Governance
Click here to read the most recent WG outcomes and work plan
- 2007-2008: Governance of long-term decision making
- 2005-2006: WG Governance Statement on Impact Assessment of European Commission Policies
- 2004: Aftermath of the publication of the EEAC Statement on "European Governance for the Environment"
- 2003: Annual Conference on "European Governance for the Environment"
- 2002: From Result to Process-Oriented Environmental Policy: WG Governance establishment
2007-2008: Governance of long-term decision-making
Chair: Roel in ‘t Veld, Chair of the Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO)
Main outcome 2007-2008
- 2008 the WG focused on giving input to the EEAC Annual Conference 2008 and the Statement Sustaining Europe for a Long way ahead. It produced a Theme paper and input to a Background report on the issue and on the practical dimensions of long-term governance, focusing on the question: “What can be learned from best practices and worst cases about the conditions under which governments may take wise decisions with a long term perspective?”.
- February 2008: the WG Governance met in Brussels, kindly hosted by the Belgian FRDO-CFDD, and the members discussed the draft of the paper on 'Governance of the long-term decisions'.
- December 2007: the WG Governance met in The Hague, kindly hosted by the Dutch RMNO, and discussed the second draft of the paper 'Governance of the long-term decisions'. A paper was produced on the conditions and trade-offs related to long-term decision making, and from which actor perspectives and action strategies for the different actors involved (governments, private sector, civil society, knowledge institutes) can be obtained. A number of ‘good’ and ‘worst’ cases were presented as illustrations of the conditions and trade-offs related to long-term decision making. A similar course of action was taken in an earlier EEAC study that compared the governance of SD strategies in 9 European countries. One of the key conclusions of this study was that in ‘complex SD processes with a holistic claim’ a balance needs to be sought between three so-called governance poles, namely the poles of leadership – ownership, bottom-up – top-down, and firmness/planning – flexibility/learning. Variants of these governance trade-offs can be found in this paper.
▲ Top
2005-2006: WG Governance Statement on Impact Assessment of European Commission Policies
Chair: Susan Owens, Council Member, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP)
Main outcome 2005-2006
- October 2005: the WG Governance met at the Annual Conference in Oxfordshire and decided to prepare a statement on the system impact assessment applied by the European Commission, as performed for major policy proposals since 2004. The WG members questioned the approach of having "integrated" assessments.
- April 2006: The WG Statement: "Impact Assessment of European Commission Policies: Achievements and Prospects", accompanied by a Background Paper, was released. The paper also scrutinised the Commission's Impact Assessment Guidelines, from June 2005, with regard to SD as objective and principle. Based on an analysis of meta-studies, the Commission's Guidelines and some case studies, the WG Governance set out some core principles to guide future Impact Assessments, including transparency, quality control, and a process of integration that clarifies, rather than conceals, important political choices.
Download WG Governance Statement on Impact Assessment
▲ Top
2004: Aftermath of the publication of EEAC Statement on "European Governance for the Environment"
Chair: Susan Owens, Council Member, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP)
Main outcome 2004
- June 2004: The WG Governance looked into how further develop its activities after the publication of the EEAC Statement on Environmental Governance. It was decided that the WG should focus on giving input on (Environmental) Impact Assessment and Appraisal, the discussion on governance related to the marine environment at the EEAC Annual Conference 2004 in Berlin and look into governance for Environmental Policy Integration.
▲ Top
2003: Annual Conference on "European Governance for the Environment"
Chair: Christian Hey, Secretary General, German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU)
Main outcome 2003
- October 2003: The EEAC Annual Conference 2003 on Environmental Governance, hosted by the Dutch RMNO took place in Florence and the EEAC Statement on European Governance for the Environment was presented. With this statement, EEAC cautions the EU and national governments against an imbalanced move towards devolution and deregulation in environmental policy. It calls for a differentiated, problem-oriented choice of strategies and instruments.
Download here the EEAC Statement on "European Governance for the Environment"
December 2003: the background study of the EEAC Statement on "European Governance for the Environment, together with the EEAC Annual Conference 2003 proceedings and contributions from member councils and individuals from within the network, were compiled in the book Environmental Governance in Europe. Meuleman/Niestroy/Hey (eds.)(2003): Environmental Governance in Europe. RMNO Background Studies (V.02, 2003).
▲ Top
2002: From Result to Process-Oriented Environmental Policy: WG Governance establishment
Chair: Christian Hey, Secretary General, German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU)
Main outcome 2002
- September 2002: The SRU organised a workshop on environmental governance that triggered the setting up of the EEAC WG Governance. The SRU developed a strong criticism to the new architecture of environmental strategy development in the EU. One of the core points was observing that there was a shift of policy approach from a target led one (management by objectives) back to "open-ended incrementalism". Among lawyers this observation was seconded by the criticism of the "decline of law". The EU Commission's White Paper on Governance went into a similar direction. There was the call for framework directives, which consolidated existing fragmented law and which were supposed to reduce the work load of the political levels, while delegating key policy questions to technical or the national levels. The Water Framework Directive for many reasons represents a pilot project in this respect. The WG Governance was set up to tackle the following key questions:
- What does the new governance approach imply for the effectiveness and the enforceability of environmental legislation?
- What implications on the level of ambition and protection can be expected by delegation to technical levels?
- Under which conditions can re-nationalisation (or re-regionalisation) undermine or enhance the level of environmental protection in the EU?
- How is it possible to ensure democratic legitimatisation and control, when delegating key issues to committees?
- What are the implications for the balance of represented interests if the arena shifts from the political sphere to the technical sphere?
- Is the new governance approach better adapted to an enlarged Europe than a target -led or a traditional regulatory approach?
- Does it offer more opportunities for stakeholder consensus, negotiated solutions and a changed role of government from regulator to facilitator?
Download the discussion paper "Environmental Governance and the Commission White Paper"
Download the Portuguese CNADS's comments to the discussion paper
▲ Top
Copyright © 2000-2009 by European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils, Den Haag. All Rights Reserved.
Last update1 December 2009