Sustainable Communities in Europe

William M Lafferty, William M. Lafferty

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781136534874
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

A presentation of detailed comparative research into the implementation in 11 European countries of Local Agenda 21 - the action plan for sustainable development at community level. Overviews of implementation in each country are accompanied by analysis of positive and negative changes, as well as a comparative analysis with high academic and policy relevance. Numerous practical examples are included of best cases and crucial barriers.

1 .	Sweden Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LA21 implementation

Katarina Eckerberg

Sweden could perhaps be labelled the leading country in Europe concerning the implementation of LA21. As suggested by a cross-country assessment of the status of LA21 in 12 European countries, Sweden appears to be in a category on its own. It shows the earliest start of all countries monitored and the highest proportion of local government units showing LA21 activity (Eckerberg, Coenen and Lafferty, 1999). One of the main factors explaining this success story is the comparatively high level of support towards LA21 from the national level of government, in the form of campaigns, finance and coordination. Since 1997 financial incentives for municipal action have increased with the government's investment programme for local initiatives towards ecological sustainability. This is part of the Social Democratic government's programme to build a Sustainable Sweden.

The rapid growth of LA21 in Swedish municipalities could thus be attributed to a top-down strategy from the national government, quite contrary to the notion of bottom-up initiatives and participatory approaches that characterise the LA21 concept. At the same time, the importance of grass-roots initiatives and involvement has been emphasised in the Swedish response to Agenda 21. In this chapter, the tensions and mutual dependency between the national and local level in designing and fulfilling the challenge of LA21 are explored. The following questions will be raised: how has LA21 been conceptualised by the national and local governments respectively? What role can the new national investment programme, aimed at the local level, play in furthering LA21 implementation? To what extent has LA21 implied new participatory approaches at the local level in planning for sustainable development, and thereby led to a revitalisation of local democracy in relation to environ-ment-and-development policy? And finally, are there any tensions between the state programme and local initiatives that might create problems in the near future?

The chapter is divided into four sections. The first gives a general overview of the status of LA21 and introduces some of the main characteristics of its content as seen from the municipalities. Second, the national government's programme for Sustainable Sweden, and the local investment programme in particular, will be described and analysed in relation to LA21. Here, the national government's understanding of sustainable development will be compared with the municipal picture. Third, the extent to which local planning for sustainability has led to a greater use of participatory methods due to LA21 will be examined. The chapter ends with a section in which the problems and prospects of LA21 in a country at the leading edge of implementation will be discussed. The effects of the national investment programme will be contrasted with Agenda 21 work at the local level.

Methodologically, this research builds upon interviews with key actors at national and local levels of government, and with representatives from other organisations that are involved in the Agenda 21 process in Sweden. Four pioneer municipalities have been studied in depth over three years (Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1995 and 1998; Forsberg, 1999), and interviews were also carried out in another nine municipalities during 1999.¹ Various policy documents and reports from government authorities, NGOs and data from our own survey of the status of LA21 in 1998 (Brundin and Eckerberg, 1999), as well as in-depth interviews from the nine municipalities selected for a follow-up study in 1999 (Eckerberg and Brundin, 2000) are used.

THE STATUS OF LA21 IN SWEDEN:AN OVERVIEW

In late 1998, a research group headed by the author conducted a survey of all Swedish municipalities and the city-districts of Stockholm (achieving a 95 per cent response rate). In brief, the following questions were examined:

• What is the status of LA21 in Swedish municipalities?

• What areas and issues are contained in local work with LA21?

• What is the political impact of LA21 within the municipality?

• What support is received locally from the national level?

The Swedish government reported to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) in June 1997 that all municipalities were underway with LA21 (Ministry of Environment, 1997). Even if this figure is exaggerated, there is no doubt that Agenda 21 has become a working concept in most Swedish municipalities. At the end of 1998, 56 per cent of them had formally adopted LA21 plans, the majority of which had been discussed in the municipal councils. The great majority have placed the coordination of LA21 directly under the municipal board, whereas only 33 of the 298 who responded had given this task to the environment and health board. This indicates that LA21 is perceived as something more than environmental work. More than 70 per cent of local authorities have employed a full-time or part-time LA21 coordinator, which means an increase from 1995 when about half of them had such a person employed. Most of the persons who are responsible for LA21 are environmental officers. There is a clear tendency to emphasise the ‘green’ aspects of Agenda 21 rather than the social and economic aspects, both at the local level and in national programmes. LA21 is largely perceived as a renewal, and an expansion, of environmental policy.

Most municipalities have not only planned for LA21, but have also taken action to meet its objectives. Four out of five municipalities have allocated special funding towards LA21 activities. Compared with the situation in 1995, the level of funding has increased somewhat, but there is a suggestion of a widening gap between pioneering municipalities and those who have cut back on staff and resources for LA21. About 30 per cent have reduced their inputs in terms of both funding and staff since 1996.

The activities included in LA21 have expanded over the past few years from being focused largely on waste and water management and ‘green purchasing’ to a range of issues including renewable energy, biological diversity, environmental management and auditing systems, and sustainability indicators. About half of the local authorities have initiated grass-roots activities, while quality of life and social welfare issues are manifest in about one-third of the LA21 cases. Almost all municipalities have tried to involve local citizens.

In almost 80 per cent of the municipalities, the initiative for LA21 comes from public authorities, but this does not mean that politicians and local citizens are inactive. In half of the municipalities, local politicians have shared the initiative, and in 40 per cent it has also come from the grass-roots. In our earlier studies, we noted that the pioneering municipalities are those that have managed to combine the presence of individual enthusiasts among local organisations and municipal officers with support from local politicians (Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998). In general, the political interest for LA21 has not changed during the last few years but remains rather high. Moreover, there seems to be a consensus among the different political parties concerning these issues. The local elections that were held just prior to the time of the survey were not perceived to have had any substantial impact on the prioritisation of LA21 in municipal policy.

Education and information on LA21 are widespread in Sweden. Not only has it become an issue among the younger generation in many schools and day care centres, but the local authorities themselves have also made internal efforts. Local politicians have been reached in 55 per cent, municipal staff in 64 per cent, and managers in 38 per cent of the municipalities. As many as 46 per cent of the LA21 coordinators claim that they have educated all personnel, while 35 per cent claim to have educated all politicians. Even if these figures include education ranging from half-day sessions to ongoing efforts, it reflects a sincere attempt to spread the concept of LA21 within the municipality.

One way of evaluating the impact of LA21 is to examine the extent to which it has been integrated into the different municipal sectors. The most successful integration has occurred within day care centres, schools and centres of advanced education. Other prominent areas are environment and health, sanitation and waste, planning and building, water and sewage, property management and energy use – considered to be within ‘traditional environmental policy’. However, only 11 per cent of the municipalities have integrated LA21 into roads and traffic policy, and even fewer have thought of LA21 within social and elderly care, or culture and leisure. Only a minority have integrated LA21 into the municipal budget process. Hence, LA21 is still far from making a political impact on the entire work of a municipality. One exception is structural planning: 52 per cent of the municipalities report that they have formally decided to integrate LA21 within the structural planning process. About 40 per cent of the respondents claim that this integration has been successfully achieved, while more judge that the integration has not taken place in reality, or only to a limited extent.

There is no doubt that Swedish municipalities have taken LA21 seriously. Progressing from an original planning stage, it is now being more actively implemented. However, our survey indicates a growing gap between pioneer municipalities, and those that are presently dismissing their coordinators and ceasing funding in the wake of UNGASS, the five-year follow-up of the Earth Summit (Rio+5) in New York 1997. There is no clear pattern as to the size, geographical location, socio-economic profile or other characteristics of the pioneer municipalities. Instead, it seems that local circumstances can create favourable conditions in terms of individual enthusiasts and political support towards LA21. The number of pioneer municipalities in Sweden remains roughly the same (between 40 and 60, depending on which criteria are used), representing up to one-third of the local authorities.

NATIONAL INITIATIVES:THE INVESTMENT PROGRAMME

The investment programme was launched in the spring of 1997 by the Committee for Sustainable Development, a group of five young ministers who were appointed in January 1997 by the new Social Democratic Prime Minister, Göran Persson. He had announced in his inauguration speech in September 1996 that ‘Sweden shall be a lead country in implementing ecologically sustainable development’.² The committee consisted of ministers from the Departments of the Environment, Education, Labour Market, Agriculture, and Finance, led by the Minister of the Environment.³ It was decided to allocate 5.4 billion SEK over three years for municipal initiatives towards reduced pollution of the environment, more effective use of energy and natural resources, increased use of renewable raw materials, increased recycling and more jobs (Rskr, 1996/97:13). This came about partly as a response to the criticism from the municipalities that little money had been provided from the national government to help towards local sustainable-development efforts. Another two billion was added in the spring budget of 1999, and, at the same time, Parliament decided to extend the programme until the year 2001. With some reallocations of funding in the 1999 budget, the total financial support to municipalities from this investment programme from 1988 to 2001 is 6.77 billion SEK (about 0.8 billion Euro) (Parliamentary Auditors, 1999).

Local authorities and associations of local authorities may apply for this funding, but are encouraged to seek collaboration with local industry and interested organisations. Finance is provided towards local investment programmes that contain measures supporting an ecologically sustainable development. According to the government directive, the reason why only municipalities can apply for the funding is the need for a holistic perspective. The investments at the local level should be seen as part of a larger national programme for building a Sustainable Sweden. Therefore, in addition to the 6.77 billion SEK for local investments, another 1 billion SEK was allocated towards ‘eco-cycling’ – the sustainable use, reuse, recycling and disposal of resources without damage to the environment – measures within buildings and infrastructure, and about 9 billion SEK was provided for renewable-energy and energy-efficiency projects for the period from 1997 to 2004. The new strategy from the government is to combine environmental goals with labour-market policy. It has been inspired by the need for creating ‘green jobs’ and strengthening the economy (Eriksson, 1996).

These investments can be compared with an annual national budget of roughly 1.2 billion SEK for public expenditure in the environmental sector. Only a very small part of this money goes to the local level in support for environmental work. The main funding for environment administration at the municipal level is provided by local taxes and revenues. The new money thus represents a considerable strengthening of the national government's role in Sweden's environmental administration, monitoring and nature conservation at the local level. Traditionally, the selection of environmental projects to be supported is performed by the Swedish Agency for Environmental Protection or by the county administrations. However, in the case of the new local investment programme, the selection of projects to be financed is made directly by the Committee for Sustainable Development through the Ministry of the Environment. This is a totally new approach in Sweden,⁴ taking away the administrative function from the agency and moving it into the ministry. As such, it has been criticised for introducing ‘ministerial rule’ into Sweden, with all that this implies for a more politicised government administration.

The investment programme was, however, not the first financial support provided by the national government to local initiatives. Starting in 1994, a total of 100 million SEK was allocated by the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) to local governments and local businesses for 30 per cent of their costs for projects towards ecological development. From 1994 to 1996, there was also a special annual fund of 7 million SEK for LA21 projects carried out by local governmen...

Table of contents

• Frontcover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures, tables and boxes
• Foreword by Margot Wallström
• Preface
• About the contributors
• Acronyms and abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Sweden Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LA21 implementation
• 2 Finland In search of new implementation patterns
• 3 Denmark The participatory and consensus-seeking approach of the Danish LA21
• 4 Norway LA21 as a means of interpreting and achieving sustainable production and consumption
• 5 The United Kingdom Mainstreaming, mutating or expiring?
• 6 Ireland Starting late: Building institutional capacity on the reform of sub-national governance?
• 7 The Netherlands Probing the essence of LA21 as a value-added approach to sustainable development and local democracy
• 8 France LA21: A new tool for sustainable policies?
• 9 Austria From eco-social market economy to LA21
• 10 Italy Converging pathways between central and local levels of government?
• 11 Spain LA21: A question of institutional leadership?
• 12 Conclusions and perspectives
• Index