Forschungsstelle für Umweltpolitik

fulogo-new-138x70.gif (2755 Byte)

Weidner, H., Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung, Berlin, Germany; Jänicke, M., Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (Eds.): Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy. A Comparative Study of 17 Countries. 2002. XII, 448 pp. 26 tabs. Hardcover

Preface

This book is the second collection of systematic case studies describing national environmental policies in 17 countries in terms of capacity building. The OECD defines environmental capacity building as “a society’s ability to identify and solve environmental problems.” While various institutions, including UNEP, FAO, World Bank and OECD, have hitherto used the terms environmental capacity and capacity building almost exclusively with reference to developing countries, we have extended the concepts to industrialized countries, as well. The first collection, edited by Martin Jänicke, Helge Joergens (both Free University Berlin) and Helmut Weidner (Social Science Research Center Berlin), was published in 1997 under the title “National Environmental Policies—A Comparative Study of Capacity-Building” (Berlin, etc.: Springer Verlag). It included 13 studies of countries (see Appendix).

As in the first volume, chapter 1 presents the conceptual framework underlying the national case studies. It is a slightly shorter version of the corresponding chapter in volume 1. The design of all case studies in the two volumes is largely congruent with this conceptual framework. Although the various sections of the studies do not always have identical titles and subtitles, the central elements of the capacity-building approach have been applied in all cases.

There are two main reason why we decided to use the same conceptual framework for both project phases: (1) it proved very helpful for analyzing complex national environmental policies; (2) it very much facilitated the cross-national comparison of environmental policies in a total of 30 countries. Furthermore, the largely identical design of the country studies allows our readers to use the two volumes as manuals.

This volume covers a broad spectrum of different types of countries, ranging from advanced industrial countries, newly industrializing and so-called transition countries to developing countries. While highly developed countries and the most advanced frontrunners in environmental policy (“the pioneers”) were, not unintentionally, over-represented in volume 1, the present volume puts more emphasis on countries belonging to the group of laggards or those which, owing to systemic restraints and contexts, find it particularly difficult to develop and pursue an effective and stable environmental policy. This not only offers a broader empirical basis for generalizing statements, but also the opportunity to make problems and capacity deficits visible that often play only a secondary role in advanced industrialized countries. In particular, it permits identification of the kinds of capacity that need particular strengthening if an effective global environmental policy is to be attainable. This information is particularly relevant for international organizations, whose strategies and support often do not sufficiently reflect such factors.

In developing and transition countries, for example, insufficient monitoring and reporting capacities as well as underdeveloped democratic structures and processes often play a much more important role than in advanced countries. The same is true of capacity deficits at the implementation level. Such deficits may lead to insubstantial real outcomes with respect to emission reduction or environmental quality in spite of sufficient institutional capacities at the national level. This means that, in principle, it is necessary to include the implementation level or even full policy cycle in the analysis of national environmental policies if the quality of environmental capacities is to be correctly assessed. The case studies presented here and in volume 1 may also be considered a first necessary step towards the design of such a complex and elaborate integrative analytical approach.

The new case studies largely confirm the main findings of our first project phase: there is an acceleration in the global process of environmental innovation diffusion and in global environmental policy learning; the “second wave” of environmental institutionalization—stimulated by the Rio Conference—continues, particularly in developing countries, but also in developed countries; networking, negotiation and co-operation among stakeholders is increasing; “soft” or so-called New Environmental Policy Instruments and policies are becoming more important, but conventional regulatory policies retain their dominant position; the access of environmental NGOs to policymaking bodies and their political influence is on the increase. Furthermore, the great importance of democratic system structure for capacity building and effective environmental policy is demonstrated. And, finally, it became more evident that in times of a growing influence of structural restrictions environmental policy success is highly dependent on how skillful proponents are in using and systematically creating situative opportunities to win broad support for unpopular measures or against powerful opponent groups.

Two general trends just emerging at the time of our first study are now clearly visible: (1) the worldwide convergence in the basic pattern of environmental policy, largely irrespective of the (sometimes strong) differences between countries in political capacities and problem situations; (2) the globalization of environmental policy, i.e., transnational and global networking among and across the various environmental proponents. All this suggests there is no justification for general pessimism about globalization in environmental policy; on the contrary: globalization, in the sense of facilitated and growing worldwide communication and networking between groups of actors and organizations generally seems to support environmental interests. We have found no evidence for a systematic “race to the bottom” or any creation of “pollution havens.”

Even the shift in the dominant environmental policy paradigm towards sustainable development—with notable exceptions like the United States—is taking place on a global scale and is increasingly backed by institutionalization at both the local and national levels, and within international and regional organizations. This is worth mentioning, although it is often no more than the institutionalization of an environmental policy learning process. The growing commitment to sustainable development and the broadening institutionalization of environmental capacities does not automatically engender sustainable environmental policy outcomes and impacts. What we pointed out in our first study still holds true: existing environmental capacity, even in the most advanced countries, has so far been sufficient only for—predominantly technological—standard solutions, such as end-of-pipe treatment of air and water pollution, waste disposal, nature conservation, the control (substitution) of toxic substances, or more efficient use of energy and water. A fundamental change is still needed in the nature and scale of production and consumption across economic sectors. Additional capacities are needed to develop effective strategies for land use or material flow management, for soil or climate protection; and to this end structural restrictions still need to be overcome. Especially in policy areas where no (marketable) pollution control technologies are available (for example, land use management), there is an urgent need for additional capacities which, however, have yet to be established anywhere.

In contrast to our first study, no outstanding environmental pioneer was ascertained among the 17 countries included in this volume. Some years ago it seemed as if Canada and New Zealand, and perhaps Austria, would play this role, but this has not materialized. Among transition countries, Poland also seemed to be on its way to becoming a more advanced case (at least within this group of countries). However, the pace of development there has slackened substantially over the last few years. The pioneer countries identified in the previous book thus retain their status. There is, however, one new and promising development: the frequently positive and proactive role the European Union plays with respect to both member states and other countries, especially candidates for accession to the Union, and also in global environmental politics. The EU has become the most important global player in environmental policy, while the United States is increasingly applying the brakes in global environmental matters, underusing its existing capacities for effective environmental policy.

The 17 case studies in this book are presented in alphabetical order. This seemed a better systematic solution than a more or less arbitrary grouping of countries, e.g., in terms of progressiveness or inaction, or by geographical region. Alphabetical order also facilitates the intended use of the reader as a manual. The first chapter presents the analytical framework underlying the national case studies. The final chapter summarizes the main findings of this and the previous book, giving an empirical basis of 30 national case studies for this analysis. An appendix provides an overview of the 13 countries studies (and their authors) in the 1997 volume.

This project would not have been possible without generous financial support from the United Nations University/World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU/WIDER) for the first phase (13 countries), and the Social Science Research Center (WZB) for the second phase (17 countries). We would like to offer our sincere gratitude to both institutions. In addition we wish to extend our thanks to Professor Wolfgang van den Daele, Director of the WZB-Department “Standard-setting and the Environment” for his wide-ranging support of the project, Rhodes Barrett for language editing and translations, and Dagmar Kollande (WZB) for her organizational support. We are also deeply indebted to Friederike Theilen-Kosch for editorial work and for preparing the camera-ready copy of the manuscript. Last but not least, we sincerely regret the somewhat lengthy delay in completing this reader and would like to thank our contributors for their patience and understanding.

Berlin, August 2001                                                                            Helmut Weidner

                                                                                                            Martin Jänicke

                                                                                                            Helge Jörgens