Secretary General, EEAC

Sustainable Development Councils as Multi-Stakeholder Formations: Types, Styles and Roles in SD Strategy Processes

Many national and regional governments in Europe have installed independent councils to advise them on environmental and sustainable development policies. They have a rather unique character by being official/statutory bodies, but 'independent' in their thinking and recommenda­tions. 'Legitimacy' hence comes from the quality of their work. There are several different institutional types, compositions and work-styles, but altogether the councils have the tasks:

• to ‘bridge the gap’ between scientific knowledge and policy making, and include stakeholder expertise and knowledge,
• to provide a forum for dialogue, debate and deliberation between disciplines, civil society and stakeholders (1).

Types and Remits of Councils

The different types and remits of these advisory councils (see Graph 1) have a similar history like the respective policy fields:

• With the emergence of the environment as a distinct policy field, national governments established environmental councils to gain access to a source of independent advice and information concerning the environment. Early countries were Sweden, the UK, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, followed then by many others.
• Sustainable development as global policy objective, as agreed by the 1992 Rio conference, widened the perspective and the policy integration requirement. The Agenda 21 emphasised the involvement and participation of (organized) civil society/relevant stakeholders in sustainable development. Following these two strands many countries established national sustainable development councils (SDCs) with a more or less explicit role in the develop-­ ment and monitoring of national sustainable development strategies. Early movers here were Belgium, Finland and the UK, followed by e.g. Portugal, Ireland, Germany and France.

As Graph 1 shows, there are no clear lines between these two principle types and remits of advisory councils: there are e.g. environmental councils with a stakeholder composition, explicit SD councils often deal a lot with environmental policies, and environment councils address environmental policy as challenge for sectoral integration, hence the environment – economy link, as well as in the wider perspective of sustainable development and/or topics with relevance for all three dimensions. The main difference is that original environment councils tend to have more the expert type composition and the prominent function is giving policy advice, whereas the (later established) SD councils emphasise the stakeholder dialogue component, and their "position" between government and non-governmental actors (see Graph 2).

Besides this historical component, i.e. the development of the two policy fields, it also depends on a country's political tradition regarding stakeholder/civil society involvement (and also regarding non-governmental actors at all), whether there is an affinity to advisory bodies, and to which type of council: consensus and majority democracies, pluralist versus corporatist tradition, representational and direct democracy are here some key 'poles', all of which have effects on the 'distance' between government and non-governmental actors, and the degree and way of civil society involvement (2). Over time this has changed a bit, as governance in average has developed somehow from the more hierarchical to also including elements of the network or market styles. But key elements are still very much recognisable, ranging from countries that do not have a tradition for external advice and/or civil society involvement to those where the opposite applies. These traditions also have an impact on the (work)style of a council, ranging from more deliberative styles (in more pluralist countries) to an emphasis on representation and a resulting negotiating style (typically in countries with a corporatist tradition). For the complex issue and approach of sustainable development, in complex multi-actor, multi-sector and multi-level settings, a more deliberative style of councils seems to better support the development of an open-minded dialogue, with potential for innovative proposals.

Functions of SD councils

All in all, national (and regional) SD councils play all a role in national SDS processes with several functions, like contributing to the reviews with advice etc. The individual councils and their cooperation in EEAC provide a broad spectrum of possibilities for agenda setting, turning vision into action, dialogue and involvement of a huge range of actors. The councils

• are mechanisms for stakeholder dialogue ‘among each other’,
• improve communication to societal groups and business, i.a. via the council members,
• bear a potential for innovative approaches in communication, encouraging activities of civil society, and for advice / agreements,
• are agenda setters and ‘watchdogs’ for the holistic view, incl. the manoeuvring space to address topics that are politically too "hot", - and doing this maybe with a different approach,
• help ‘bridging the gap(s)’,
• have been a front-runner in efforts for better linking the EU and the national level (through ongoing cooperation and joint advice on the EU SDS since 2002, a benchmark study "Sustaining Sustainability" on national SD strategies and the link to EU SD policies, 2005).

We consider the existence, in a fashion sufficiently resourced (the term "living" may apply here in the same way as for SD strategies), of such independent advisory bodies as a means and indica­tor of 'good governance', not only in the spirit of the Agenda 21. We therefore welcome explicitly the recommendation of the EC in its December proposal for an EU SDS to "Consider, where these do not yet exist, the setting up of independent advisory councils on sustainable development to stimulate informed debate and contribute to national and EU progress reviews."

Some "Success Stories" of National SD Councils

As pointed out above, the basic functions of SD councils, like keeping sustainable development on the agenda, putting hot issues on the agenda, guarding the holistic view, stimulating civil society involvement etc., are already successes if it "works well" (which might not only depend on the work of the council itself). Some more specific "success stories" are displayed here.

Lessons from the National Level Regarding Civil Society Involvement

Though ownership, actions and commitment in all parts of society is wide-spread considered as an important success factor for sustainable development, efforts still need to be intensified at national level, and this also applies to the EU. The information flow and willingness to cooperation is not everywhere satisfactory: compared to several member states at least the information flow on EU policies is in average much better, though it remains a bit "bureaucratic", maybe in fact slightly elitist (which may of course also apply to member states). The attitude towards stakeholder involvement tends to focus on considering "input" (3), an attitude which some call paternalistic: stakeholder involvement seems to be interpreted as providing information, and not, or less, as a process of dialogue.

Regarding the ways of civil society involvement member states, at least some, are ahead in innovative and stimulating approaches (often indeed triggered by national SD councils), though the creative potential can still be more activated. The Commission has so far conducted 'stake­holder consultation' in a rather old-fashioned way that does not prompt controversial and pro­duc­tive dialogue. It needs to be acknowledged that considering high numbers of pieces of input to e.g. the EU SDS review is quite a challenge, but the same also applies to the member states, and surely this can only remain one out of many other possibilities. The above-mentioned structural variable regarding pluralist or corporatist tradition in member states obviously also applies to the EU level - with the EESC origi­nat­ing in the latter tradition, and difficulties to move into the other direction, just like comparable member states have. Involvement of civil society at EU level is apparently more difficult than at national, regional or local level - as polls on the status and significance of the EU in general show. Obviously, the distance is much higher, and even in the more involved "circles" there tends to be a strange disconnection between those active at national (and/or regional) level, and those dealing with "Brussels". Without time for further reflection on this point, it seems to mean in general that efforts for better linking the national and the EU level throughout many clusters of actors (not to talk about the role of the EP) should be increased with many more thinkable means (4).

Notes

(1) There is no clear distinction between the terms '(organised) civil society' and 'stakeholders'. We use the latter in tendency for the "classic" stakeholders, i.e. socio- economic partners (employers' associations and trade unions) and the former for (all) other form of civil society organizations, i.e. NGOs in the more narrow meaning. Both might be 'interest groups'. Also the term 'advocacy' (groups) has evolved more recently, maybe to distinguish activities for the "cause" rather than for profit, which is typically associated with "lobbying", but the boarders are of course fuzzy.

(2) There are not only few member states where governments are more or less rather "closed shops"

(3) Networks could make a more effective contribution to EU policies (EC, Whitebook on Governance, 2001)

(4) Maybe also interesting to reflect on the approach of the Convention for a Constitutional Treaty.

Website EEAC: http://www.eeac-net.org