5th Annual Conference, Vinkeveen, 24–25 October 1997
of the European Environmental Advisory Councils EEAC

Self Regulation within Society

Hosted by The Netherlands Advisory Council for Research on Nature and Environment (RMNO), The Netherlands Council for the Rural Area (RLG), and The Netherlands Council for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM-raad)

---

Report

1.  Introduction

The fifth conference was hosted by three councils from The Netherlands. The conference was attended by 46 people from 19 councils in 13 countries, 1 representative from Portugal and 4 external speakers. The theme of the conference was Self Regulation within Society.

The conference programme was divided into three sections on voluntary agreements, cooperation in rural areas and the role of self regulation. General conclusions were drawn and decisions made on the future of Advisory Council cooperation. Also, for the first time, there was an excursion elaborating the conference theme.

This report summarizes the discussion and conclusions of the conference.

2.  Conclusions

Opening of the conference

by Mrs. Ir. A. E. de Vries, acting chair RMNO

Modern governments need not negotiate everything. Sometimes government should take its own responsibility and set clear goals and limits to safeguard public health. When embarking on self regulation, governments have to realize that they should themselves also act responsibly and must be a reliable partner before other stakeholders can be asked to live up to their own responsibilities.

Voluntary agreements

as concluded by Professor E. Rehbinder, chairman SRU

• Voluntary agreements can include agreements, on the one hand, between (parts of) government and/or NGOs and, on the other hand, sectors of industry and trade or individual enterprises.
• Voluntary agreements vary significantly in form and subject and their use will vary by subject and between country. Regulatory and implementation agreements should be clearly distinguished.
• The environment can often profit from using the innovative potential of the market, but a number of experiments have also failed.
• Ex ante evaluation of the potential environmental effectiveness, efficiency and innovative capacity of voluntary agreements as a means of decision making would be very helpful, but is methodologically very difficult. Research is needed to solve the methodological problems.
• Criteria should be developed to support the decision to use a voluntary agreement as an instrument of environmental policy. Voluntary agreements should include targets, non-binding intermediary targets, a baseline (chosen as a reference for evaluation), provisions for monitoring and communication as well as contingency plans or sanctions in case of failure.
• Governments should create the conditions for successful voluntary agreements.
• Voluntary agreements are often preferred to economic incentives as voluntary agreements allow for negotiations.
• Currently, there is a trend towards formalization of voluntary agreements. It remains a question to what extent this is desirable.
• Juridical implications of a possible violation of environmental law as a result of the use of voluntary agreements will differ from country to country, but include the possibility to avoid complex procedures and uncertainty about the legal protection of the parties in the agreement.

Cooperation in rural areas

as concluded by Professor Ir. J. D. van der Ploeg

• The success of cooperation in rural areas depends on:

1. institutional trust,
2. innovation of the involved actors,
3. flexibility to allow for unpredicted consequences and larger scale interdependency,
4. integration of environmental considerations such as in environmental farming cooperatives.

• Only if linked with state regulation will cooperative self regulation be an effective instrument.
• The different experience of rural cooperation, as presented at the conference, reflects diverse circumstances.
• Cooperation in rural areas is approached in five ways:

1. communication,
2. economy,
3. power balance,
4. organizational development,
5. regulation.

• Reliability, baseline, benefits and chance of success, are important considerations for cooperation in rural areas.

Contribution

by Professor H. Vonhoff, chairman RLG

The position of independent advisory bodies has been laid down in the Netherlands' constitution since 1922. In recent decades the complexity of the advisory system grew out of control. As of this year the system has been reorganized. This has stimulated a more integral and strategic approach. Each ministry now has only one permanent advisory body. In addition, societal groups are increasingly involved in policy making.

Contribution

by Dr. Ir. Th. Quené, chairman VROM-raad

Dynamic consensus-building requires respect and trust between the representatives of the involved parties. Accurate debate, proper and timely communication on the development of everyone's position and regular feedback are invaluable to gain this trust. Self regulation does not imply an undermining of democracy but rather an extension of political decision making to outside the traditional institutions of the state.

The role of self regulation

as concluded by Professor J. W. Duyvendak

• Environmental regulation often leads to conflict between short and long term interests. To what extent do such interests coincide in private enterprises, in government and in societal groups such as the environmental movement?
• In evaluating self regulation analyses should not only include the relation between government and industry but also involve their relations with the environmental movement and other groups. Governmental support of the environmental movement as a countervailing power is as important as it is for the relationship between companies and the environmental movement.
• Self regulation is not only judged on its effectiveness, compared to other regulatory mechanisms, but also to what extent it is a democratic tool.
• There is no immediate consensus about the application of self regulation. It is judged according to at least two sets of criteria: one encasing effectiveness, efficiency and administrative costs, the other concerning legitimacy, equity and political responsibility.

General conclusions

by Dr. G. Bennett

Cooperation is not, by definition, self regulation. It is important to realize that self regulation need not be fully voluntary and should be derived from mutually recognized interest. There are a wide range of experiences with self regulation (including different geographical locations, environmental problems and spatial scales). In this light, self regulation can attain a wide range of forms from purely voluntary initiatives to binding contracts and can occur in a variety of target groups and different environmental sectors, each with its own conditions for the successful use of self regulation. Self regulation is increasingly considered and applied as a means of environmental management. It should, however, only be used when the conditions for self regulation are met and not simply as a last resort.

The self regulatory approach is well established, however, its use with explicit environmental aims is new. Detailed information about self regulation is lacking – policy makers need better understanding of the factors for failure and success of self regulation. The effectiveness and efficiency of self regulation is also uncertain due to the absence of evaluation methods and differences in appreciation of self regulation between countries need clarification. Self regulation will only improve the environment when the market signals are right. Nevertheless, it is clear that self regulation has become an important supplement to traditional regulation. It is particularly suited for mature, stable and sheltered sectors and should be applied when it is more effective and/or efficient than directive regulation.

It is important that self regulation be compatible with the basic principles of governing such as proportionality and legitimacy – it should be seen as an integral part of a comprehensive regulatory system. At the same time, institutional arrangements and policy instruments should not impede self regulation. Governments have a role to stimulate proactive stakeholders, to inform and assist them. This can be complicated in EU policy by the need for member states to guarantee the implementation of community measures, self regulation does, however, offer a new and potentially innovative approach for addressing this implementation.

Internal conditions for self regulation:

• Self regulation should only be pursued if there is a positive gain for the stakeholders.
• The success of self regulation should not depend upon sanctions, although free riders could make sanctions necessary. Free rider problems should either be avoided (by limiting the scope of self regulation) or solved by building in all relevant actors.

External conditions for self regulation:

• Self regulation should be viewed as an integral part of a broader context and developed in relation to other societal goals.
• The role of self regulation is in fine tuning environmental measures (EU directives are often too blunt).
• The role of government should be to lubricate the process of self regulation and not to determine its outcomes.
• More pilot projects should be started to further broaden practical experience with self regulation.

Factors that could make self regulation unsuccessful are:

• when the scope is too limited,
• when key actors are not included,
• when the capacity to manage the environmental problems lacks,
• when essential information is not available,
• when expertise on self regulation is not there (in government or enterprise),
• when the other parties are not recognized as equal partners,
• when some stakeholders won't profit.

How to design mechanisms for self regulation:

• Secure sufficient openness during the design, the implementation and about the results.
• Involve all key actors (though this could conflict with the need to keep numbers feasibly low), as long as they are trustworthy and willing to share information.
• Specify targets, deadlines, monitoring and reporting.
• Only enter into deliverable and enforceable commitments.
• Realize that legal contracts can bind some, but they also remove right of access and influence from others.
• The possible lack of public/democratic control should be considered.
• Evaluate the development of the methodology to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of self regulation.

3.  Decisions about future cooperation

Chaired by the Earl of Cranbrook, chairman English Nature

• Councils from more countries than before have attended the conference. Further extension remains desirable. The Focal Point should try to involve councils from countries, in particular, the Mediterranean and in Eastern Central Europe.
• It is desirable to establish relations with the EU Consultative Forum.
• A working committee will be established to further develop the theme of the conference.
• The Focal Point Information Service will continue to be managed by English Nature in 1998 and will be transferred to the German Council of Environmental Advisors (SRU) in 1999.
• In addressing councils, the regional structure of some of the EU member states (UK and Spain) should be taken into account. This could also be reflected in the structure of the Focal Point web site.
• The results of the fifth conference should be communicated with national governments as well as the European commissioners of DG VI, DG XI and DG XII. A general statement will be produced to facilitate this.
• Candidates to host the next conference are the Finnish Council for Environment and Natural Resources and possibly Portugal which expects the foundation of an environmental council by February 1998. The two candidates are invited to draw up proposals.
• Preliminary candidates to host the 1999 conference are the Heritage Council of Ireland and Austria or Hungary.
• The theme for next year's conference will be policy integration, linked with implementation and enforcement.

Closing remark

by Professor E. Rehbinder, chairman SRU

The Earl of Cranbrook will step down as chairman of English Nature in 1998. He is thanked for the significant impetus he has given to the cooperation of European Environmental Advisory Councils.

---

Copyright © 2000-2004 by European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils, Den Haag. All Rights Reserved.