Research into environmental policy integration (EPI) has focused very much on coordination issues associated with the preparation of policies at national and international levels. We instead examine some challenges in implementing EPI at the local level. We look at legal and policy frameworks relating to environmental governance and actual waste management decision making in five Swedish cities. We observe an implementation gap between the high-level policy ambitions relating to environmental governance of the waste sector, as expressed in national policy frameworks, and the local-level decision-making procedures and outcomes. Several discrepancies are identified: between national waste policy and the local decision premises, between local waste planning and project decision making, between knowledge gathering and project decision making, and between the legal mechanism in the development consent process and the national environmental quality objectives framework. Our study indicates that the governance frameworks at different levels are quite different, and at least partly incompatible, which causes important coordination problems across levels. Sectoral developments towards an industrial marketisation of waste have rendered frameworks such as local waste plans obsolete. We also find that the more traditional and coercive forms of governing the sector, such as consent, bans, and taxes, are the ones that have steering power, whereas new procedures, such as management by objectives, lack sufficient institutional and cognitive support structures to be effective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bruhn-TyskSEklundM, 2002, “Environmental impact assessment—a tool for sustainable development? A case study on biofuelled energy plants in Sweden”Environmental Impact Assessment Review22129–144
2.
DaviesA, 2005, “Incineration politics and the geographies of waste governance: a burning issue for Ireland?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23375–397
3.
DavoudiS, 2006, “The evidence–policy interface in strategic waste planning for urban environments: the ‘technical’ and the ‘social’ dimensions”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24681–700
4.
de BruijnHTen HeuvelhofEIn't VeldR, 2002Process Management: Why Project Management Fails in Complex Decision Making Processes (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
5.
European Environment Agency, 2005Environmental Policy Integration in Europe: State of Play and an Evaluation Framework (EEA, Copenhagen)
6.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union (European Commission, Brussels) 1985 Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment
7.
1997Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 Amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment
8.
2001Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment
9.
HoogheLMarksG, 2003, “Unravelling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance”American Political Science Review97233–243
JordanASchoutA, 2006The Coordination of the European Union (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
12.
JordanAWorzelRZitoA, 2003, “‘New’ environmental policy instruments: an evolution or a revolution in environmental policy?”Environmental Politics12201–224
13.
KiddSFischerT, 2007, “Towards sustainability: is integrated appraisal a step in the right direction?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy25233–249
14.
KingdonJ W, 1984Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (HarperCollins, New York)
15.
KirkEReevesABlackstockK, 2007, “Path dependency and the implementation of environmental regulation”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy25250–268
16.
KlijnE-HKoppenjanJ, 2000, “Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance”Public Management2135–158
17.
KnillCLenschowA, 2005, “Compliance, communication and competition: patterns of EU environmental policy making and their impact on policy convergence”European Environment15114–128
18.
LaffertyWHovdenE, 2003, “Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework”Environmental Politics121–22
19.
LermanPEmmelinL, 2005, “The problems of a minimalist approach—the case of Sweden”, in Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment Eds SchmidtM, JoaoE, AlbrechtE (Springer, Berlin) pp 177–192
20.
LundqvistL, 1994, “Miljöpolitiken som genomförandeproblem” [Environmental policy as implementation problem], in Livstil och miljö—handlingsutrymme för förändringar [Lifestyle and environment], Ed. LundgrenL J (Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm) pp 113–125
21.
LundqvistL, 2001, “Implementation from above: the ecology of power in Sweden's environmental governance”Governance14319–337
ModellSJacobsKWieselF, 2007, “A process (re)turn? Path dependencies, institutions and performance management in Swedish central government”Management Accounting Research18453–475
24.
Naturvårdsverket, 2000Strategiska miljöbedömningar—ett användbart instrument i miljöarbetet [Strategic environmental assessment—a useful tool for the environment] (Naturvårdsverket Förlag, Stockholm)
25.
NilssonM, 2005, “Learning, frames, and environmental policy integration: the case of Swedish energy policy”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23207–226
26.
NilssonM, 2007, “Shaping institutions for learning”, in Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning Eds NilssonM, EckerbergK (Earthscan, London) pp 163–168
27.
NilssonM, EckerbergK (Eds.) 2007Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning (Earthscan, London)
28.
NilssonMEckerbergKFinnvedenG, 2007, “Discussion: what enabled EPI in practice?”, in Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning Eds NilssonM, EckerbergK (Earthscan, London) pp 137–162
29.
OwensSPettsJBulkeleyH, 2006, “Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the urban environment”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24633–643
30.
PerssonÅ, 2007Choosing Environmental Policy Instruments: Case Studies of Municipal Waste Policy in Sweden and EnglandPhD dissertation, Department of Geography and the Environment, London School of Economics, London
31.
PetersG B, 1998, “Managing horizontal government: the politics of coordination”Public Administration76295–311
32.
PierreJ, 1993, “Legitimacy, institutional change, and the politics of public administration in Sweden”International Political Science Review14387–401
33.
PierreJ, (Ed.) 2000, Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
34.
PierreJPetersG, 2000Governance, Politics and the State (Macmillan, London)
PressmanJWildavskyA, 1973Implementation (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
37.
RadaelliC, 2004, “The diffusion of regulatory impact assessment—best practice or lesson-drawing”European Journal of Political Research43723–747
38.
Regeringens proposition (Regeringskansliet, Stockholm) 1987 1987/88:85. Om Miljöpolitiken Inför 1990-talet [Environmental policy for the 1990s]
39.
19921992/93:180. Om Riktlinjer för en Kretsloppsanpassad Samhällsutveckling [On guidelines for an ecocycle-adjusted societal development]
40.
19971996/97:172. Hantering av Uttjänta Varor i ett Ekologiskt Hållbart Samhälle—ett Ansvar för Alla [Handling of used products in an ecologically sustainable society—everybody's responsibility]
41.
2003 2002/03:117. Ett Samhälle Med Giftfria och Resurssnåla Kretslopp [A society with nontoxic and resource-efficient ecocycles]
42.
20052004/05:150. Svenska Miljömål—ett Gemensamt Pppdrag [Swedish environmental objectives—a joint mission]
43.
20062005/06:125. Beskattning av Visst Hushållsavfall som Förbränns, mm [Tax on certain household waste incineration etc.]
44.
RothsteinB (Ed.) 2001, Politik som organisation [Politics as organisation] (SNS Förlag, Stockholm)
45.
ScharpfF, 1993, “Coordination in hierarchies and networks”, in Games in Hierarchies and Networks Ed. ScharpfF (Campus, Frankfurt) pp 125–165
46.
SFS, Svensk författningssamling, Stockholm
47.
19771977:439. Local Government Energy Planning Act
1998c1998:905. Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment
53.
20012001:1063. Swedish Waste Decree
54.
Statens Offentliga Utredningar, 2000SOU 2000:52. Framtidens Miljö—Allas Vårt Ansvar [The future environment—our common responsibility] (Regeringskansliet, Stockholm)
55.
Statens Offentliga Utredningar, 2002SOU 2002:19. Skatt på Avfall Idag och i Framtiden [Tax on waste today and in the future]Regeringskansliet, Stockholm)
56.
Swedish Association of Waste Management, 2006, “Swedish waste management 2005—annual report”, Swedish Association of Waste Management, Malmö, http://www.avfallsverige.net
57.
TewsKBuschP-OWallaceLJörgensH, 2003, “The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments”European Journal of Political Research42569–600
58.
TyskengS, 2006Environmental Assessments of Projects and Local Plans in the Energy and Waste Sectors in Sweden—Practice and Potential for ImprovementPhD dissertation, Department of Environmental Technique and Management, Linköping University, Linköping
59.
TyskengS, 2007, “How are national policies and objectives reflected at local planning and project levels?—A study of environmental impact statements and municipal plans in the Swedish energy and waste sectors”, manuscript submitted, http://www.ep.liu.se/abstract.xsqL?dbid=5700
60.
WatsonMBulkeleyHHudsonR, 2008, “Unpicking environmental policy integration with tales from waste management”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26481–498
61.
WildavskyA B, 1979Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ)
