second modernity' (Beck, 1992):
- 'and' ... 'and' (not 'or')
- diversity rather than simplicity
 combined: 'transgovernance'
• "Balance of the opposites" (Heraklit / Cornélis, 2012)
Niestroy, 18.4.12 ASEF - Bangkok 22