|
|
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