Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

1.   Back to Sustainability Through Spatial Planning and Examination of the Capacity of Spatial Planning Systems in Europe to Develop and Implement Policy for Sustainability (SPECTRA)

2.   Back to Instruments and strategies for sustainable regional development

3.   Back to Landscape and Life: Appropriate Scales for Sustainable Development - Summary Final Report

4.   Back to Consensus Building for Sustainability in the Wider Countryside - Summary Final Report

5.   Environmental Protection, Subsidiarity Principe and Spatial Related Policies - Summary Final Report

6.   On to Regional Pathways to Sustainability - Executive Summary

Summary Final Report

Key words: Nature protection policy; subsidiarity principle;

RESEARCH TEAM

Coordinator:
Corinne LARRUE
Observatoire de l'Economie et des Institutions Locales (OEIL)
Université Paris XII - 61 av. Du Général de Gaulle F-94010 CRETEIL Cedex

Partners:
Bruno DENTE
Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale - IRS-
Via XX settembre 24
I-20123 Milano ITALY

Peter KNOEPFEL
Institut de Hautes Etudes en Administration Publique - IDHEAP-
Route de la Maladière 21
CH-1023 Chavannes-près-Renens Switzerland

Joan SUBIRATS
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona - UAB -
Edifici B
E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) ESPAÑA

I.   OBJECTIVES

International publications in the field of environmental policy are filled with arguments supporting the application of the subsidiarity principle as a means to guarantee better consideration of environmental protection. This principle is usually viewed as a key principle towards environmental sustainability.

However, this positive impact may need to be qualified. Environmental protection policy-making is tied to space. Its implementation requires the agreement of the concerned residents and of local governments. But this approval is usually limited due to the constraints placed on local economic development by the protection of natural areas. The aim of the research programme was thus to determine in what conditions the decentralisation of the decision-making process allows a better consideration of environmental concerns.

II.   METHODOLOGY

Our methodological approach comes under public policy analysis, the policy under examination being the nature protection policy. The research methodology included (a) case study analysis based on (b) common methods and techniques and (c) and a common interpretative framework.

CASE STUDIES ANALYSIS

Two case studies were selected in each of the four countries taking part in the programme: France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. In each country, two contrasting cases were selected:

- first, a case where an environmental protection policy, though causing considerable economic and land constraints at the local level, was environmentally beneficial to the whole community; the case of the protection of a wetland site was chosen. These cases were representative of pro-active policy type.
- secondly, a case where a spatial related policy resulted in much pressure on the part of local environmentalists, but was economically beneficial for the whole community; the case of the building of a transport infrastructure was chosen. These cases were representative of reactive policy type.

For each of theses two policy types, two cases were selected: first, cases where environmental protection policies were promoted by local or regional authorities (four cases), and second, cases where the protection of natural areas was promoted by the central government (four cases).

However, we deliberately chose success stories which allowed us to study the conditions ensuring the success of a policy, taking into account various institutional contexts, depending on the distribution of competencies between Central and local governments and the level of decentralisation in the countries concerned.

Table 1: The eight case studies

COMMON METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED FOR CASE-STUDY ANALYSIS

A common analytical framework: the project has relied on the elaboration of a common analytical framework. This framework has been set up and discussed among the four research partners and has been formalised within guidelines entitled " Guidelines for case study analysis " (Larrue, C., 1996). These guidelines have been used by the four teams involved in the research for conducting the empirical works (i.e. the case-study analyses).

The common framework specified first of all the criteria to be fulfilled for the selection of the case study. It also specified the methods and techniques for conducting empirical works. Overall, the main sources which have been used during the research programme are on the one hand the formal and informal documents issued by the actors involved and in some way relevant for the process (acts, minutes of meetings, research and other reports, pamphlets, letters, etc. ... by the central government, city councils, political parties, students, environmental an others NGOs, consultants, etc. ...); on the other hand, informal, in-deep interviews to representatives of the main actors identified have been conducted (between 15 to 25 interviews per cases).

A five steps case study analysis: Each case study included five steps.

- an analysis of the policy context
- a chronology of the case
- the actors analysis
- the reconstruction of the patterns of interaction
- the identification of the implementation conditions

A COMMON INTERPRETATIVE FRAMEWORK
In order to frame the comparative part on the research from the beginning of the project, the main hypotheses to be verified within the research were set up at an early stage and presented in the " Guidelines for case study analysis " used by all the partners for conducting their case studies analysis.

These hypotheses are related to the implementation conditions of the nature protection policy. They are based on the " classical " model of policy implementation analysis. However, they tend to highlight the explanatory role of the three following variables: the governmental level of the promoter of the policy, the pro-active or reactive nature of the decision-making process and the institutional context (related to the level of subsidiarity).

The following table summarises the 13 hypotheses of the research project.

Table 2: The main hypotheses of the research project

III.   MAIN RESULTS

THE MAIN RESULTS OF THE PROJECT CAN BE SUMARIZED AS FOLLOWED.

Protection of natural areas and subsidiarity
Four main conclusions can be stated about the relationship between the protection of natural areas and the subsidiarity principle:
- Regardless of the type of environmental action (centralised or decentralised), all the regional and local decision-making levels must be involved in the process: in the first place, given the spatial implications of environmental policies, the local authorities must cooperate with central policy-makers; secondly, the involvement of higher levels of decision-making in decentralised policy-making is necessary to overcome the opposition of local affected groups.
- Environmental policy-making thus seems to depend on inter-authority relationships, which must therefore be encouraged and organised. However, in the case of central policy-making, the relationships are made possible by a coalition between central and regional levels, whereas in a decentralised context, this coalition brings together the regional and local levels. This shows the importance of having an intermediary link between the central and local levels.
- The hypothesis that local environmental organisations are more involved in decentralised actions is validated. True, policies initiated by the central government also involve local actors, but on a wider scale, covering all the decision-making levels.
- Decentralised policies in the field of environmental protection are generally accepted more readily than centrally initiated policies - in the latter case, more people remain dissatisfied at the end of the process.

The conditions enabling pro-active environmental policy-making

THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PRO-ACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES WERE THE FOLLOWING:

- they bring together a large number of actors: both decentralised actors and environmental organisations, at all decision-making levels;

- they are based on a good knowledge of the natural areas needing protection. They rely on local awareness of the ecological quality of these natural areas.;

- they rely on the participation of an intermediary actor able to organise a coalition either between the national and regional levels, or between the regional and local levels. It seems that it is difficult to act exclusively on the local level;

- they require a certain leeway of action for the actors, who must be able to take advantage of the various opportunities they happen to come across.

Then we can assume that the protection of natural areas is more easily ensured if:

- the concerned area is subdivided in several types of zones with different protection systems,
- the decision-making concerning the definition of the limits of the target area is separated from that concerning the type of protection;
- a powerful intermediary institutional actor is involved in the environmental protection policy, thus guaranteeing institutional support;
- the promoters of the environmental policy are able to mobilise several levels of territorial administration;
- environmental preservation and land management are linked together;
- there is enough time;
the administrative programme and legislation are not too precise.

THE CONDITIONS ENABLING REACTIVE POLICY-MAKING

The main characteristics of reactive policy-making were determined as follows:

- Environmental concerns are accounted for in infrastructure policies when there is conflict and social protest. Conflict usually occurs when there have been no preliminary consultations at the local level;

- There must be a mobilisation of the public (and more generally of social actor) at the local level, gradually reaching the supra-local, regional and even national levels. The importance of local mobilisation is emphasised by the fact that this action is a reaction, and the resulting balance makes it possible to find a solution to the conflict;

- The actors promoting environmental protection and who are a priori excluded from the process must have the legal possibility of taking action (procedural rights);

- Environmental protection is in the end facilitated by the concrete threat posed by the planning project.

Then, environmental protection seems to be more successful if:

- an intermediary actor, in favour of the road project, is involved in the protection process;
- the actors promoting protection are capable of mobilising several levels of territorial administration;
- the resources are distributed evenly to facilitate exchanges between actors;
- the promoters of the road projects have a limited amount of time to act;
the procedural rights are extended.

THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN POLICIES WITH SPATIAL IMPLICATIONS.

To set up the general conditions necessary for environmental issues to be taken into account in policies with spatial implications, the "winning coalitions" of the policy have been determined, i.e. the combinations of actors leading to the success of actions in favour of environmental protection. From this analysis one can conclude that:

- there are no winning coalitions made up of national and local actors exclusively. These findings confirm the fact that an intermediary regional actor must necessarily be involved in this type of coalition.
- the actors opposed to environmental protection lost in eight cases (this is linked to the success criterion used to select the cases), which means that these actors were unable to create a stable "anti-environmental" coalition of any kind.
- the coalitions between national and regional actors are by far the most frequent, and accordingly, there are fewer winning coalitions bringing together regional and local actors.
-the coalitions between political and social actors, especially in cases where environmental action was initiated locally played a crucial role. This type of mobilisation occurs more frequently in the case of wetlands protection than in the case of reactive policies (road infrastructures). For the latter, the most frequent type of coalition is that which brings together technical and political actors, or, to a lesser extent, technical and social actors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Our research findings enabled us to formulate few recommendations. They concern both types of policy-making, wetland preservation policies and policies promoting environmental awareness in infrastructure projects. The recommendations were intended for institutional and social actors wishing to foster environmental protection.
The list of the recommendations is the following:

1. Identifying the threats
2. Identifying the area to be protected
3. Building a political framework for environmental protection
4. Familiarity with the rationale of institutional action
5. The support of an independent intermediary actor
6. Setting up "winning coalitions"
7. A legislation which is not too precise
8. Subdividing the areas requiring protection and separating the definition of the area from that of the content of the protection measures in the case of pro-active policies.
9. Managing time
10. Providing the means for supervision and evaluation

As concern the scientific interest of the research, it should be pointed out that the analysis of eight different decision making processes for nature protection in four different European countries, on the basis of the same methodology was in itself an important result. The international comparison of decision making processes is a challenge non only in the field of environmental policies but also in public policies in general.

The novelty of the research also relies upon the fact that a common interpretative framework has been elaborated at the early stage of the research programme and used for conducting the research. This "binding" common framework enabled us to undertake an in-depth comparative analysis, which allowed us to point out the main conditions for the success of a nature protection policy.

V.   Policy relevance

The research programme enabled to produce a set of recommendations which can be used by institutional and social actors in order to foster environmental protection. These recommendations, as well as the main findings of the research programme regarding the characteristics of the nature protection policy implementation are highly relevant for those actors involved in the formulation and the implementation of this policy.

As a matter of fact, the research findings has been presented to a policy panel composed of representatives of DG XI (environment), DG XVI (regional policy), and DG VII (transport) of the European Commission, and of representative of an environmental NGO (EEB). The reactions of the panel to the presentation were mainly positive, and have showed the direct relevance of such a research programme.

VI.   Publications

Until now, the research programme has led to several publications (research reports, articles). A publisher is presently looking for publishing the main comparative report.

1.      In preparation

Larrue C., Knoepfel P, (eds) Nature protection and subsidiairity (in preparation)

2.      In press

Susana Aguilar, Nuria Font, Joan Subirats (1999) Política Ambiental en España. Subsidariedad y Desarrollo Sostenible, Editorial Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia (forthcoming 1999)
Dziedzicki, J.M. (1999), "Une politique réussie de gestion des zones humides", Responsabilité et Environnement, (forthcoming 1999).

3.      Published

Benninghoff M., 1997, Le site marÈcageux de la Grande CariÁaie , IDHEAP, 91 P.
Dente, B., Florio R., (1997), The Diaccia Botrona Wetland: The Institution of a Regional Natural Reserve in Tuscany,Instituto per la Ricerca Sociale, 60 p.
Dziedzicki, J.M. (1998) "Gestion concertée des zones humides: les acteurs locaux sont-ils pertinents ? Cas de la Petite Camargue Gardoise", Ingenieries, n^°16, pp 1-12.
Dziedzicki J.M., Larrue, C., 1997, Environment Protection, subsidiarity principle and space-related policies: Le cas d'une zone humide en france: la Petite Camargue Gardoise, OEIL/Paris XII et CESA-Université de Tours, 1997, 176 p.
Dziedzicki J.M., Larrue, C., 1997, Le cas d'une infrastrucure: la Liaison Cergy-Roissy, OEIL/Paris XII- et CESA-Université de Tours, 167 p.
Knoepfel, P., Horber-Papazian K., Benninghoff M., Terribilini, S., Wälti S., 1997, Le fédéralisme d'exécution en matière de politique spubliques à incidence spatiale, Rapport final FNRS, IDHEAP, 216 P.
Larrue, C. (1998) The contribution of subsidiarity principle to sustainable development, Proceedings of the international workshop series on sustainable regional development, Graz 28-30 october 1998, pp 217-232.,
Larrue, C., Knoepfel, P. (1998) Environmental protection, subsidiarity principle and spatial related policies, Final report, Oeil/Université Paris XII, 218 p.
Larrue, C., Knoepfel, P., (1998) Environmental protection, subsidiarity principle and spatial related policies, Summary of the final report, Oeil/Université Paris XII, 26 p.
Pacchi C., (1997) The Malpensa Road 336 case, Instituto per la Ricerca Sociale, 58 p.
Subirats, J., Font N. (1997) The Vallvidrera Tunnels. A key infraestructure in a multilevel governance framework, UAB report.
Subirats, J., Aguilar, S., Jimenez M. (1997) The Odiel Marshes. Conflict and cooperation between levels of government in a proactive environmental policy UAB report.
Terribilini, S., 1997, Contournement de Wagen-Eschenbach-Schmerikon (sg), IDHEAP, 85 p.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study