Nacionalne Strategije Održ-Razvoja U EU

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010
National Sustainable Development Strategies in Europe: Status quo and

recent developments
By
Nisida Gjoksi, Michal Sedlacko & Gerald Berger
Abstract
The Quarterly Report (QR) of September 2010 provides a comprehensive update on National
Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs) of 29 European countries (27 EU Member
States, plus Norway and Switzerland). The introductory chapter gives a general overview of
NSDS processes, objectives and differences between countries. In the second chapter, the
status quo and recent developments in NSDSs will be described and analysed along several
aspects, including (a) basic information and institutional anchoring of NSDSs, (b) vertical
policy coordination mechanisms, (c) horizontal policy coordination mechanisms, (d)
evaluation and review, (e) monitoring and indicators, and (f) participation and consultation
processes. Moreover, institution-building and mainstreaming of sustainable development
through NSDSs will be reflected upon in a separate chapter. Finally, the QR presents some
potential effects of NSDSs. Information for this comprehensive update is based on telephone
interviews with NSDS coordinators, the ESDN country profiles and NSDS documents.
Contents
1
NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES GENERAL OVERVIEW ..............2

1.1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................2
1.2
DIFFERENCES IN NSDSS ............................................................................................................4
COMPARATIVE STOCK-TAKING OF NSDSS IN 29 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES .......................6

2.1
2.2
BASIC INFORMATION ON NSDSS AND THEIR INSTITUTIONAL ANCHORING..............................................6

STATUS QUO IN VERTICAL POLICY COORDINATION MECHANISMS ........................................................ 12
2.3
2.3
STATUS QUO IN HORIZONTAL POLICY COORDINATION MECHANISMS.................................................... 22

STATUS QUO IN EVALUATION AND REVIEW .................................................................................... 32
2.4
2.5
STATUS QUO IN MONITORING AND INDICATORS ............................................................................. 43

STATUS QUO IN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESSES IN NSDSS........................................... 49
INSTITUTION-BUILDING AND MAINSTREAMING OF SD ................................................58
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF NSDSS......................................................................................61
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................64
NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments
1 National Sustainable Development Strategies general overview

This introductory chapter provides an overview of general national sustainable development
strategy processes, objectives and differences.
1.1 Introduction
National sustainable development strategies (NSDSs) are considered to be among the prime
tools for realising governance for sustainable development (SD). They date back to 1992 and
Agenda 211 which suggests that *g+overnments *...+ should adopt a national strategy for
sustainable development which should ensure socially responsible economic development
while protecting the resource base and the environment for the benefit of future
generations (Agenda 21, Chapter 8 Integrating environment and development in decisionmaking). This particular interpretation of sustainable development stems from the attempt
to reconcile conflicting interests of developing and industrialised countries at the 1972
Stockholm United Nations Conference on Human Environment and the most famous work of
the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development led by Gro Harlem
Brundtland, the 1987 report Our Common Future.
Many countries started preparing their own NSDSs towards the end of 1990s, culminating in
a relatively speedy preparation in most of the European countries shortly before the 2002
UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. In addition to Agenda 21
and the linkage to the Rio commitments, NSDS development was spurred by further UN
work (a 1997 Special Session of the UN General Assembly urging for governments to prepare
their own NSDSs until 2002; effort of UNDESA and UNECE; UNDPs Capacity 21 initiative,
relevant especially for European countries which were not EU Member States at that time),
work of the OECD (the Sustainable Development publication series, work of the
Development Assistance Committee as well as linkage to one of the seven OECDs
international development goals) and by the EU through the European Councils Presidency
Conclusion from Gothenburg 2001 which marked the first EU Sustainable Development
Strategy (EU SDS). NSDSs received highest attention internationally during 20002004 with a
watershed of guidelines and assessments of early NSDS attempts by scholars, practitioners
and international agencies (most notably Heidbrink & Paulus 2000, OECD 2000, UK DFID et
al. 2000, Kirkpatrick et al. 2001, OECD 2001a, Dalal-Clayton & Bass 2002c, Dalal-Clayton et al.
2002, IIED et al. 2002, UNDESA 2002, EC 2004, Swanson et al. 2004). On the basis of the
renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EC 2006), all EU Member States were asked
to finalise their NSDSs (if they had not prepared one before) by 2007 and to address linkages
between their NSDSs and the EU SDS in future NSDS reviews.
1
Agenda 21 is, together with the Rio Declaration, perhaps the most important document related to SD ever adopted at the
global level, one of the results of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held 1992 in Rio de
Janeiro. It drafts very concrete measures for the implementation of sustainable development in various policy areas and at
various political-administrative levels, stressing four pillars of sustainable development social, economic, environmental
and institutional.
The purpose of NSDSs can be described as aiming to mobilize and focus a societys efforts
to achieve sustainable development (Carew-Reid et al. 1994). They should provide a forum
for societal articulation of a vision of the future, as well as a framework for processes of
negotiation, mediation and consensus and capacity building (ibid.). According to Agenda 21,
NSDSs should be developed through the widest possible participation and build upon and
harmonize the various sectoral economic, social and environmental policies and plans that
are operating in the country as well as be based on a thorough assessment of the current
situation and initiatives. After the first experiences with NSDSs, it has been understood that
in order for NSDSs to remain continuously relevant as well as improve over time, they need a
cyclical, iterative process with results of monitoring and evaluation feeding further debate
and objective setting (see e.g. UNDESA 2001b, Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002a, OECD 2001b).
This normative process-oriented view, derived from the sequential rationalist policy cycle
model (although heavily criticised for being unrealistic, see e.g. Sabatier 1991), became
predominant.
NSDSs are thought of as serving to achieve better policy coordination and integration in
several dimensions: horizontally (across policy sectors), vertically (across politicaladministrative levels as well as territorially), temporally (across time) and across societal
sectors (public, private, academia, civil society). In Agenda 21 they are presented as separate
from measures to improve processes of decision-making, planning, management as well as
data and information. However in contrast to the earlier national environmental plans under
the process-oriented view, NSDSs also became increasingly understood as vehicles for an
ambitious governance reform, marrying the better regulation/good governance agenda with
the principles of sustainable development (see EC 2005, Steurer 2009). The goal is to
incrementally transform national policy-making in the direction of a more network-oriented
and effective multi-level governance; fostering a change towards openness, transparency
and public/stakeholder participation under the normative ideals of Habermasian
deliberation; and improving the knowledge processes related to decision making so
decisions are made on the basis of sound evidence and integrated understanding of the
effects of the decision and the involved trade-offs (see e.g. OECD 2001b, EC 2005).
Boundary issues also represent a challenge in thinking about NSDSs. Firstly, in line with
Mintzbergs concept of emergent strategy (Mintzberg 2000, see also Steurer 2007) all
existing national SD efforts, i.e. processes of national capacity building, strategic planning,
implementation and evaluation for sustainable development, can be seen as components of
a national sustainable development strategy (Cherp and Vrbensky 2002). Similarly, also
OECD suggests that NSDSs do not have discrete beginnings or ends (2001b). NSDSs in this
sense can be understood as instruments to further pre-existing SD interests present in the
society. However, such a concept of a NSDS, able to encompass practically any policy
process, can thus become too blurry. Meadowcroft (2007) argues that it is helpful to keep in
mind the distinction between the discrete NSDS strategy process and the broader practice
3
of strategic decision-making and policy implementation for sustainable development.

However, there are many processes and initiatives, having their own networks of actors,
which in a number countries take place outside of the scope of NSDSs (such as pursuit of
better regulation/good governance agenda, sustainability, regulatory and other types of
impact assessment, attempts at improving management of concrete environmental sectors
(e.g. climate change and energy, water management, land-use planning), sustainable
development indicators and their monitoring reports, green public procurement, corporate
social responsibility, socially responsible investment etc.). They can have significant influence
on the social and environmental performance of the country. Secondly, as a logical extension
of the first point, there has been a realisation that *t+he label does not matter as long as
basic strategic planning principles are maintained and a co-ordinated set of mechanisms
and processes which ensure their implementation is in place (OECD 2001b). Now the NSDSs
are considered not exclusively as the starting points of strategic planning for sustainable
development; national strategies for conservation, poverty reduction, regional development
or tourism can (and do, although mostly outside Europe, see Swanson et al. 2004) serve just
as well (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002b, 2002c; OECD 2001). In the tension between the need
for concrete measures and tailored approaches and overarching character guided by a broad
societal vision, the NSDSs will find their limits: governance for sustainable development is
not reducible to one really big, ideal, SD strategy process (Meadowcroft 2007).
1.2 Differences in NSDSs

An analysis and comparison of NSDSs is complicated by the fact that they are very different
from country to country. There is no blueprint for NSDSs. Several years ago, the European
Commission in its analysis of NSDSs of EU Member States identified several types:2
Framework strategies set out general policy directions and guidance for sustainable
development, combined with broad lines of action for specific problem areas, aiming to
change processes of policy development and implementation, and relying on separate
(sectoral) action plans and annual work programmes as means of implementation (EC 2004,
p. 11). This approach carries the risk that the principles and policy guidance formulated in
the NSDSs will be too broad and general for practical use in particular issues3 as well as the
risk of discontinuities between the NSDSs and their action plans. A less common type are
NSDSs which have the form of action programmes with concrete, short and medium-term
objectives, with strict timetables and detailed measures (ibid.). This approach faces the
risks associated with the lack of an overarching long-term vision for societal transition
towards sustainability as well as the tensions between achievable and concrete, although
2
In the EU the NSDSs are typically what Swanson et al. (2004) describe as comprehensive, multi-dimensional SD
strategies, i.e. single documents and processes incorporating all three dimensions of SD. They identified three additional
types across the world: cross-sectoral SD strategies relating to specific dimensions of SD such as national environmental
management plans or poverty reduction strategy papers; sectoral SD strategies incorporating all three dimensions of SD
focusing on a specific sector such as a national sustainable transport strategy; and SD integration into existing national
development strategies (ibid.).
3
Noteworthy is also the suggestion that since society is such a complex amalgam of contradicting interests the formulation
of a broad societal vision by necessity results in a collection of lowest-common-denominator statements such as
democratic society or prosperity which, similarly to sustainable development, are quite open to interpretation.
limited, measures and ambitious measures which attempt to do everything and serve as
shopping lists. Mixed approaches with the NSDSs serving as framework documents but still
containing very detailed policy actions are quite common.
In addition, NSDSs to a significant extent differ in scope, objectives, topic areas and
measures (as well as the mechanisms of their implementation). The number of objectives
varies from 4 to 16 and they are formulated with various structuring principles in mind:
along visionary concepts, along dimensions of human well-being, along environmental
sectors or along problem areas. Topic areas also vary considerably with the less common
being protection of culture, economic sustainability of the government or material welfare
and economic growth. Of course, there are many reasons for this: countries vary in their
natural and economic assets, in their histories of political discourses etc.
Given the differing contexts NSDSs were developed in, they vary also in terms of their
mandate (to what extent they are binding for sectoral ministries or sub-national authorities)
and institutional setup (organisations responsible for their implementation, institutional
mechanisms for policy coordination or stakeholder involvement). Typically, the Ministries of
Environment are responsible for their implementation and monitoring. This leads to several
difficulties. Ministries of Environment in many countries tend to be among the weaker
players when defining national development priorities and means of their realisation. Thus
they need to mobilise support of other, more influential actors to move issues related to
NSDSs onto political agenda. This disadvantaged negotiation position often leads to
watering down of NSDSs. Secondly, Ministries of Environment are primarily expected to
represent the interests of the environment, while NSDSs should balance economic, social
and environmental priorities for achieving lasting human well-being. Ministries of
Environment are thus often forced into an ambivalent position of defending at the same
time environmental interests and interests of sustainable development (which at times can
even be at odds with the interests of environment) and other actors can have difficulties
understanding their interests. A logical solution would seem to be to anchor NSDSs to an
institutional position central to the government, typically State/Federal Chancelleries or
Prime Ministers Offices. Such a position communicates higher political will, makes it easier
to embody the overarching character of NSDSs and enables representation of the muchneeded role of the (neutral) balancing factor between sectoral interests. However, should
we understand national development as a resultant force of the vectors of influence of
individual sectoral actors, there is a risk that environmental issues will continue to be
underrepresented.
2 Comparative stock-taking of NSDSs in 29 European countries

This chapter provides a comparative overview of NSDS processes in 29 European countries:
it reports on recent developments in the 27 EU Member States, plus Norway and
Switzerland. In particular, it describes the status quo and recent developments in the
following aspects of the NSDS processes:
a) general profile of the NSDS;
b) vertical policy coordination mechanisms;
c) horizontal policy coordination mechanisms;
d) evaluation and review processes;
e) monitoring and SD indicators;
f) participation mechanisms.
The information collected for individual countries is based on telephone interviews with
NSDS coordinators 4 and on information available in the country profiles section on the ESDN
homepage. In total, 21 interviews were undertaken, based on an interview guide in order to
make comparisons between countries possible 5. For those countries for which a telephone
interview could not be arranged, information was taken exclusively from the respective
ESDN country profile 6.
The findings are then summarised shortly in tables for each of the categories mentioned
above. It is important to note that due to the vast amount of new information we gathered
during the telephone interviews, we will update the country profiles section on the ESDN
homepage in the coming months. Due to limitations of space, this QR presents condensed
information for each country only.
2.1 Basic information on NSDSs and their institutional anchoring

This subsection deals with the status quo and recent developments in revision and political
profile of the NSDS and its institutional anchoring. In total, 28 countries have developed an
NSDS and one country has a strategic approach on SD but no strategy document (The
Netherlands). The first NSDSs were developed in the mid- to late-1990s: Swedish and UK
adopted their first NSDSs already in 1994 (published in 1994), followed by Ireland (1997) and
Belgium (1999). Most countries, however, developed their first NSDSs in preparation to the
UN World Summit in Johannesburg in 2001, other countries followed later in the 2000s.
4
Interviews were conducted between 23 August 2010 and 22 September 2010.

We undertook interviews with NSDS coordinators from Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands (only partially for information in
chapter three), Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and United Kingdom.
6
Information for the following countries is based on information in their ESDN countries profiles: Bulgaria, Italy, Ireland,
Lithuania, Norway, Netherlands, Romania and Sweden. Information on Poland is not included in the tables (except Table 1)
as Poland is undergoing substantial reforms in its state policy planning and development system: in 2007 and 2008,
intensive work has been undertaken to create a legislative and institutional framework for preparing the work on a Longterm Development Strategy of Poland.
5
Most European countries have started to revise their NSDSs between 2006-2008 (e.g.
Denmark, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Lithuania,
Bulgaria), some others recently in the period 2009-2010 (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic,
France, Latvia, Luxembourg). NSDS revisions from 2006 onwards are strongly linked to the
topics and objectives included in the renewed EU SDS of 2006. New NSDSs are planned in
Finland and Slovenia for the period 2011-2012. In some countries, such as United Kingdom
and Poland, the future of their NSDSs and related processes is unclear due to recent changes
in government.
The NSDS processes vary across countries. Only a few have managed to put it at the core of
their national policy planning (i.e. Latvia, Poland see Table 1), other countries have linked the
strategy with the general government program (i.e. Switzerland) or reached a better
coordination of objectives and goals with other government documents. The majority of the
interviewed NSDS coordinators confirmed that the NSDSs remain one strategy among other
policy strategies. Moreover, the interview results suggest that although SD is an overarching
concept, the NSDSs have not developed into overarching policy strategies for all
governmental departments. The findings of the Finnish impact assessment7, which suggest
that the added-value of the NSDS lies rather in its participatory and consultative processes,
rather than in the document itself, seems to hold true also for other European countries.
Regarding institutional anchoring of NSDSs, there is a clear tendency, that the main
coordinating bodies for NSDS processes are the Ministries of Environment (in 19 out of 29
countries). Based on the interview results, Ministries of Environment seems to have the best
developed capacity and knowledge for SD. However, they often lack resources and high level
political profile compared to other government ministries (i.e. Prime Ministers Office or
State Chancellery, Ministry of Economics, Ministry of Finance, etc). In some countries, NSDS
processes are now coordinated by the Prime Ministers Offices or State Chancelleries (e.g.
Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia and, since 2009, Poland). In Austria, the
cooperation between the Ministry of Environment and the Federal Chancellery in the NSDS
process has been strengthened.
Table 1: Basic information on NSDSs and institutional anchoring
Ministry of the Environment, 2010: National Assessment of Sustainable Development 2009. Helsinki.
Austria
Latest version and
Latest Version: Starting with 2006, a federal SD
recent developments in strategy was developed by the 'Expert Conference
the NSDS profile
on National and Regional SD Coordinators'.
The Federal SD Strategy was adopted in July 2010
by the Council of Ministers.
Recent developments: This strategy will be the
first common SD strategy of the national and
regional level in Europe.
New in the institutional anchoring: cooperation of
the Federal State Chancellery and the Ministry of
Environment.
Leading institution in
the NSDS process
Federal level: Federal Chancellery; Federal

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management.
Regional level: Regional governors.
Belgium
Latest version: The third Federal Plan (FP) (20102014) has not yet been adopted; preparation has
been delayed due to the revision of the Federal
Act on Sustainable Development (SD).
Recent developments: The revised Federal Act on
SD, approved in 2010, but not yet published, calls
for the development of a long-term vision for SD,
based on which a new FP will be drafted in which
the concrete measures are identified that are
deemed necessary to achieve the long-term
objectives determined by the vision.
The revised Federal Act, furthermore, alters:
(1) the duration and content of the planning and
reporting cycle; (2) the composition of the
Interdepartmental Commission on Sustainable
Development; (3) the possibility for a new
government to change the FP.
Development (ICSD).
Federal Public Planning Service Sustainable
Development (PPS SD).
Task Force on Sustainable Development (TFSD) of
the Federal Planning Bureau (FPB).
Federal Council for Sustainable Development
(FCSD).
Denmark
Latest Version: The revised National Plan for SD
was adopted in March 2009. A first draft was
published in 2007. This draft was subject to a
broad stakeholder consultation.
Czech Republic
Latest version and
Latest Version: The new strategy revision, which
recent developments in was planned to end in September 2009, was
the NSDS profile
finalized in January 2010. The result has been a
strategic framework for SD (more a policy brief
then a strategy).
Recent developments: The implementation part is
still being discussed and will be delivered to the
Government by 31st October of 2010. Also the
monitoring and review process will be tackled in
that part.
Government Council for SD operates under two
Ministry of Environment is the leading institution
the NSDS process
standing committees: committee of
in the coordination of the NSDS.
communication and committee of strategy.
Bulgaria
The first draft of the Bulgarian NSDS is currently
developed.
After a period of broad consultation (September
2007 September 2008) including public
authorities, stakeholders, academia, NGOs, etc
a decision for further analysis and improvements
in the draft text was taken before the NSDS was
submitted for adoption by the Council of
Ministers.
Cyprus
The first NSDS of Cyprus was approved by the
Council of Ministers in November 2007
Ministry of Economy and Energy
Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and

Environment
Estonia
Latest Version: The NSDS was approved by the
Estonian Parliament in 2005. Since then no new
strategy was adopted.
Recent developments: The Commission for SD
has been reformed since 2009, in terms of
composition of participants and frequency of
meetings and its functions in the NSDS process
(see horizontal integration).
Finland
Latest Version: The new NSDS was approved by
the Finish National Commission on SD(FNCSD) and
by the Cabinet in 2006. A new strategy process
will be started, based on the external evaluation
(2009)
Recent Developments: The Finish Network for SD
Indicators was established in 2010 and the work
on a new strategy process will be started in 20112012.
State Chancellery
Secretariat of the FNCSD located at the Ministry of

Environment.
France
Latest version and
Latest Version: A new NSDS, subtitled towards a
recent developments in fair a green economy for the time-period 2009the NSDS profile
2013 has been adopted in July 2010.
Recent developments: The elaboration process
involved abroad range of stakeholders. The new
NSDS is much strategic and has a more clear focus,
than the former NSDS, in order to reach more
stakeholders.
Germany
Latest Version: The NSDS was adopted in
2002.Two Progress reports were published in
2004 and 2009.
Recent developments: Stronger integration of the
federal countries in the NSDS process;
Stronger collaboration between the Parliamentary
Advisory Council of SD and the State Secretaries
for SD.
the NSDS process
Ministry for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable

Development and Sea was the leading institution
in the elaboration, coordination of this process. It
will also be responsible for the monitoring
process.
Italy
Latest version and
Latest version: The NSDS was approved by the
recent developments in Inter-ministerial Committee for Economic
the NSDS profile
Planning (CIPE) on 2nd August 2002.
The revision process to bring in line the NSDS with
the EU SDS started in September 2007. It has been
stopped before the general elections of the
government in April 2008.
Committee of State Secretary ('Green Cabinet') on

SD, chaired by the head of the Federal
Chancellery.
the NSDS process
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local

Government
Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea
Ireland
Latest version: A revision process started in 2008
and in the same year a first draft of the revised
NSDS has been submitted to government
departments. The revised NSDS should replace the
NSDS of 1997 and the second document 'Making
Irelands Development Sustainable-Review,
Assessment and Further Action' published in 2002.
No further information is available if the revised
NSDS has been already adopted or not.
Greece
Latest version: the NSDS has been adopted by the
Council of Ministers in 2002.
Recent developments: The government had
promoted the revision of the NSDS, which started
in August 2007. The process outcome is a new and
updated agenda for the NSDS which has not been
adopted yet. Beside the NSDS, the political
priorities for the whole government structure
have been set under a new strategic objective of
"green growth".
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has
been reformed and restructured in 2009.
Hungary
Latest version: The NSDS was revised in 2007.
Latvia
Latest version: The latest version of the NSDS
(2002) was adopted in June 2010; it has been
approved from the government and the
Parliament.
Recent developments:
the strategy has become the core long-term
strategic planning document(until 2030) (all
sectoral policies are obliged to integrates it in
sectoral policies);
has moved his institutional framework towards a
more high-level profile. The NCSD has been
8
integrated in the NCD , broadening its members
to the highest level of the administration
(ministers), but also regional authorities and main
public institutions (academy of science, various
chambers etc).
State Chancellery is nominated to be responsible
for the NSDS process by the state system
development law. This task will be then operated
through the Ministry for Regional and Local
government.
Lithuania
Latest version: NSDS was approved by the
Government in 2003. Currently, the NSDS is under
review and a revised NSDS is discussed in the
National Commission for Sustainable
Development. The revised NSDS will be approved
by the Government later in 2008. No information
is available if the revised NSDS is already adopted.
Recent developments: Due to the new Parliament

and governmental structure the coordination
mechanism can be changed.
National Council for Sustainable Development

(NCSD)
Ministry of Environment
The former NCSD has been integrated in the National development Council (set up in 2007) and the inter-ministerial coordination function and consultation functions have been handed over to the NDC. The
NDC is a monitoring and steering mechanism which monitors the function of state development system, shows coordination of development processes and has the power to reject and postpone policy
development documents.
Luxembourg
Latest version and
Latest Version: The revised National Plan will be
recent developments in submitted from the Inter-departmental
the NSDS profile
Commission-interdepartmental body to the
government- in October 2010 for approval.
the NSDS process
Poland
Latest version and
The NSDS in Poland was valid from 2000-2008.
recent developments in In 2007 and 2008, intensive work has been
the NSDS profile
undertaken to create a legislative and institutional
framework for preparing the work on a Long-term
9
Development Strategy of Poland .
The relation of the NSDS and the long-term
strategic development and the nine strategies is
10
that SD is at the core of these strategies.
the NSDS process
Malta
Latest Version: The NSDS was approved by the
cabinet of Ministers in December 2007. The NSDS
has not been revised since then.
Recent developments: recently there are some
reforms on establishing a new SD unit in the Prime
Minister Office, which would coordinate and
monitor all governmental policies. The NCSD is not
set-up currently.
Office of the Prime Minister is responsible for

coordination and implementation
Portugal
Latest Version: NSDS was adopted in 2007.
Recent developments: with the new government
in 2010 a new decision has been taken,
concerning the main institutional responsibility in
the coordination of the NSDS. This task has been
shifted away from high-level institution, such as
the Prime Minister Office, to the Ministry for
Environment and Spatial Planning.
A new department within the Ministry for
Environment and Spatial Planning has now the
leading role of the coordinator in the NSDS
11
process .
Netherlands
The Action Program Sustainable Action was
adopted by the Dutch Government in 2003
Recently, the Dutch Government developed a
strategic approach of SD for the whole policy
process, i.e. making SD part of all policies .
The approach comprises the following issues: (a)
Monitoring report on SD (issued in November
2008) will be discussed with the Parliament; (b)
Annual SD Report; (c) Communication Strategy of
the Government will include SD issues; and (d)
National Dialogue on SD will be initiated.
Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning
and Environment
Romania
Latest Version: The renewed NSDS was approved
by the Government and officially launched on 16
December 2008, including a presentation at the
European Commission.
The review process of the current NSDS was a
common project of the Government and the
UNDP.
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable
Development
Norway
The Government presented a new, updated NSDS
The Norwegian Strategy for Sustainable
Development in the National Budget in October
2007. In the National Budget for 2009, the
Governments work on SD in the first year
following the new strategy is reported.
Ministry of Finance
Slovakia
The NSDS was adopted by the Government in
2001; an updated and revised version in Action
Plan for Sustainable Development was published
in 2005.
Recent Development: A new action plan and a
new set of indicators is planned in 2010.
Government Office of the Slovak Republic
The result was also the reduction of the strategic documents (42) into nine strategies. The preparation of the new 9 strategies and the Long-term Development Strategy of Poland has started in early 2010 and
is planned to be finalized in the first half of 2011
10
However, a clarified relationship between these strategies and the former NSDS content and the governance mechanisms can still not be said
11
The Department of the Perspectives and Planning leader has still not been nominated so far.
Slovenia
Latest version and
Latest Version: Slovenia's Development Strategy
recent developments in 2005-2013 (also NSDS) was adopted by the
the NSDS profile
Government in 2005. The current NSDS will be
revised and a new Development Strategy 20132020 will be developed until 2012.
Recent Development:
The new government established a new body:
Government Office for Climate Change (GOCCH) in
2009;
NCSD will be handed over to the GOCCH;
handover for the NCSD has not been
accomplished yet;
a long-term Strategy for Mitigation of Climate
Change 2011-2050 will be developed;
the relation between the two strategies is yet
unclear.
Government Office for Growth and
the NSDS process
Development will maintain the function of focal
point until the GOCCH is fully operational.
The GOCCH will be chaired from an independent
SD expert.
United Kingdom
Latest version and
In 2005 a shared framework for SD in the UK was
recent developments in published including common goals and challenges
the NSDS profile
for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
Recent Developments: With the new election and
the new conservative-liberal government in UK, it
is very uncertain what will be in the future with
the strategy: all three scenarios are possible;
(1) the government signs in the current NSDS;
(2) or it develops a new one;
(3) or rejects a NSDS completely. The SDC will be
for UK dissolved and the regional chairs also.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural
the NSDS process
Affairs (Defra)
Spain
Latest Version:
The NSDS was adopted by the Council of Ministers
in November 2007.
Sweden
Latest Version:
The latest version of the NSDS was adopted in
2006.
Switzerland
Latest Version: The revised NSDS was approved
by the Federal Council in 2008. This is the third
NSDS after 1997 and 2002.
Recent developments: Since 2009, the NSDS a
sub-strategy of the Government Programme. The
two processes of the governmental programme
and the strategy are linked strongly together. This
results in various improvements as:
- in more efficient coordination,
- more solid institutional anchoring of the NSDS,
- a broader acceptance of the NSDS
- a more effective integration in the government
policy.
Ministry of Agriculture, Environment, Rural and

Marine Affairs and
Inter-ministerial Group on the Spanish NSDS
under the coordination of the Economic
Department.
Federal Office for Spatial Development
Source: NSDS strategies, interviews with NSDS coordinators in 20 countries and ESDN country profiles.
2.2 Status quo in vertical policy coordination mechanisms

As can be seen in Table 2, the NSDSs are in most countries a policy strategy only binding for
the national government. A notable exception is Austria, the only country in Europe that has
adopted a federal SD strategy, binding both for the national and the regional level, and for
which appropriate mechanisms are provided.
Generally, vertical policy coordination mechanisms vary substantially across countries. One
can broadly distinguish three groups of countries:
(1) Countries that have developed well-coordinated vertical mechanisms with intensive
collaboration among the various political levels in the NSDS process (i.e. Austria,
Germany, Switzerland, Finland, France, UK) and those that are in the progress of
intensifying vertical coordination (i.e. Belgium, Latvia) by further promoting stronger
cooperation;
(2) Countries that have developed a certain level of vertical policy coordination through
consultation mechanisms among the various political levels in the NSDS process (i.e.
Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Sweden);
(3) Countries that have no separate vertical coordination mechanisms and the
cooperation in the NSDS process is almost exclusively based on information
exchanging platforms (i.e. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain).
Below, we provide a short overview of each of the three groups of countries:
Countries with intensive coordination among the various political levels
The interviews revealed that this group has similar, well organized linkages between the
national and sub-national levels in the NSDS process. Yet, these countries are very different
in their political-administrative systems (federal countries such as Germany and Austria and
more centralized countries such as France) as well as in their experiences with SD policies
and mechanisms.
The federal countries (e.g. Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland) have usually strong
regional governments and, therefore, vertical coordination in policy-making in general and in
SD in particular is characterized by intensive cooperation over a wide range of activities.
Examples of vertical cooperation in the context of SD are forums (e.g. SD forum in
Switzerland), conferences (e.g. expert conference of National and Regional SD coordinators
in Austria), or working groups (e.g. national regional working groups in Germany). The
vertical coordination mechanisms in these countries have provided several outcomes for
their NSDS processes:
12
various tools for the vertical coordination in the review process: for instance, in
Switzerland, exchanging expertise among the various political levels led to the
development of a special method for assessment at the national level 'sustainability
assessment'; in Germany and Austria, common progress reports for the federal and
the regional level have been developed;
various tools for the implementation of the NSDS: e.g. SD strategies or programs at
the sub-national level and, in the case of Austria, for the regional and national level;
awareness raising and consultative events for different societal stakeholders at the
sub-national level.
Centralized states (e.g. France, Finland) have developed specific steering and guidance tools
at the national level for the implementation of their NSDSs at the sub-national level, or they
have created special institutions at the sub-national level for a better steering process from
the national level. For instance, in France the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, and Sustainable
Development plays an important role in the implementation for centrally developed NSDS
action plans for each region; these plans have to be taken into account in the regional SD
strategies developed by the prefects.
Countries with a certain level of vertical policy coordination through consultation
mechanisms
Interviews revealed that this group of countries (including, e.g. Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Sweden) is characterized by some collaboration in
certain crucial policy topics of SD or in specific project. The mechanisms provide some
platforms for coordination of policies between the political levels. However, coordination is
done more on a case-by-case or ad-hoc basis (either in a specific project of in a specific
policy topic), and in general less structured than in the first group. Examples are:
(1) Conferences and Forums for SD, (State-regions permanent conference in Italy
established since 1983, including representatives of national and sub-national bodies)
(2) Collaboration and coordination indirectly through the National Councils for SD (NCDS),
where the regional representatives are indirectly linked to the NSDS process (i.e. Czech
Republic, Luxembourg, Estonia),
(3) Strategic networks (in Norway, special agreements have been adopted between the
national Association of Local and Regional Authorities).
These mechanisms have contributed to raising awareness of the NSDSs at the sub-national
levels, sub-national action plans or SD strategies, and encouraging initiatives related to the
goals of the NSDS at the regional and local level.
13
Countries with no separate vertical coordination mechanisms

This group of countries (including, e.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain) displays no separate strategic mechanisms for the
involvement of the sub-national levels in the implementation or review of the NSDSs. Subnational levels are either weakly involved in the NCSD in the form of some ad-hoc group
meetings (i.e. Slovakia) or they are not represented at all (i.e. in the Irish NCSD). The
collaboration is limited to specific projects in specific sectors of SD (e.g. in Greece, Ireland) or
some partnerships in topics related to the objectives of NSDS (e.g. Denmark).
Table 2: Vertical policy coordination mechanisms
14
Vertical Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Leading
institution
(platform)
Roles and
function
Outcomes
12
Austria
Vertical integration is expected to be well
coordinated
The Federal strategy adopted in 2010 is binding
also for the Lnder-level
no institutionalized relation
various mechanisms are still in place to
coordinate the various level
Actors Network Sustainable Austria
Future Platform Sustainable Austria'(SD projects)
Expert Conference of National and Regional SD
Coordinators
Regional SD coordinators participate in the
'Committee for a Sustainable Austria'
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,

Environment and Water Management
Lnder in the NSDS process.
Role of the Expert Conference of National and
Regional SD Coordinators:
sectoral knowledge building and awareness
13
raising
coordination in policy preparation process for
14
SD
development of various tools for the

coordination;
common programs and concrete projects in SD
development and consensus building of political
decisions(policy preparation);
organization of awareness raising events annually
Belgium
Competences pertaining to sustainable
development are divided among the different
regional and federal authorities.
Instead of a truly national sustainable
development (SD) strategy, Belgium has a Federal
Strategy for SD and Regional strategies which all
have the same status. As a consequence, the
Federal Plan (FP) objectives only concern the
federal and not the regional level. A framework of
agreement between the various levels exists,
defining respective priorities.
The revised SD Act aims to strengthen the
cooperation between the different regional and
federal authorities and the new FP will identify
opportunities for cooperation.
The revised SD Act extends the duration of the
new FP from four to five years to better match
with the respective European Union and regional
legislative cycles.
The long-term vision, which has to be prepared
under the revised SD Act, can be adopted within a
cooperation agreement between the Federal State
and the Regions and Communities.
Inter-departmental Commission for Sustainable
12
Development (ICSD)
Consultation platform: representatives of the subnational governments participate in ICSD
activities and can therefore provide comments in
the preparation of the FP or in the different
thematic working groups.
Coordination in the implementation of the FP: the
Constitution provides for the cooperation
agreements as the mechanism for vertical
coordination between the different regional and
federal authorities.
Bulgaria
The draft NSDS was discussed in several meetings,
consultation and discussion forums with several
stakeholder groups, including representatives of
regional and local authorities
Cyprus
preparation of the NSDS, e municipalities (the only
sub-national level in Cyprus) were involved in the
general consultation process
Union of Municipalities and Union of Communities
contributing to the reinforcement of the Local

Authorities;
updating the relevant legislations;
influencing the formation of policies, through
continuous communication with the relevant
Ministries, the House of Representatives and
other organizations.
The only coordination between the national and subnational level is undertaken for the National Action
Plan on Green Public Procurement: based on the
national plan, the municipalities have to develop
their own local action plans.
Interdepartmental Commission on Sustainable Development (ICSD) is the leading institution for vertical policy coordination, as representatives of the sub-national governments participate in its activities and
can therefore provide comments in the preparation of the FP or in the different thematic working groups (= consultation platform). The ICSD is supported by the Federal Public Planning Service Sustainable
Development (PPS SD).
13
Information is transferred among the various levels in the different sectors of the NSDS
14
In future the representation of the state chancellery in these meetings, might have an impact in the political role of the regional SD coordinators
Vertical Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Leading
institution
(platform)
Czech Republic
The vertical coordination is not institutionalized
Three vertical coordination mechanisms work on
the following platforms:
(1) Forum for SD: various stakeholders
(2) Standing Working group for LA 21
(3) Collaboration and coordination of the NSDS
through the Ministry for Regional Development
Denmark
The NSDS is not binding for the sub-national level.
No strategic mechanisms for the involvement of
sub-national levels in the implementation of the
NSDS.
The municipalities have their own 'Agenda 21
strategies'.
15
There are some partnerships which are related to
the objectives formulated in the NSDS.
Estonia
Vertical coordination mechanisms are relatively
weak.
No official arrangements or structured relations
between the two levels.
Two bodies serve indirectly as a forum for the
various levels
(1) the NSDC,
(2) the Joint Commission of Ministerial Bodies.
Committee of Communication (NCSD) which has

an informative role
16
Ministry for Regional Development
There are no institutions responsible for the vertical

coordination of the NSDS
The NSDC
The Joint Commission of Ministerial Bodies (JCMB)
(only ministries)
(1)
Roles and
function
Outcomes
15
The SD forum has an information exchanging

function accordingly to the NSDS process cycle
(2) NCSD: Promoter of the implementation of the
NSDS strategies in the sub-national ones,
through various SD activities
(3) Ministry for regional Development:
coordinating body; mapping if the relevant
sub-national levels have considerably taken
into consideration SD issues
New action plan for communication: helps the
municipalities in specific topics, (transport health,
SCP, energy), to be in line with the NSDS.
Various forums at the regional level: exchange
information on various SD crucial topics and good
practices.
The local level is very active on SD issue: LA 21
initiatives and local SD strategies are currently at
the core of NSDS implementation.
Finland
Vertical coordination is well-coordinated through
the sub-committee of the FNCSD.
Local authorities in Finland have developed their
own strategies and initiatives on SD and have set up
the institutional framework.
The local authorities strongly support their
autonomy in the SD processes from the central level.
Sub-committee on regional and local SD set up in

2007.
Its members are local, regional and national
authorities, civil society and SD experts.
No institutions are officially responsible for the
The sub-committees role
vertical policy coordination;
information exchanging platform for SD activities
the few linkages are provided indirectly through
at the various levels
the two bodies:
stimulating body for initiatives at the various level
(1) NSDC brings indirectly the national authorities Promoter of SD in regional and local
and sub-national ones through its meetings
administrations, by showing best practices, and
(2) (JCMB) provides a forum for multi-level
contributing to the implementation of the NSDS.
cooperation, which meets annually and
discusses important policy topics.
Not a structured relationship in terms of
Regular meetings (4-5 times a year) in specific SD
coordinating target-implementation and review
issues in the sub-committee.
processes between the two levels.
Organized conferences and events serve the
purpose of the committee` function as an
information exchange platform and stimulating body
for initiatives at the local level. Currently, it is
organizing the conference on 'Local Solutions 2011'.
Nature Conservation Partnership, Public Procurement Partnership.

Ministry for Regional Development is also collaborating with the ad-hoc working group on preparation of the implementation part of the current strategic framework. It is unclear of the implementation
document will be adopted by the government in the future.
16
Vertical Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Leading
institution
(platform)
Roles and
function of
the
mechanisms
Outcomes
17
France
There are certain activities linking the national
and sub-national level in the preparation and
implementation of the NSDS.
17
Preparation: 'Grenelle de l'environnement".
Implementation : three activities are of main
importance:
18
1)state strategic action plans for the regions
19
2) state-territory intervention programme
20
3) framework reference for LA 21 initiatives
establishes a clear link between the NSDS and the
local LA 21 activities, but are not binding.
National Council for SD play s an important role in

the consultation of stakeholders at the sub national
level for the elaboration of the NSDS.
Ministry for Ecology, Energy and Sustainable
Development plays also an important role in the
coordination of the action plans with NSDS
objectives.
The first two are state-led activities for the regional
level (Top-down):
actions plans have a steering functions for the
target setting of sub-national SD strategies;
state-territory intervention programme has a
fine-tuning function for the policies/projects at
the sub-national level through contracting and
funding from the national level
The framework reference is has a guidance
function for the LA 21initiatives.
Many LA 21 initiatives have been set up in line
with the NSDS objectives.
The Ministry of SD holds then annually
conferences for awarding best practices of local
initiatives.
Germany
The NSDS is a strategy of the government only, and
not binding for the federal countries.
A stronger cooperation and coordination has
developed especially in three main topics of the
NSDS:
public procurement,
land use,
sustainability indicators.
The mechanisms are until to a certain degree
institutionalized through national-regional working
groups.
There are also various conferences linked to these
three topics with various stakeholders.
German Council on SD
Committee of State Secretaries on SD
National-Regional Working groups( the participants
are administrators of the central government and
the regions )
Greece
The vertical coordination mechanisms have not a
regulated structure.
The link in the NSDS process is rather weak.
The national and sub-national coordination in SD
activities works more effectively on specific sectors
of SD (i.e. water management) rather then on the
whole NSDS process.
Various recent reforms (local authorities have been
reduced for strengthening the local operational
capacities) shape the effectiveness of these
mechanisms.
The national working groups (thematic groups)

Coordination function in the target setting
between the various political levels
provide a certain structure for a more coherent
approach in the implementation and review
process of the NSDS in the three fields
The few mechanisms that exist have an

information exchange function, by translating SD
policies at the local level.
Guidance functions in the coordination of SD
activities.
The German Council on SD has the function of an

information exchange platform by organizing various
workshops in the various crucial topics.
In 2008, the Federal countries took part for the first
time in the formulation of a progress report itself,
where they advocated a stronger cooperation in the
3 topics mentioned above.
After broad meetings and consultations in 2009 the
joint Federal-Lnder Report was prepared. It will be a
subject of further discussion and meetings in autumn
2010; So far half of the German regions have regional
SD strategies in place.
Hungary
Sub-national levels were involved in the general
consultation process of preparing the NSDS. Several
round-table discussions were held in order to involve
stakeholder groups. An on-line forum provided
opportunities to give opinions, suggestion
Due to the new Parliament and governmental
structure the coordination mechanism can be
changed.
Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate

Change.
The Ministry of Interior offers some coordination
mechanism through the five-year development
program for local administrations.
Both in the preparation of the NSDS (2002) and in

the review process of NSDS (2007) the response of
local authorities has been rather limited.
The outcomes of these mechanisms are difficult to
evaluate currently, due to the administrative
21
reforms at the local level. These reforms are
shaping substantially the mechanisms.
The roundtable Grenelle de l`Environement was a broad consultation process in environmental fields, held between 2007 and 2008, where also sub-national representatives were included.
These action plans operates objectives outlined in the NSDS and must be understood as regional implementation plans. These action plans have to be taken into account in the regional SD strategies
developed by the prefects.
19
State-territory intervention programme is a contract between the national level and the local authorities-referring to various policy issues, including sustainable development.
20
As part of the revised NSDS process in 2006, the framework reference for LA21 was developed by the national level in cooperation with NGOs and representatives of the sub-national levels.
21
Recently local authorities have been reduced for strengthening the local operational capacities.
18
Italy
The NSDS is not binding at the regional level.
The main platform for the vertical coordination is
22
the State-Regions Permanent Conference .
Vertical Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Ireland
Lack of intensive coordination between the
national and sub-national levels in NSDS processes.
Latvia
NDC serves as a coordinator between the national
and sub-national level in the NSDS process.
Lithuania
There is not much coordination between the NSDS
and the local SD strategies and SD activities.
No institutional process of linking activities on the

different political level.
NDC has replaced the NSDC; NDC has been set up

for coordination of the long-term development with
sustainability put at its core.
Special seminars are held for municipalities on

NSDS issues and implementation, including
awareness raising and knowledge building seminars
on special issues like SD education.
The sub-national level is also not involved in

Comhar (NSDC).
There is some coordination between the national
level and the local level in specific sectors.
23
Leading
institution
(platform)
Roles and
function
Outcomes
22
A Technical Board on SD is located in the InterMinisterial Committee for Economic Planning

(CIPE).
The Technical Board on SD plays a role in
preparation in guidelines for SD strategies at the
regional level
preparation of decisions to be adopted by the
main platform for vertical coordination: StateRegions Permanent Conference
it represents the main link with the main body
responsible for horizontal integration
Some regions have adopted their SD strategies,

affected from that process.
Implementation of LA 21 processes contributed to
a higher consistency with regional SD strategies.
At the national level financial contribution was
made available for local administrations.
County and City Managers Association (CCMA) is

mainly responsible for coordination between the
various levels in the specific sectors (i.e. water
issues).
The sub-national level (government authorities and

regional planning institutions) are members of the
NDC.
24
NDC ( chaired by the Prime Minister) .

A regional Sub-council of the NDC will be set up
soon (for monitoring and implementation of the
NSDS at the regional level).
The functions of the NDC are at the national level:
monitoring and steering function at the national
level
coordination of development processes
evaluator of the planning and government
decisions
power to reject and postpone policy development
25
documents which are not in line with SD principles
Regional Sub-council for SD
stimulation of the implementation at the regional
level
monitoring of the implementation
The Environmental Centre for Administration and

Technology (ECAT-Lithuania).
The municipalities.
ECAT has developed projects for developing local
SD strategies which cover broader issues, not only
the environment.
municipalities play an important role for the
development of various sectoral strategies.
Outcomes are to be seen in the future, as the NDC

has replaced the NCSD (since 2007) and overtaken
the function of the NSDC.
This mechanism was established in 1983, including representatives of national and sub-national political bodies.
It includes representatives of the national and sub-national levels.
24
The NDC comprises High level public administrators (11 ministers), the Latvian association of local and regional governments, as their regional planning institutions and political persons from each sector, as
well as main public institutions representatives (Academy of Sciences, Business, Chambers of Commerce, confederation of employees and employers) and NGOs.
25
The document are postponed or rejected from the NDC and they can not be approved by government or parliament.
23
Vertical
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Leading
institution
(platform)
Roles and
function
Outcomes
Luxembourg
Malta
In terms of development of NDP, the sub-national The national level is trying to encourage the regional
level is indirectly involved through two bodies and a level for taking on SD initiatives.
series of round table discussions (in the Parliament
and the High Council for SD).
In terms of implementation, the new NDP has still
to deliver its mechanisms.
In the new NDP, the local level is invited to act in
various sectors with certain measures.
High Council for SD
Role of the High Council for SD:

agenda setting function during the development
of the NDP
guidance in the implementation of the NDP
objectives at the local level
Some measures in the last NDP have already been
implemented.
In the NDP: there is a specific chapter dealing with
SD at the local level.
new ways of integrative policy design are
discussed as the LA1 initiatives are seen as out of
date.
Responsible for coordination as monitoring of SD

initiatives is the Department of local governments,
located in the Office of Prime Minister (OPM).
OPM tries to encourage local government to
collaborate closer with local council for undertaking
certain initiatives in SD.
Netherlands
no separate coordination mechanism for SD
between the national and sub-national levels
sectoral policies,
In sectoral policies, there is a stronger coordination
between the political levels, e.g. in environmental
policy, transport policy or the Climate Change
Strategy
In the current process of developing a strategic
approach of SD, the sub-national levels have not
been involved
Norway
strategic network named Vital Municipalities'
contribute to the implementation of national SD
priorities at the regional and local levels.
Vital Municipalities is an agreement on cooperation
between the National Association of Local and
Regional Authorities (NALRA) and the Ministry of the
Environment.
It has to a large degree replaced the former LA21
processes.
National Association of Local and Regional
Authorities (NALRA) and the Ministry of the
Environment.
Portugal
Neither local nor regional authorities were
directly involved in the development of the NSDS.
The NSDS is not binding for the regional or local
level.
Vertical Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Leading
institution
(platform)
Romania
An LA 21 project was launched by UNDP.
Its aim was to translate the strategic goals and
objectives of the NSDS down to the local level by
encouraging communities to create their own Local
Sustainable Development Strategies.
There are no proper vertical coordination

mechanisms.
Representatives of local communities participate
in the National Council for the Environment and
Sustainable Development (NCESD) and can
indirectly have an impact on the NSDS process.
27
NCSDl
Slovakia
There is no direct link between the NSDS and the
activities at the sub-national levels.
Slovenia
There is a link between the objectives of the NSDS
and the regional programs.
There are several sub-national activities and

This link was fostered by the coordination
26
projects, but there is no strategic link or coordination mechanism NCSD .
with the NSDS.
The Government Council for SD includes local
authorities, but they do not coordinate the NSDS or
work directly with the national level.
N.A
28
Government Council l for SD .
Until now the NCSD.

In the future the Government office of Climate
Change.
Roles of the NCSD
coordinating body of the various level in the NSDS
objective setting
review body
plenary for a dialogue of various stakeholder in SD
Roles of the Office for Regional Development:
coordinates multi-level governance issues with the
NCSD and the Regional Development Councils.
Roles and
functions
In the Future: The chair of the NCSD will be handed

over from the Government office for Growth to the
Government office for Climate Change.
Outcome
26
There are various SD activities developed at the

regional level, but they are not an outcome of the
NSDS.
The main outcome of the NCSD: achievement of

general consensus: among the various levels in the
structure for monitoring of SD.
Through the establishment of the Government office of Climate Change in 2009, the role and functions of horizontal integration,might be taken over from the Government office of Climate Change. Generally,
every dialogue in the NSDS will be transferred to this Office.
27
There are various Ministries, which cooperate with the regional level in various sectors. Also various councils at the regional level have undertaken SD activities; but these are not linked with the NSDS process
at the national level.
28
NCSD has been very passive in operational terms in the last 2-3 years.
Spain
The coordination among the various levels is still
at a very simple state.
Sweden
The vertical mechanisms regarding the preparation
of the NSDS (2002) were coordinated through
'reference groups'.
Switzerland
The vertical mechanisms are relatively strong.
Linkages on the various levels (federal, regional,
local) are managed within the SD forum.
There are no permanent mechanisms to regulate

and coordinate this relationship.
Vertical Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Both 2004, and 2006 NSDS did not apply a broad

stakeholder consultation, but were mainly developed The intensity of vertical cooperation among the
There is no body to coordinate the main problems as cooperation between Government ministries.
various participants has increased in various issues
and conflicts.
(i.e. sustainable tourism), but also on methodological
In terms of NSDS implementation, there is
basis (i.e. development of new indicators) resulting
During the preparation of the NSDS some
currently no formalized coordination mechanism for in introduction of new instruments(i.e. Sustainability
participation arrangements: were organized:
the NSDS process (Commission for SD).
Assessment).
'Conference on SD'.
No formal body for coordination (No NCSD has

been established so far).
Leading
institution
(Platform)
Roles and
functions
Outcome
29
Only 4 regions out of 17 have developed a

regional SDS.
The regional level has not done many efforts to
introduce SD initiatives.
The Commission for SD replaced the Council for SD

(2002-2007), however did not take up its work in
linking the political levels.
The sub-national levels are not represented in the
Commission.
The Ministry of Environment offers some
mechanisms for coordination and exchange.
As the SD Commission does not provide a link of
the various political levels,
The ministry of Environment fulfils the role of:
3 a coordinator in specific issues as SD indicators
4 An information exchange platform
The Ministry of Environment organdies various

conferences bi-annually.
Some coordination between the political levels in
the development of SD indicators set in 2006, for an
increased usage of these indicators at the local level.
Some coordination on the environmental policy
objectives.
The SD Forum was set up in 2001 as an initiative of

the Federal Office for Spatial Development
United Kingdom
UK had set up a multi-level governance system.
Each political level had to contribute to achieve
NSDS objectives in their sub-national strategies
(national-regional and local level).
Recent developments
The vertical coordination mechanisms will change
in the future, as the regional structures ,mechanisms
29
and institutions will be abolished .
In the future, if the government will sign in the
NSDS, the current Ministry of Environment has then
to find ways how to set up the direct linkage to the
local authorities and which platforms to use in
absence of the regional structure.
There are various leading bodies:
National level: DEFRA.
Local Level: local authorities.
The regional bodies responsible for the vertical
30
coordination will be abolished .
The role of the vertical mechanisms provided

through the SD Forum are:
to serve as an exchanging platform for information
and expertise through the various governmental
levels on various SD issues;
to promote the participation possibilities:
to develop through involvement of the sub-national
levels the national targets for the LA 21 projects.
Development of various tools and instrument
through the exchange of information in certain
topics (i.e. exchanging expertise in 'Sustainability
assessment' led to the development of a special
method for assessment at the national level)
The multi-level governance system had:

a guidance and influential role of the central
government through various tools at the sub31
national levels
coordinating function
32
consultative function
consensus finding on SD issues at the regional level
through 'SD partnerships' or' mini' SD Commissions'.
Following mechanisms will be abolished in the
future:
Communication and consultation mechanisms
33
between the national with the regional level ;
Tools as the regional planning documents;
Regional bodies.
The government is in the process of removing the regional chair of government, which was key to the delivery of objectives at the sub-national level. The drivers of these reforms are:( 1) cost-saving measures;
(2) less state control and more local freedom and independence.
30
At the regional level, three regional bodies were responsible for the NSDS coordination: (1) Regional development agencies, (2) Regional assemblies, and (3) the Government Offices in the Regions
31
The tools at the regional level were the 'Regional Frameworks' and at the local level, the 'SD Community Strategies'.
32
Consultation on the feedback of the NSDS at the local level were organized through 'consultation packs' and at the regional level through SD Dialogue'.
33
'SD Dialogues' provides feedback on the NSDS preparation. 'SD Partnerships are roundtables at the regional level on SD issues.
2.3 Status quo in horizontal policy coordination mechanisms

The concept of SD does not only emphasise the need for vertical but also for horizontal
policy coordination, i.e. the integration of different policy sectors. Generally, all EU Member
States have developed various forms of inter-ministerial and cross-departmental
mechanisms for coordinating the implementation of NSDSs objectives 34. The format of these
mechanisms varies from inter-ministerial working groups (Estonia), to committees
(Committee for a Sustainable Austria, or Committee of State Secretaries, the Green
Cabinet, in Germany) or networks (inter-ministerial network secretariat in Finland).
The developments observed in horizontal integration vary mostly regarding the following
factors:
(1) Institutional structures: three sub-institutional structures play a key role: interministerial bodies at the political level (politicians and administrators), interministerial bodies at the administrative level (only administrators) and hybridregimes (politicians, administrators and societal stakeholders);
(2) Roles and functions of the mechanisms: they vary within these three groups as
will be displayed below;
(3) Outcomes of these mechanisms.
Institutional structure
Horizontal mechanisms are categorized on the basis of their institutional structure:
Inter-ministerial bodies at the political level: in this case, the inter-ministerial body is
chaired by politicians or high-level administrators (e.g. in Austria, Germany, Latvia,
Norway, Malta, Spain, Ireland).
Inter-ministerial bodies at the administrative level: participants are mainly
representatives of the national administration (ministries) under the lead of the
Ministry of Environment (e.g. Belgium35, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy,
Luxembourg, Sweden, Romania, Switzerland and United Kingdom).
Hybrid regimes: in this third group, the processes of horizontal policy coordination
(politicians and administrators) are enriched by participation and consultation
processes of societal stakeholders (NGOs, business, academia, civil society), e.g.
Finland's National Sustainable Development Council and Ministry of Environment,
34
Based on the ESDN country profile, the only country where the development of horizontal mechanisms is not clear is
Lithuania. Lithuania has dissolved the institution (National Council on SD) responsible for the horizontal coordination.
35
Under the revised act for SD(2010), representatives of federal government members are no longer part of the Interdepartmental
22
the Government Council for SD in Czech Republic, the NCSD in Hungary 36, Slovakia
and Slovenia).
Roles of horizontal mechanisms
The horizontal mechanisms (at work in the various inter-ministerial bodies at both the
political, administrative and hybrid regimes levels) fulfil the following roles:
a coordination function in the preparation of the NSDS;

a coordination function in the implementation of the NSDS:
o either through governmental action plans presenting specific measures for
the departments (like work programs in Austria) or,
o by encouraging the development of departmental action plans (e.g. Belgium
and UK) and audit systems or,by promoting the integration of NSDS targets in
the target-setting of the implementation of the sectoral strategies;
a review and watch-dog function: it promotes the collection of information from the
ministries in the implementation of the NSDS and monitors the progress of the NSDS.
The inter-ministerial institutions share all the aforementioned roles in horizontal policy
coordination, but also display some differences. Horizontal mechanisms which are steered
from inter-ministerial bodies at the administrative level have more a preparatory policymaking function. They do not replace any usual decision-making mechanisms. In contrast,
the countries locating the horizontal policy coordination institutionally at the higher-level
share additionally a political guidance and steering function. This function is reflected in
influencing the pace of implementation of the NSDSs in sectoral policies. In countries such as
Germany and Austria, where the horizontal mechanisms have not only a preparatory policy
function but also decision-making competences through the Chancellary, an increased
linkage of political leadership with horizontal coordination is considered to be the case. In
cases where horizontal mechanisms are coordinated by hybrid regimes (e.g. NCSDs), they
provide an agenda setting37 and advisory function to the government on SD issues, by
providing recommendations based on its wide consultation processes with various societal
actors.
Outcomes
The interviews revealed that: (a) the institutional profile of the horizontal mechanisms
affects the performance on policy coordination and integration: the higher the political
profile of horizontal policy mechanisms, the more visible is the NSDS process for the
politicians; (b) horizontal policy integration fosters and strengthens inter-ministerial
cooperation and dialogues.
36
Due to new election and governmental changes the institutional structure for the horizontal mechanisms might change
Agenda setting function: when drafting proposals for the set-up for the consultation processes of other stakeholders in
the NCSD
37
23
Various implementation tools for horizontal policy integration have been developed in the
countries such as
departmental action plans in line with the NSDS (e.g. UK, Belgium, Finland),
departmental reports on the implementation of the NSDS in specific policy fields (i. e.
Germany),
national SD action plans for the various departments ( i.e. work programmes in
Austria, National Development Plan in Latvia)
preparation of policy framing reports on crucial SD issues based on inter-ministerial
consultations (i.e. for the preparation of Focus Reports inter-ministerial efforts are
required in Estonia),
various strategies and action plans for the implementation of the Agenda 21.
Table 3: Horizontal policy coordination mechanisms
24
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Austria
Horizontal Coordination is fostered by the
Committee for A sustainable Austria;
The government has contributed to the
development of work programmes
Recent developments
Different form the situation until 2010: is that the
Committee is co-chaired by the Federal Chancellery
and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water Management.
The mechanisms link the expertise of SD through
the ministry and high political guidance through
the chancellery.
Leading
Institution/Pla
tform
Committee for a sustainable Austria includes

representatives from several federal ministries,
social partners, and the regions.
Roles of the
Mechanisms
Coordination through common projects and

programs.
Through the new co-chair as the Chancellery the
coordination function becomes more difficult, but
it gains more political profile.
Political guidance function.
Steering mechanism.
Outcomes
It is expected that the outcomes become more

visible.
It is expected that the mechanisms gain higher
profile.
Belgium
Horizontal coordination is undertaken through
the Interdepartmental Commission on Sustainable
Development (ICSD) and through the sustainable
development units (SDU) created in the respective
federal administrations. Additional institutions
involved are the Task Force on Sustainable
Development (TFSD) of the Federal Planning
Bureau (FPB), the Federal Public Planning Service
Sustainable Development (PPS SD) and the Federal
Council for Sustainable Development (FCSD).
The revised SD Act has made changes to the
composition of the ICSD. Representatives of federal
ministers are no longer part of the ICSD, which is to
improve its focus and support vis--vis the different
federal administrations.
ICSD: Membership of the ICSD now extends to:
representatives of the various federal
administrations;
one representative of each sub-national
government;
a representative, as an observer, from the FPB.
preparation of the preliminary draft and the
draft of the Federal Plan (FP);
coordination of the report by its members
which provides information about the
implementation of the measures through which
each administration has contributed to the
objectives of the FP;
coordination of policy regarding sustainable
development (e.g. through working groups on
public procurements, CSR, EU SDS).
Federal Plans for Sustainable Development.
Action plans in line with the FP from the SD
units of the various federal administrations.
Opinions by the FCSD.
Reports by the members of the ICSD.
Evaluation reports of the FPB.
Bulgaria
Improvements since the last National Strategy
(1992) have been made in:
Cyprus
Horizontal coordination is undertaken by the InterGovernmental Committee.
collaboration and horizontal integration through

the establishment of inter-ministerial commissions
and councils,
the adoption of programmes and plans on behalf
of the Council of Ministers as well as ad-hoc interinstitutional working groups to solve specific
problems. It is pointed out in the strategy that the
EU integration process has been a strong driver for
improving horizontal collaboration.
Inter-ministerial commissions and councils.
Inter-Governmental Committee)IGC) chaired by the

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and
Environment.
IGC tasks are to coordinate the

implementation,
review of the NSDS.
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Czech Republic
The horizontal mechanisms are coordinated
through the Government Council for SD on an
inter-departmental basis.
Denmark
There was a wider involvement of the various line
ministries through inter-ministerial consultation,
especially in the preparation of the strategy.
Recent developments: Since the recent election,

the composition of members in the Government
Council for SD might change. It is unclear yet how
the composition will change.
Leading
institution/pla
tform
It has two standing committees:
committee for strategy:

- it is responsible for the strategy
monitoring and implementation;
- it sets the agenda for the NCSD
sessions,
committee for communication: it is for

awareness raising and communication
on SD crucial issues to the public and
municipalities.
The Ministry of Environment is responsible for the

coordination of the NSDS process.
The Inter-ministerial working group comprises

representatives of several ministries and the
Estonian Statistical Office. It is chaired by the
Strategy Director of the State Chancellery.
Roles of the
mechanisms
The horizontal mechanisms (through the NCSD)

have following functions:
advisory function, which advises the

government on SD issues
monitoring function in the implementation of

the NSDS in the various ministries
coordinates SD policy making through the

various departments
Outcomes
Government Council, as the advisory body to the the new revised strategy;
Government in SD issues, has reached the outcome strengthening the dialogue and coordination
establishing the strategic framework for SD in 2010 between the ministries;
through, by reconciling various interests among the
ministries.
38
Estonia
Inter-ministerial policy coordination is conducted
through the Inter-ministerial working group . The
NCSD advices on these mechanisms through
reporting mechanisms.
Recent Developments: The NCSD has been
reformed in its functions and composition since
2009 and has been announced as an independent
body from the government. Its functions have,
therefore, been changed.
Estonian Commission on SD (NCSD) acts as an
advisory independent body to the government,
comprising various stakeholders outside the
administration system(business, NGOs, academia).
The inter-ministerial coordination has the following

functions:
agenda setting for the NSDS
coordinating the implementation the strategy
in the various sectoral policies
reviewing how the strategy objectives are

met
developing the indicators.
Power: NCSD is an independent body with advisory

competences. Inter-ministerial group deals with
coordinating tasks.
the NCSD has an
agenda setting function, providing analysis on
SD issues for the government and
framing the policy content. It stimulates the
government debate on crucial SD issues.
The Inter-ministerial working group has a
coordination role among the line ministries in the
NSDS process. It discusses and agrees on:
guiding working plans,
it reviews the main SD sectoral strategies
from SD perspective,
compiles reporting for the government.
The NCSD prepares twice per year 'Focus reports'

on crucial SD issues, where special inter-ministerial
38
efforts are required (i. Sustainable Consumption) .
These reports are policy driven and are presented to the government for implementation and also made available to the public.
Finland
Well coordinated through the inter-ministerial
Secretariat which prepares and outlines the work
of the FNCSD.
Secretariat of the FNCSD (Ministry of

Environment).
Inter-ministerial network Secretariat of the
FNCSD, which includes all ministries with a stake in
SD. FNCSD includes broad members and
stakeholders, and has a high-level profile.
The Inter-ministerial network functions are:

collecting information from the various
ministries, each within their area of expertise
trying to integrate SD issue into all relevant
sectoral policies and
encourage ministries to develop own action
plans and audit system
The functions of the FNCSD secretariat are:
keeping the SD issue "alive" through the
ministries
political guidance: agenda setting function for
the whole mandate period of the FNCSD
coordination functions for the various
stakeholders
Sectoral action plans for ministries;
Environmental management system within the
ministries (it is still to be implemented).
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
France
Germany
Since 2005, SD is included in the French
The horizontal mechanisms are considered as
Constitution with the adoption of the
a key success story for Germany.
Environmental Charter; this has strengthened the
inclusion of SD in the work of all public institutions.
There are well developed linkages between
the political and administrative level in the
implementation of the NSDS through the
Each ministry has one High-Ranking Civil Servant
Committee of State Secretary (monthly
(nominated from the minister) who is responsible
meetings).
for preparing the contribution of their
administration to further developing the NSDS, cocoordinating the preparation of corresponding
action plans and monitoring their implementation.
Leading
institution/pla
tform
Roles of the
mechanisms
Outcomes
39
Recent development: Stronger linkages of

collaboration between the Parliamentary Advisory
Council on SD (set up in 2004) of the German
Bundestag and the state secretary.
The Standing Committee of the High-Ranking Civil Committee of State Secretary ('Green Cabinet')
Servants for Sustainable Development (Secretariat chaired by the head of the Federal Chancellery.
is in the Ministry for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable
It consists of state secretaries from nine ministries.
39
Development ) has been set up recently.
The Economic, Social and Environmental
Committee.
The Standing Committee has the functions of:
The Committee of State Secretary has following
roles and competences:
Coordination role: prevents conflicts

Horizontal coordination of the implementation of
between ministries; ensures that objectives
action plans;
are met,
review and monitoring of the implementation
steering mechanism: offers inputs to

and follow-up of national SD objectives.
ministries and influence the pace of the
implementation,
The Economic, Social and Environmental
'guidance competence' of the chancellery;

Committee will also follow-up on the
in
linking political leadership and
implementation of the NSDS (independent body).
administrative implementation,
monitors the implementation of the NSDS.

Have to be seen in future;
Since 2009, there a re departmental reports on
the implementation of SD in specific policy fields.
The reports are presented to the Committee and
made to the public available.
Impact assessment of laws and regulations has
been introduced: the Parliamentary Advisory
Council on SD various assess the SD Impact
40
assessment of laws and regulation .
Greece
The inter-ministerial implementation of the

NSDS is coordinated through the National
Coordination Committee of the Government
Policy in the field of Spatial Planning and
Sustainable Development.
The government has set the goal of reaching

a resource efficient economy and green
growth.
The various departments are coordinating

their work by developing strategies on crucial
topics of SD.
National Coordination Committee of the
Government Policy in the field of Spatial Planning
and Sustainable Development.
Hungary
The NCSD is mainly responsible for the

coordination of the NSDS.
There is no more information available how

the NSDS has fostered or even created any
mechanisms for policy integration.
Recent development:
Due to the new Parliament and governmental

structure the coordination mechanism can be
changed.
The Committee comprises nine ministries

Coordinating the implementation of the strategies
in sectoral policies.
As a result of the governmental objective on

green growth various departments have
developed specific and more concrete
strategies than the overarching NSDS (i.e. as
biodiversity strategy adopted recently).
The relation of these individual strategies
with the NSDS is unclear.
Ministry for Ecology, Energy and Sustainable Development was established in 2007. It has the highest rank inside the government hierarchy.
The SD impact assessment of laws has been introduced from the Cabinet in order that various ministries assess the implications of their sectoral laws for SD. The assessment has no specific procedure requirements which ministries
must take in consideration. The Parliamentary Advisory Council evaluates this assessment whether the various laws demonstrate enough consideration of sustainability issues or not. If not, the Council prepares certain proposal to the
Cabinet and recommends informing the respective ministries to take further more in consideration its proposals. The functions of the Council are: (1) to raise awareness of SD issues in the Parliament and provide recommendations to the
Cabinet also to help inter-ministerial coordination through the evaluation of SD Impact assessment of laws.
40
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Leading
institution/pla
tform
Roles of the
mechanisms
Italy
Horizontal integration is one of the most explicit
aims of the Italian NSDS.
Several measures are envisaged:
application of the legislation on environmental
protection,
integration of environmental issues within
sectoral policies,
environmental assessment of plans and
programmes,
integration of environmental factors into
services and product market.
The Technical Board of the Inter-Ministerial
Committee for Economic Plannings (CIPE).
Commission on SD comprises representatives of
the Ministry of Economy, the Regions and other
Ministry representatives with competencies for SD
policies.
Horizontal coordination in the implementation
through the ministries engaged in SD policies.
Linkages with the regional level in the vertical
coordination, as it has representatives.
Review the NSDS implementation.
Ireland
NSDS identifies institutions, procedures, and
policy instruments which should enhance policy
coherence. These are:
a sub-committee of the parliament the Joint
Committee on SD established to monitor and
examine SD issues,
the National Sustainable Development
Partnership ,
the Governments Strategic Management
Initiative,
High-Level Inter-Departmental Steering Group
oversees and guides the process of revising the
NSDS.
Sub-committee of the parliament the Joint
Committee on SD.
High-Level Inter-Departmental Steering Group.
Latvia
The horizontal coordination mechanisms are
guaranteed through the Ministry for Regional and
Local development.
Lithuania
National Commission for Sustainable
Development played an important role for the
horizontal coordination.
Based on the National Development Plan

(adopted in 2013), ministries will prepare their
medium-term National Development Plan and
must take in consideration the NSDS.
However the NCSD does not operate any longer.
State Chancellery.
Ministry for Regional and Local Development.
(NCSD) does not operate any longer.
The role of the mechanisms are:

implementation of the NSDS through various
departments,
monitoring of the NSDS,
review of the NSDS process.
Outcomes
State Chancellery is responsible for steering

horizontal coordination process.
At the national level, the Ministry has to
ensure coherence between sectoral mediumterm planning documents and the NDP and
NSDS.
Ministry has a "watch dog" function, in the
way that ministries adopt SD objectives in
their sectoral policies and monitor this
process.
The main implementation instrument for the
NSDS: National Development Plan.
Based on the Plan, the ministries will prepare
their policy development plans, in line with
NDP (NSDS).
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Luxembourg
The Inter-departmental Commission of Sustainable
Development (ICSD) fosters horizontal integration.
Malta
The system of horizontal coordination
mechanisms is being restructured
A new Unit (located in the Office of Prime
Minister, linked to Cabinet) will be set up and
coordinate and review all governmental policies,
under the perspectives of sustainability criteria.
(Movement to put SD at the core of sectoral
policies)
Leading
institution/pla
tform
Inter-departmental Commission, it is composed of

representatives of each ministry.
The Unit in the Prime Ministers Office will be set

up in the future.
Roles of the
mechanisms
Outcomes
Review the process.

Implement the NDP in the sectoral policies.
Bi-annual progress reports.
Coordinating body.
Critical reviewer.
Outcomes are to be seen in the future.
Netherlands
Coordination at the national level is

addressed by the Contact Persons Group
(CPO)(8 ministries)
additional coordination mechanism is the

monthly meeting of five ministries
A number of initiatives:
(1) financial statement on the policy
dimensions of SD; (2)examination of two
policy field should be performed to see if a
closer integration creates added value;(3)
sustainable impact assessment for
investments
Contact Persons Group
Norway
(3)
(4)
Green Cabinet is responsible for

ensuring policy coherence.
Following increased need for
coordination of the climate change
issue, the mandate of the Cabinet on
SD was expanded in 2008 to cover
more specifically policies related to
climate change.
Green Cabinet, chaired by the State Secretary of

the Ministry of Finance and composed of state
secretaries from other ministries and the Office of
the Prime Minister.
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Portugal
Horizontal implementation: the NSDS contains a
road map that indicates the institutions
responsible for each measure.
The NSDS also makes cross-references to other
plans and action programmes which have to be
reviewed following the new guidelines and
objectives outlined in the NSDS.
41
Since the coordinator for the NSDS is still not

nominated by the government; the mechanisms
have not been working well in their functions.
Leading
institution/pla
tform
Inter-ministerial network, which is also responsible

for the EU 2020 process at the national level
(Secretariat is located in the Ministry of Economy)
Roles of the
mechanisms
The horizontal mechanisms have the function of :

coordinating the implementation of the NSDS in
the public administration sectors,
reviewing the progress in the implementation of
the NSDS.
Outcomes
Generally, this network has provided a useful

platform for horizontal coordination among the
line ministries.
There has been not a guiding role of the
coordinator-new department within the Ministry
for Environment and Spatial Planning- as there is
still not an official nominated from the government
for this task. This gap exists since one year.
41
Romania
Following the recent restructuring of the
Government (April 2007) the task of coordinating
this process has been transferred from the Ministry
of European Integration to the Ministry of
Environment and Sustainable Management
(MMDD).
The General Directorate for SD (GDSD) has been
recently created with the responsibility to
coordinate the activity of other ministries in
relation to the revision of the NSDS.
In 2006, the Inter-ministerial Commission for the

elaboration of the SD Strategy was established and
involves representatives of all ministries.
Slovakia
The mechanisms are coordinated through the
Government Council for Sustainable Development
since the new statutory rights in 2004.
Slovenia
42
The current NSDS is valid until 2013 and the
inter-ministerial coordination is delegated to the
new Government office for Climate Change.
The Council is supported from the Government

office who asks for input of the ministries and
prepares the results of the Council and its
members in reports which re then delivered to the
government.
Currently there is a mixed concept of stakeholder

concepts in these mechanisms (inter-ministerial
coordination together stakeholder processes
through the NCSD).
There are some thoughts of restructuring the
stakeholder processes; by separating the civil
servants coordination from other stakeholders
consultation.
Government Council for Sustainable

43
Development .
Government Office.
GOCCH will take over the inter-ministerial

coordination, which was a responsibility of the
NCSD.
The NCSD is undergoing a deep reform process,
44
which is still not accomplished .
The Council has the function of:
The roles the GCCHO in the horizontal
a coordinating, advisory and initiating body of the mechanism are still unclear.
Slovak Government,
There might be two processes of coordination;
preparation/creation body (i.e. action plans and
once for inter-ministerial civil servants and one
various policy issues can be pre discussed
process for other stakeholders through the NCSD.
before they are delivered to the government,
discussion platform..
Twice a year the council helds meetings with it s The inter-ministerial secretariat of the NCSD in
members.
the one and half years was weak and passive.
Ministries or other bodies prepare on ad-hoc
Session and topics were not synchronically
basis some up to date documents which are
organized with the government agenda (not up-to
discussed in the meetings of the council.
date).
The council prepares recommendations on
Contribution of stakeholders (line ministries) was
various SD policy issues to the government and to
not of huge extent (lack of reimbursement and lack
other stakeholders.
of time for preparation due to ad-hoc meetings).
The Department of the Perspectives and Planning in the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning has now the leading role of the coordinator in the NSDS process.
There will be two strategies in the future: the NSDS 2013-2020 and the Strategy for Mitigation of Climate Change 2011-2050, which will be horizontally coordinated. The relation of these two strategies is still
unclear.
43
The Council is supported by a Working Group for SD (members are from the academic community, NGOs and regional and local governments).
44
These reforms comprise that the NCSD will be taken over from the Government Office of Climate Change(currently Government Office for Development)once the recruitment of ne experts in the NCSD has
been accomplished. Then there will be a concrete decision how the stakeholder processes will be separated from the civil servant inter-ministerial coordination process.
42
Horizontal
Policy
Coordination
Mechanisms
Spain
These mechanisms are coordinated through the
ministry by the Inter-ministerial Group.
Sweden
The horizontal mechanisms are currently
coordinated through the Ministry of Environment.
Switzerland
The horizontal mechanisms are coordinated by
the Inter-departmental SD Committee (ISDC).
The revised NSDS was prepared by a special

Coordination Unit for SD in cooperation with a
cross-departmental working group.
Other more 20 federal agencies are also involved

in the ISDC. Its tasks are:
1.
to coordinate the confederation policy as it
relates to SD and inter-departmentally SD
activities;
2.
to foster the relationships within federal
administration as with private sector and
civil society
3.
to contribute to agenda setting for the
implementation of Agenda 21;
The horizontal mechanisms on NSDS, have also

promoted the building of thematic working groups
which apply inter-ministerial coordination
mechanisms.
Unite Kingdom
Three mechanisms facilitate horizontal integration:
(1) Cabinet Committee structure has been
reformed ; the Subcommittee of SD has not been
established yet; depending on the new
governmental decision,
(2) SD taskforces (comprising officials, ministers),
established in 2002 have not been active through
years; An inter-ministerial Program board was
established instead,
(3) Governments ministries produced action plans
until now, that identify some huge level
contributions to delivering the NSDS.
Recent development:
There might be a reform of SD Taskforces in the
future.
Leading
institution/pla
tform
Roles of the
mechanisms
Inter-ministerial Group: The delegates in these

group are representatives at the higher level of the
ministries, under the coordination of the Economic
Department of the Prime Minister Office
This Group has high level profile.
The functions of the Inter-ministerial Group are:
watch dog function, that the ministries
implement the NSDS objectives in their sectoral
policies;
coordinate implementation.
Ministry of Environment.
There were two meetings per year.

The outcome is the implementation of the NSDS
in sectoral policies.
(Secretariat is the SD Program Unit within DEFRA )
Roles of the Ministry of Environment are:
Roles of the horizontal mechanisms are:
The roles of these mechanisms are:
coordinating the implementation of the NSDS

within the government since 2007
They have a more preparatory policy making

function, by exchanging, coordinating policy
information or reconciling various interests in
formulation of goals.
review delivery of the SD strategy;
promote further the development for the NSDS.
Outcomes
The ISDC has no special competence. It does not

replace the usual decision making/
interdepartmental coordination mechanisms,
anchored in various legislations.
A new Sub-committee will be then established

and will have to mange how to make SD agenda
more interesting across ministries.
Sub-committee of SD at the ministerial level:
program board at the official level.
A working group on green economy with

participants form different ministries was
established in 2010.
This is led by the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and
Communications.
They do not replace any usual decision-making

mechanisms, but offer through the ICSD an
opportunity to discuss beforehand various topics as
issues.
Outcomes:
(1) Various strategies resulting from the
coordination of federal administration and
businesses (i.e. a new communication, or
infrastructure strategy);
(2) reports to international bodies such as the UN;
(3) Strategies and action plans for the
implementation of the Agenda 21.
integrate NSDS in sectoral action plans.
2.3 Status quo in evaluation and review

NSDSs are not only strategic documents but also foster strategic processes. As NSDS
processes need to adapt to new situations and challenges constantly, the evaluation of these
policy processes and the achievement of the NSDS targets is important and has been
introduced in almost all European countries.
The review processes of NSDSs can take three forms: internal reviews, external reviews and
peer reviews. The findings of the review processes are employed for different purposes (in
some cases as a response to reporting mechanisms on the NSDS contribution to the
implementation of the EU SDS45 and in some other countries as a response to the national
review procedures). Countries also experience different problems in this regard.
Internal review: Internal reviews are conducted within the government ministries by
the institution responsible for the review process. Usually, this depends on the
countrys institutional setting and on the particular institution charged with SD tasks.
However, in the majority of the countries, review processes are undertaken by
horizontal mechanisms and inter-ministerial bodies also responsible for the
implementation of NSDSs. Four patterns are generally evident: (i) In some countries,
the responsibility for the internal review sits at the government level (e.g. Malta,
Spain, Austria, Estonia, Germany, Cyprus, and Slovakia). (ii) In most countries, interministerial bodies along with individual ministries are responsible for the progress
reporting to the government (e.g. Finland, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Norway,
Portugal, Ireland, Lithuania, Italy). (ii) While in most countries the NCSD is involved in
this process, in some others the NCSDs are solely responsible (e.g. Czech Republic,
United Kingdom46). (iv) Some countries are also assisted from independent national
statistical institutes (e.g. Austria, Germany, Latvia, Belgium and France). The internal
review process can be classified according to timing or according to the underlying
subject of review. In terms of timing, some countries have a bi-annual review process
that culminates with the publication of a so called progress reports (i.e. Austria,
Cyprus, Portugal, Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania). Some others have an annual
reviews or annual progress reports (e.g. Belgium47, Estonia, France, Italy, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom). The majority of them have a less tight
schedule (e.g. Bulgaria, Czech Republic Denmark, Finland 48, Greece, Malta, Norway,
45
All countries have developed reports on their NSDS contribution to the EU SDS implementation.
The SD commission, which had since 2006 the function of an independent watchdog , will be dissolved by the end of
March 2011.
47
Belgium has prepared, additionally, to the annual reports, also bi-annual reports from the Taskforce on SD in the Federal
Planning Bureau.
48
Finland is working on the renewal of its strategy concept based on its the assessment of its NSDS in 2009. Therefore, it
has still not set its new review procedures. Before the 2009 Assessment of the NSDS, Finland had a bi-annual review
process. Moreover, it is working on the development of various planning tools as the ex-ante assessment framework,
46
32
Ireland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). Germany has a four-year review
process cycle.
External review: Not all countries contemplate the reliance on an external review.
However, the underlying trend seems towards a more pronounced employment of
this means. Two options are usually employed. Either the leading institutions for the
review process commissions a private consultant (e.g. Switzerland, Finland) or the
task is given to independent researchers (e.g. Austria) 49.
Peer Review: Peer reviews have been conducted in four countries, in France (2005),
Norway (2006), the Netherlands (2006) and Germany (2009). The idea behind the
peer reviews of the NSDS within the EU is to identify and share good practices in a
process of mutual learning. The peer review of an NSDS is voluntary and will be
undertaken upon the initiative of the Member State concerned. The process should
be a bottom-up exercise with participatory elements involving stakeholders from all
political levels with no intention to name and shame. The peer reviews are
intended to address all three SD pillars and the peer reviewed country is free to
choose to undertake a review of the whole NSDS or focus on one or more specific
issues.
Utilization of findings
Countries usually employ the findings of their reviews to improve the development of a
renewed NSDS or implementation of their current NSDS. In some countries, the results are
first discussed in inter-ministerial groups, then in the NCSD. In some countries, progress
report drafts are also discussed in the parliament before being sent to the government for
approval (e.g. Germany, Latvia). In the majority of countries, the review also led to a revision
of the NSDS document and to its institutional anchoring (see above). However, in some
countries, there has not been any follow-up, apparently due to a lack of policy coordination
(e.g. Portugal, Spain, Greece)
Problems detected
The contribution of the reviews is particularly important because it reveals that countries
seem to experience similar problems. Some lack vertical integration or political commitment
(e.g. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Latvia, UK). In general, goals seem often
to be too broad while the means not adequate or the implementation insufficient (e.g.
Belgium, Finland, Germany, Slovakia, Spain, UK), no clear mandates are established, or
which should help sectoral policies in setting targets in line with the NSDS objectives. It is also preparing its new indicator
set, which then should be linked
49
Austria conducts also evaluation of NSDS`s mechanisms of horizontal and vertical integration by the Austrian Audit Court
of Auditors.
33
relevant stakeholders are not included (e.g. Austria, France). In some countries, horizontal
coordination seems still to be a problem (e.g. Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Spain) while in
others, there is a lack of ownership from the ministries for NSDS (e.g. Estonia).
Lessons learned
In NSDS review processes, one can witness a trend towards stronger integration of the
lessons learned (on the basis of the review results) in the NSDS revision. Recently, many
NSDSs were revised and included new measures for new challenges. A trend towards an
increased vertical integration, or collaboration with stakeholders (e.g. Austria, Belgium,
France, Germany)50 is also evident. Additionally, countries have worked on the refinement of
SD goals (e.g. time-scheduling in target setting) and consistency of review cycles as well as
drafting of SD plans or progress reports (e.g. Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium). Further work
is also done for a better integration of SD in sectoral planning (e.g. Switzerland, Finland,
Germany).
Table 4: Evaluation and review processes
50
Austria`s Federal Strategy on SD adopted in 2010 and co-chaired by the Federal Chancellery, Germany (through closer
cooperation in specific SD fields),Belgium (revision if the main SD act).
34
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibility
and utilization
Austria
Review form:
There are three forms of review-auditing:
(1) Internal review: bi-annual progress reports of the
51
work programs . The last report was issued in 2006.
(2) External review: in autumn 2005, an external
evaluation was conducted by a group of independent
researchers for the NSDS (2002). The next external
evaluation will be conducted in 2011-2012 for the new
Federal SDS (2010)
(3) Evaluation of NSDS`s mechanisms of horizontal
and vertical integration are audited by the Austrian
52
Audit Court of Auditors
Responsibility:
(1) Internal review:
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,

Environment and Water Management;
Federal Chancellery;
at the Lnder level: the 'Experts conference of

National and Regional SD Coordinators';
(2) External review:
independent research or independent

consultant;
(3) Review of vertical/horizontal coordination :
Austrian Court of Auditors reviews the

coordination of the federal and the Lnder level.
Utilization
The review findings are integrated the further
54
development/implementation of the NSDS
A revision of the Federal SDS is planned on 2012.
51
Belgium
Review form:
53
There are two distinct provisions for internal review :
(1) The report by the members of the
Development (ICSD).
o Information on the implementation of the measures
through which the administrative unit they
represent aims to contribute to the objectives of
the Federal Plan (FP).
o To be completed at least 18 months prior to the
agreed completion date of the FP.
(2) The Federal Report on Sustainable Development,
drafted by the Task Force on Sustainable Development
(TFSD) of the Federal Planning Bureau (FPB).
o Divided into two parts: a status and evaluation
report and a foresight report looking at future
developments.
o The status and evaluation report needs to be
published at least 15 months prior to the
completion date of the FP.
Responsibility:
Interdepartmental Committee of SD members
Task force on SD of the FPB is responsible for

55
drafting its status and evaluation report
Utilization:
The timing of submission of both reports (18 and 15
months prior to the completion date of the FP) is
specifically decided to support and allow the
integration of lessons learned into the design of the
subsequent FP.
The reports drafted by the FPB are communicated to
the federal minister in charge of SD, as well as to the
ICSD, the Council of Ministers, the legislative chambers,
the Federal Council for Sustainable Development
(FCSD), the governments of the regional authorities as
well as to all official international organizations which
were established as a result of or were associated with
the Rio Conference.
Bulgaria
Review form:
There are several impact assessments and
audits foreseen for environmental policymaking: environmental impact assessment
(EIA), strategic EIA for plans and programs,
environmental audits of enterprises and
permits.
Cyprus
Review form:
Internal review: Bi-annual report prepared from InterGovernmental Committee
Responsibility:
The Supreme Expert Environmental Court

(SEEC), (comprising representatives of
ministries and stakeholders) takes
decisions based on the various impact
assessment reports.
Responsibility:
Inter-Governmental Committee. Within the longterm review process a number of bodies were
56
involved .
The process of the last review started in July 2009.

The 2009 NSDS Review was submitted to the Council
of Ministers for approval September 1st 2010.
Utilization:
Until the submission of the 2009 Review to the Council
of Ministers, written comments, as well as oral ones
especially during the public hearing, were taken into
consideration in the final draft.
Work programs define specific measures and objectives that are to be implemented. They also refer to relevant sectoral and institutional competencies. Work programmes were published in 2003 and 2004
For the period 2009-2010 a Joint work program (specifying measures, objectives that are to be implemented at the various political levels) was adopted by the provincial head of governments: Work programs
for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 will follow.
52
A general review report comprising the review or the integration of SD in federal provinces and at the national level will be published in October 2010.
53
Thereby changing the existing system based on a) annual reports of the ICSD members with information on the measures implemented through which their administration contributed to the objectives of the
th
FP; and b) bi-annual reports by the TFSD of the FPB (5 evaluation report issued in October 2009; see http://sustdev.plan.be/).
54
The external review findings are expected to give recommendations on a revision of the Federal SDS by 2012.
55
The report needs to be published at least 15 months prior to the end date of the Federal Plan
56
Governmental Departments, Municipalities, Communities, NGOs, Academic Institutions, Organized Societal Groups, People from Political Parties, as well as independent active citizens.
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
Austria
Key Problems:
Belgium
Lessons learnt:
lacking vertical integration,

lack of political commitment and leverage,
indicators are communicated mostly at the expert
and not at the political level.
The revised Federal Act on Sustainable Development

takes into account lessons learned during previous
reviews undertaken, as it:
takes into account the changed international context
related to SD,
promotes vertical integration by a stronger focus on
cooperation among the various levels,
integrates the monitoring and reporting procedures
as components of a coherent learning cycle,
reaffirms the Sustainability Impact Assessment
procedure,
allows for increased flexibility in the development and
implementation of future Federal Plans for SD,
providing a new government with the possibility to
change a plan during its life span.
Lessons learnt:
the lack of vertical integration is tackled through the
development of the common federal strategy for the
various political levels(adopted in 2010),
the new institutional anchoring could have a positive
impact in increasing the political visibility of the
NSDS mechanisms,
the indicators will be communicated and better
integrated in political processes, for an increased
usage in the policy recommendations,
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Key Problems:
Coordination (not all representatives were able to
be present at all the meetings, causing delays in the
whole process),
Dissemination of results (Although the Review
Process was publicized as much as possible, and all
comments were gladly accepted, more things could
be done regarding publicity),
There was a bottom-up approach used during the
formation of our NSDS as well as the 2009 Review.
However, it seems that the best approach should be
the top-down( meaning that the decisions in the
long-term framework of SD, should be taken on a
high level (e.g. on a SD Council Level), and then be
distributed to the respective
Ministries/Departments for implementation
purposes,
Through the 2009 Review process, the need for the
formation of a SD Council was pointed out.
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibilitie
s and
utilization
Czech Republic
Review form:
Denmark
Review form:
Estonia
Review form:
Finland
Review form:
(1)
Internal review, conducted with involvement of

the various stakeholders. Progress reports were
published in 2006, 2007 and 2009. Based on the
2009 review, a new strategic framework on SD
was approved in 2010.
Responsibility:
It was undertaken from the Strategy Committee

in the NCSD. This Committee has various working
groups comprising stakeholders, within and
outside the government.
Utilization:
The review for the revised strategy has still to be

conducted in the future. There is no clear
governmental decision yet which clarifies the
future review procedure.
The former NSDS (2002) was monitored based on
indicators and less on a comprehensive policy
processes.
Internal review: The Inter-ministerial

working group, headed from the State
Chancellery prepares annually internal
Progress reports of NSDS. The fourth
report has been published in 2009.
Responsibility:
State Chancellery and Inter-ministerial working
group.
Utilization:
The report findings are presented to the
government.
The result were then also discussed in the NCSD and

presented to the government for implementation.
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
Key problems:
Lack of ownership in the ministries for

the NSDS: sectoral focus on the SD
Broad concept of SD, makes it more

difficult to have clear focus on
government priorities
Lesson Learnt:
participation and involvement of the line

ministries in the NSDS process more
actively
Introduction of Focus Reports from the

NCSD, in order to provide direction and
frame the SD priorities.
Internal review:
The government program on SD (1998) was
evaluated in 2002-2003 internally through a subcommittee of the FNCSD. The report also served
as a basis for a five year work plan of the FNCSD
(2003-2007).
(2) External review:
In 2009, instead of an internal review, an
external review was conducted from an
independent consultant in collaboration with an
ad-hoc steering group (Secretariat members of
the FNCSD and Academia). Based on this
assessment; a new strategy process will be
launched in 2011-2012.
Responsibility:
FNCSD and its Secretariat (Ministry of Environment).
Utilization:
The latest evaluation findings (2009) are discussed in
the FNSCD and then presented to the government for
approval.
The Network on SD Indicators is also based on the
recommendation improving the list of SD indicators.
Key problems
Lack of concreteness of targets
NSDS does not provide any policy guidance in SD

policy terms for the sectoral,
Unawareness of the NSDS in the sectoral target

setting(no action plan developed)
Lack of commitment of senior managers
Problem of the NSDS is linked with the problem

of the broad SD concept.
Lesson learnt:
Renewal of the NSDS concept
Development of an ex-ante assessment

framework
Enhancement of the operational indicators
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibilitie
s and
utilization
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
57
France
Form of review:
(1) Internal review:
o annual progress reports on the NSDS (20032008) . In 2006 the NSDS (2003) was brought in
line with the EU SDS
o the last progress report was published in 2009,
concluding the cycle of the NSDS 2003-2008.
The next progress report on the NSDS 20102013 will be delivered in 2011
(2) Peer review:
In 2005 France was the first country that organized a
peer review process to evaluate the implementation of
the NSDS with the inclusion of four peer countries
(Belgium, Ghana, Mauritius and the UK).
Responsibilities:
Standing Committee of the High-Ranking Civil

Servants for Sustainable Development
coordinates the review process,
Ministry for Ecology , Energy, Sustainable

Development prepares the report,
The Economic, Social and environmental

Committee will also follow up the
implementation of the NSDS.
Problem:
the NSDS2003-2008 process was an administration
oriented process, not involving actively other
stakeholders the strategy was not cross-cutting
enough through its main topics:
therefore, the new NSDS elaboration process

involved a broader basis of stakeholders using
58
various tools ,
also, it is being worked on an action plan for the

NSDS, in order to reach not only the state
agencies but also other stakeholders,
the Strategy has been redefined from a more

cross-cutting perspective including better the
three dimensions of SD.
Germany
Form of review:
(1) internal review: every four years; Progress reports
57
have been compiled in 2004 and 2008
(2) Peer Review: In 2009, the next one is considered to
be initiated in three years
Responsibilities:
Committee of State Secretary('Green Cabinet'),
Federal government initiated the Peer Review,

which was organised by the NCSD
Greece
Form of review:
The revision process of the NSDS(2002)

has been accomplished but the draft
report is not adopted yet
Implementation report on EU SDS,
The first national report on implementing

the EU SDS has been published in August
2007.
Hungary
Form of review:
EU SDS implementation report together with the

approval of the NSDS in 2007.
Responsibilities:
The Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change together with the other ministries have
reported in this process. Also local authorities
responded to this review process, though not
very actively.
Responsibilities:
NCSD
Utilization:
The Peer Review report was published in 2009,
It has been discussed in the Parliament Advisory

Council on SD , which delivered also its
recommendations to the government and in the
Committee of State Secretary('Green Cabinet'),
The NCSD refers in its debates to the results of

this report.
Peer review:
Main problem mentioned is:
the used data for measuring progress was
Strong concentration of the current work on

more qualitative rather than quantitative.
climate change issue;
other topics should be also better integrated:(

energy efficiency in building etc)
There is a lack of implementation of SD: Germany

has a great potential on SD know-how, which is
not being implemented effectively;
the "SD made in Germany" can offer competition

advantages in new green markets( new
technologies, products and services), which risk to
be lost,
Lack o f a Vision in the goals and indicators

59
Lessons learn
The NCSD started its work by an overview of the

adopted strategy. The Report Search for the
future gives a critical overview of the situation
of the country from SD point of view. It should
be ready by 2011.
Utilization:
A short version of the Report was communicated to
the Parliament. Based upon the findings, the draft of
renewed NSDS should be ready by June 2011.
changing thinking and attitude (paradigm shift

the whole institutional system -including educational
system - needs radical change
Greater freedom of decisions, opportunities and
responsibility shall be provided to local decision make
Rural economy shall protect our most important
basis for existence r
For the first time, the report explains the governmental organization in sustainability politics in detail and strengthens the management of sustainable development in German policy making.
Roundtable of the Grenelle de lenvironnement of environment issues, roundtable with NGOs, companies, trade unions, Sub-national authorities for SD issues; internet consultation open to every citizen
(2500 people answered the internet consultation)
59
The Parliament Advisory Council on SD is already holding meetings in the revision and amendment of the indicators set as well as on the integration of long-term vision of goals.
58
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibilitie
s and
utilization
Italy
Review form:
Internal review: annual assessment reports on the
implementation of the NSDS based on ten priority
indicators.
Also the implementation report on EU SDS has been
prepared in 2007
Technical Board on SD of the CIPE
Ireland
Review form:
Internal review:
The review of the strategy, was published in 2002,
60
which served as a work plan ,
The revision of the 2002 report was finished in spring
2007,
There are no information more available if a new
NSDS will be or was developed, based on the last
review.
Responsibilities:
Parliamentary Sub-committee and the National
Sustainable Development Council (Comhar),
evaluated the implementation of the strategy in 2002
The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local
Government is responsible for the last review.
Utilization:
The progress report of 2007 is an internal report
prepared by the Department of Environment
investigations should be undertaken across
departments and 'Comhar'(NCSD) will also have some
input.
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
The outcome of the new review (2007) will inform the

decision whether to develop a new NSDS or to update
the current one.
Latvia
Review form:
Internal review:
A new review procedure, based on the
revised NSDS(2010): bi-annual Progress report
starting form 2011,
the last review was conducted in 2007 for
the EU SDS implementation report . All
ministries were involved in the process.
Lithuania
Review form:
Internal review: Implementation reports are to be
submitted bi-annually to the NCSD by a task force
established by the Ministry of Environment with the
support from other ministries.
Responsibilities:
Ministry of Environment (EU SDS
implementation report)
Responsibilities:
Ministry of Environment;
National Commission for SD.
In the future:
SD Institute will be responsible for
61
preparation of the reports ,
Ministry of Regional Development:
coordinator of the review process,
62
National Development Council (NDC) : will
evaluate and discuss the findings and pass
them further to the parliament,
SD Commission (Parliament) will evaluate the
63
process of SD and provide recommendations
to the government.
Problems:
not clear procedural setting to the EU;
until 2007: SD concept was not taken
seriously from sectoral ministries; therefore
serious problems for reporting since the
understanding of SD for each sector: weak.
Solutions:
offer more incentives: introduction of SD
assessment procedures(for clear and coherent
targets with SD principle),
more awareness raising and education events
for a better understanding of SD.
60
The 2002 report examines progress made in the ten years since the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit.
The SD Institute will be a non-governmental institution with high level scientists working on forecasting/ evaluation of SD and evaluation of governmental action decision
62
The NDC has various monitoring and steering functions. It monitors the function of state development system, shows coordination of development processes and has the power to reject and postpone policy
development documents and development decision, if they seem not to be in line with the strategy principles. The NDC participants are high level public administrators (11 ministers), and high level public
institutions and NGOs, as well heads of the regional planning and Latvian association of local and regional governments.
63
The SD Commission will be set up by the end of 2010 in the Parliament. It will have two tasks. First, it will look through the SD monitoring report, l evaluate the process of SD and make recommendations on
the amendment in the strategy. Secondly, it will provide recommendations to the government in case certain sectors would show not enough concern of sustainability
61
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibilitie
s and
utilization
Luxembourg
Review form:
Internal review, The last review was undertaken in
2006,
Every two years, a national report on the
implementation of the NSDS is published by the ICSD.
Responsibility:
ICSD (Secretariat is the Ministry of Environment),
NCSD also contributes to the finalization of the
report.
Utilization:
The findings are communicated to the Parliament and
to the public.
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
Responsibility:
Office of Prime Minister,
Ministry of SD.
Utilization:
The draft was communicated to the Cabinet to be
approved, The work has not been accomplished yet.
Problems:
governance issues, the cooperation of the

ministry of environment with other ministries
during the NDP process was not done intensively,
therefore the ministries lost interest in the NDP
the NDP was a in definition of key objectives and

action measures.
Problems:
Current NSDS is not prioritising actions,
lack of integration of actions .
Lessons learnt:
Lessons learnt:
64
Malta
Review form:
Internal Review: a review of the NDSS was prepared
form the previous NCSD in 2009;
it was put in the agenda of government but due to
time limits was still not adopted,
It will be put in the agenda again in 2010.
The ICSD-set up in 2004-should improve the

horizontal coordination and the acceptance of
the NDP in the sectoral policies,
introduction of various time-horizons in the
strategy, a better and clear division between
long/term objectives and short-term action
measures.
Germany, Finland and South Africa were selected as peer countries
more integrated design of actions,

through the New Unit in the Prime Minister
Office: all policies will have SD principles
integrated.
Netherlands
Review form:
Progress reports on the NSDS are published
annually and presented to parliament.
Peer review in 2006:Ministry of Environment
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs initiated a
64
peer review of the Dutch NSDS
Responsibility:
Ministry of Environment and Ministry of
Finance.
Norway
Review form:
A Peer Review of the Norwegian NSDS was
conducted by a group of Swedish experts in spring
2006.
The report was delivered in 2007.
In addition to examining earlier strategy documents,
the review looked at Norwegian policies for SD in
general, including institutional aspects.
Responsibility:
Ministry of Finance initiated the Peer Review,
The Peer review was conducted form Swedish
experts.
Utilization:
The report has been supplemented with a foreword by
the Minister of Finance and a short summary (pp 1113) that describes how the recommendations from the
review team is followed up in the new strategy. The
foreword and summary thus give a brief overview of
the main aspects of the new strategy.
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibilitie
s and
utilization
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
65
Portugal
Review form:
Internal Review: since 2007 a bi-annual review
process has been introduced,
Before 2007, annual progress reports were prepared.
The last review was undertaken in 2009 and the new
one is planned in 2011.
Responsibilities:
Follow-up and monitoring of NSDS implementation
will be undertaken on a technical level by the interministerial network, coordinated by the Ministry of
66
Economy ,
The Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning
uses this platform for the coordination of the review
process.
Utilization:
Recommendations from the progress reports are not
been taken into account, as there is a lack of policy
coordination among the ministries in the NSDS
process from the Ministry for Environment and Spatial
Planning.
Problems:
a bad management of the roles and responsibilities
67
of the main actors ,
lack of political importance, reflected in the downgrading the institutional profile (from the Prime
Minister Office to the Ministry of Environment).
Lessons learnt:
The lesson learnt are few, as the institutional
downgrading in the main coordination role of the
NSDS and the missing governmental decision for
the appointment of a new coordinator in the NSDS
demonstrate still a lack of political commitment.
Romania
Review form:
Internal review: In September 2006, the process for
65
revising the current NSDS was launched ,
The revised NSDS will cover the 2009-2013 period of
other strategic documents.
The subsequent revised strategies and action plans will
have the same time tables as the EU programming
periods.
No additional information is available if this review
has already been accomplished or not.
Slovakia
Review form:
There are two types of internal review:
(1) Review of the implementation of the action
plan for SD (2005) under the responsibility of
the Government Office and the ministries.
From 2005 on, there have been annually
progress reports.
(2) review of the implementations of various
chapters of Agenda 21 at the national and local
level under the responsibility of the Ministry of
Environment.
Responsibilities:
Government office and NCSD
Utilization:
Government Office initiates the process and
gathers information from the ministries,
the results are discussed in the NCSD Review
findings are then presented to the ministries,
which should work on further on the
implementation of the action plan `objectives.
Problems:
limited budget;
lack of visibility and understanding of SD in
the sectoral ministries
SD as a concept: too theoretical; not
understood from the public
SD concept is too broad; the meaning of SD
is reduced to the individual topic of interest
(i.e. only economic or only social issues).
Lessons learnt:
Awareness raising,
continue the process of incorporation of SD
action plans in the ministries,
continuous cooperation with various
stakeholders(NGOs).
Slovenia
Review form:
Internal review: NSDS is monitored in the form of a
Development Report, prepared annually by the
Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development
(IMAD);
The NCSD can influence by requesting IMAD to take
in consideration certain topic;
The review is undertaken annually in the spring of
every year.
Responsibility:
Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development
(IMAD) (governmental institute).
Government Office for Growth (in the future the
reporting task on the progress might be transferred to
the Government Office for Climate Change which will
take a lot of coordinating functions in the NSDS
process).
Utilization: The findings of IMAD were adopted by the
Government of the Republic of Slovenia as a guideline
for formulation of national economic and
development policy.
no answer
It is planned to complete the revision process by the end of 2008

The same network is also responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the future EU 2020.
67
NCSD and Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning; If these coordinating and awareness raising role were fulfilled better, an increased acceptance of the NSDS in the line ministries and in the public
might be the result
66
Review form
and
undertaken
review
Responsibilitie
s and
utilization
Key problems
and lessons
learnt
68
Spain
Review form:
Internal Review:
The Strategy has been reviewed and the draft of the
Progress Report has been finalized in 2009.
the report is still not presented to the Council of
Ministers for adoption.
Sweden
Review form:
in March 2006 the government presented an
elaboration of the 2004 NSDS.
In June 2007 Sweden published its first
implementation report on EU SDS priorities,
the first revision of the 2002 NSDS took place in 20032004. The revised NSDS is not a review in the
traditional sense, but more un update that prioritizes
objectives
Responsibility:
Economic Department of the Prime Minister Office
who works closely with the Inter-ministerial Group.
Problems:
the NSDS must be up-dated, taking into account

current economic and financial situation;
lack of integration of ministries;
short-medium term perspectives of the goal;
some indicators were inappropriate to measure

certain targets.
not specifically identified
Switzerland
Review form:
in the past:
(1) Internal review: annual progress reports
are prepared from the Federal Office for Spatial
Development together with the ICSD. The
latest one has been developed in June 2009;
68
(2) External review carried out in 2005 .
In the future:
Periodical external evaluation: the strategy
will be evaluated externally, accordingly to the
four-year-cycle of the government program in
2010 (The NDSs is a sub-strategy in the
government programme since 2009).
Responsibility
(1)ICSD- Inter-departmental SD Committee,
(2)the external review is carried out from an
independent consultant.
Utilization:
(1) The ICSD makes the internal reports
available to the Federal Council, Parliament
and the Federal Administration.
(2 )The results of the external evaluation
(2005-2006) were adopted by the ICSD in the
recommendations for the renewal of the SD
strategy (2007).
Problems:
lack of political commitment;
NSDS as developed 15 years ago, has been
overshadowed from other strategies, recently
developed (i.e. green growth strategy).
Lessons learnt:
The process of SD should integrate new
challenges and topics.
United Kingdom
Review form:
Internal review: the last review was undertaken in
2009.
SD Programme Unit within DEFRA collects comment
from the Programme Board Officials and assesses
where the NSDS targets have been implemented
according to the indicators or not .
Responsibility:
69
Defra ,
Inter-ministerial Program Board,
SD Commission was also since 2006 responsible for
the progress in implementation of the NSDS
objectives. The SDC will not have this function
anymore from End of March 2011.
Utilization: The result findings were communicated to
ministers and discussed with regional and local They
served as a basis of whether to develop a new strategy
or not.
Problems:
targets were out of date, as for example on

climate change where more ambitious goals are
set then 5 years ago;
in some areas the commitment has been

exceeded;
In general the NSDS has been sufficiently

delivered.
Lessons learnt:
some goals could be adopted to new ambitions

(climate change).
Switzerland developed a method to assess political projects from a sustainable development perspective: Sustainability Assessment: Conceptual framework. In the course of this framework, sustainability
assessment guidelines for federal agencies and other interested parties have been developed. These guidelines have been drawn up to help sustainability assessments to be carried out as efficiently as possible
and in accordance with standard principles. They set out a procedure in nine steps and provide additional support in the form of a Sustainability Assessment Excel Tool that enables the relevance of an initiative
to be reviewed from the sustainable development perspective and allows its impacts to be recorded in outline terms.
69
DEFRA has the lead responsibility for monitoring, reporting and reviewing the process made towards the objectives set out in the NSDS
2.4 Status quo in monitoring and indicators

Monitoring is an observation activity, mostly based on a set of quantitative indicators. The
higher and stronger the link between indicators and policy objectives in the NSDSs, the more
measurable are the deliveries of the strategy. This section outlines shortly the status quo in
development and revision of the set of indicators, and their utilization in the NSDS review
process.
Set-up and revision of SD indicators
Most countries have developed a set of SD indicators 70 together with the development of
their NSDSs. Four trends are evident in the development and revision of the SDI. A first
group of countries will adopt soon a new set of indicators accordingly to the revision of their
NSDS (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Finland). A second group of countries
has recently completed their revision (in 2010: Germany, Greece and Slovenia; in 2009:
Belgium, Estonia; France, Latvia and Switzerland; in 2008: Denmark, UK; in 2007: Norway)
and a third group comprises countries that have not revised their indicators yet (e.g. Italy,
Lithuania, Malta, Spain, Sweden). Most countries, while revising their NSDS, also have begun
up-dating their indicators to new key SD challenges and topics, by better integration of subnational levels.71
Institutions
Few European countries possess completely independent bodies (i.e. non-governmental)
that are responsible for the development and monitoring of SD indicators (one such case is
Germany with its Federal Statistical Office). Most countries collaborate with their national
statistical offices for obtaining data. Statistical units within ministries usually perform the
development and monitoring task and publish monitoring reports (e.g. Austria, Belgium,
Germany, Switzerland). Only a few countries such as Slovakia, Ireland, Bulgaria, Romania,
Portugal and Cyprus have not yet established such mechanisms.
Monitoring process
The monitoring reports show the status and progress of SD within the country. The
monitoring processes vary among countries, based on timing and on institutional capacities.
Only a few countries have developed regular SDI monitoring cycles (bi-annually: Austria,
Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Czech Republic). There are also countries that update
70
Some countries, such as Ireland and Slovakia, Netherlands still have no set of SD Indicators which is explicitly linked or
used for the monitoring of trends in the NSDS objectives .The work on development of the set of indicator in Bulgaria,
Romania and Portugal is still in progress.
71
Many countries have benefited from various works at the national or international level on revision of indicators (i.e. the
beyond GDP indicator work done by Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission
43
the set of indicators continuously but have not regular reporting mechanisms (i.e.
Luxembourg).
Utilization
SD indicators and their assessment are generally integrated in the progress reports. The SD
indicator reports are also used for external evaluation or peer reviews. The trends on SD
indicators are discussed in various platforms such as inter-ministerial bodies, at the various
political levels, but also at the societal stakeholder level (in the NCSD).
Table 5: Monitoring and indicators
44
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
Responsible
Institutions for
development of
indicators and
monitoring
Utilization of
indicators
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
Institutions for
monitoring
Utilization of
indicators
72
Austria
The set of indicators was developed in 2006
The next indicator report will be adopted in

2011.
The new indicator set will also comprise

indicators at the regional level.
The new indicator set will be developed at the

national and sub-national level.
72
Federal Ministry of Environment .

73
Various statistical centres .
Belgium
The latest set of 88 SD indicators, dated

October 2009, includes 18 key indicators
reflecting policy priorities.
The revised SD Act stipulates that within the

development of the long-term vision indicators
will be established to assess whether the
objectives are achieved.
Development of the indicator: Task Force on

Sustainable Development (TFSD) of the Federal
Planning Bureau (FPB) as part of the Federal
Reports on Sustainable Development.
Monitoring: the Taskforce on SD and the ICSD
The indicator reports are published bi

Indicators are included in the Federal Reports
annually. The last one have been published in
on Sustainable Development.
2007, 2009. The indicator reports are also
They are taken into account in the drafting of

made to the public available.
the Federal Plans.
The indicators are also available to the public

through websites.
Czech Republic
Denmark
The set of indicators was developed in 2004.
Denmark has developed an indicator set in

2002 which has been updated continuously, in
The new strategic framework(2010) identifies

more or less annual basis.
three sets of indicators at the national,
regional and local level.
The last monitoring report was published in

2008.
An update of the indicators should follow,

once the implementation document is finalized
Based on the new revised National Plan for SD,
and adopted.
a new set of indicators will be introduced .
Danish Environmental Protection Agency and the
Working Group on indicators in the NCSD

75
various ministries reported also on the indicators.
(academia, NGO, Business, administration) .
The indicators of the WG are reported bi-annually in
indicators reports and utilized in the progress
reports for monitoring of the achieved goals in the
NSDS.
The indicators were then built in the annual

monitoring reports, used also as the evaluation
reports.
Bulgaria
Cyprus
For monitoring the NSDS, a set of indicators is
Cyprus reviewed the existing set of indicators.

currently developed. It will be closely related
Efforts are currently being made in order to

to the set developed by Eurostat, with
minimize their total number, as well as to
additional indicators reflecting specific national
include some compound SD Indicators.
issues.
Not specified
Estonia
The set of indicators has been revised in 2009

as the indicator topics have been adjusted to
relevant SD topics in Estonia.
The trends on indicators are included in the

progress reports.
The indicator reports are prepared from the

National Statistical Office bi -annually.
Monitoring: State Chancellery together

Independent National Statistical Office.
Development: National Statistical Office.

Indicators findings together with the Progress
reports are presented to the government. New
76
instrument as the 'Dashboard of Sustainability has
increased their usage by the public, academia, policy
makers.
The Ministry for Environment is responsible for the policy coordination of the indicator reports
The Statistical centers within and outside the government are responsible for the development and preparation of the indicator reports
74
The indicators development process and the target setting process in the future will be linked in an ex-ante assessment framework
75
The meetings of the WG on indicators overlap with the meetings of the Committee on SD
76
This instrument provides a good overview of SD indicator performance through EU countries
73
Monitoring: Governmental Department, in the

Inter-Governmental Committee.
Theres no other formal monitoring/review
mechanism formed.
The findings are made to the public available,
but not through a separate set of indicator.
These trends are taken into consideration in
the future planning of Action Plans for
departments.
Finland
The recent established Finnish Network on SD

indicators is working on improvement of how
to develop SD indicators.
The work on the new SD indicators has started.
The decision on a new strategy concept is still

74
to be taken .
Finnish Network on SD Indicators (ministries as

academia, and statistical office).
So far the indicators were included in the progress

reports and discussed in the FNCSD.
It served for monitoring the policy objectives of the
NSDS (2006). The set of indicators has been updated continuously.
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
Responsible
Institutions for
development of
indicators and
monitoring
Utilization and
communication
of the findings
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
France
The NSDS 2003-2008 indicators were defined

77
in the framework of the (EUSDS) .
For the new NSDS 2010-2013, the list of

indicators has been completed and improved.
Indicators are linked to the Strategy's key

78
challenges and to a quantifiable target
written in the NSDS.
The calculation and the update of those

indicators are coordinated by :
79
o INSEE ,
o Statistics and Observatory Division
(Ministry for SD),
o other ministerial statistics divisions.
The SD indicators are utilized in the progress

report.
The Indicators leaf let is also prepared and

published in the website of the Ministry for SD.
Germany
Monitoring reports are prepared every two

years independently by the Federal Statistical
Office to assess the development on the basis
of SD indicators.
The newest indicator report has been

published in July 2010.
Greece
The last set of indicators was developed and

established in 2010.
There is no clear mechanism, which links

currently the progress report with the update
of indicator set.
Hungary
The set of sustainability indicators has been

elaborated by the National Statistical Office
Federal Statistical Office.

These results are discussed in an interministerial working group, where further
amendments can be proposed.
The Monitoring report is part and subject to

the progress reports (every four years).
The indicator report is also presented every
80
two years in the inter-ministerial WG, which
discusses and includes amendments to the set
indicators.
Italy
The last set of indicators was developed in

2002.
The National Statistic Institute (ISTAT) will

implement a national data base of indicators,
in the form of time series, for the analysis of
phenomena considered to be relevant for SD
goals.
Ireland
The NSDS does not specify an indicator set for

monitoring the NSDS goals.
Since 2003, the Central Statistics Office (CSO)

annually publishes the indicator report
Measuring Irelands Progress (most recent
one published in 2009).
Another report, 'Counting What Counts',

published in 2007, reviews and makes
recommendations on Irelands SDI including
selection criteria.
There is not a specific institute specifically

responsible for the development and
monitoring of indicators which are explicitly
81
linked to the NSDS .
Responsible
Institutions for
monitoring
Utilization and
communication
of the findings
77
National Statistic Institute.

The Technical Board of the Inter-Ministerial
Committee for Economic Plannings (CIPE).
The indicators are integrated in the annual

assessment reports.
They are made available to the public.
National Centre for the Environment and SD

National Statistics Service.
The new indicator set was developed after the

EU SDS Implementation Report (2007) has
been adopted: it is not integrated in the old
report (2007).
The indicators will be utilized from the

government and administrative departments
to keep on track.
Latvia
The set of indicators was revised together with

the strategy in 2009.
(NSO) in 2008.
National Council for SD

National Statistical Office
Lithuania
The set of indicators was developed with the

strategy in 2003.
The set seems not to be revised since its

establishment.
No information is available how the indicators

are used and which are the follow-up.
National Centre of Statistical Office for the

preparation and development of indicators.
Ministry of Regional Development will be
responsible for the monitoring process.
The SD indicators will be used for the overall

assessment of SD in Latvia. The SD indicators will be
included in the general Progress Reports.
The Grenelle of Environnement Roundtable and the NSDS revision needed them to be updated
The consultation concerning the sustainable development indicators benefited from several thought works carried out in 2009 by various organisations, in particular from those from the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi
Commission. It also goes hand in hand with the works undertaken in France to meet the needs for territorial indicators and provide those that can already be available and relevant from now on.
79
National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies
80
The indicator report is though still prepared form a non governmental institution, and applies objective methods for calculation of trends in the achievement of targets. The 2008 indicators report included for
the first time, additionally to the detailed description of indicators and their trend, a brief statistical evaluation with regard to distance to target. This evaluation is graphically characterised by weather symbols,
e.g. sunny or cloudy in line with the Eurostat-Indicator-symbols
81
However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects the environment through its licensing, enforcement and monitoring activities.
78
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
Responsible
Institutions
Utilization and
communication
of the findings
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
Responsible
Institutions
Luxembourg
The list of indicators was developed in 2002

and presented in an indicator report.
They have been up-dated in 2006 and

published in an indicator report.
For the new National SD Plan, a new set of

indicators is being developed (cooperation
with Eurostat).
Ministry of Environment sub-units.
National Statistical Centre of Luxembourg
A sub-group in the Inter-departmental

Commission works on the development and
monitoring of indicators.
The indicators are integrated in the progress

reports.
They are made available to the public and

presented to the Parliament.
Portugal
Since two years it is being worked on the

development of SD indicators which should be
linked with the NSDS.
Utilization and
communication
of the findings
82
Malta
The set of indicators was adopted together

with the NSDS in 2007 and was not renewed
since then.
Netherlands
The Netherlands do not yet have a fixed set of

SD indicators.
No information available
National Statistics Office prepares the

indicators.
Ministry of SD interprets the indicators into
Progress reports.
Romania
the Romanian NSDS(1998) was mainly aimed

to introduce SD rather than specifying detailed
objectives, actions and indicators.
Today, the set of SDIs is still valid, but work to

expand the current set of indicators is ongoing.
The aim is to bring the SD indicators in line

with the indicators developed by Eurostat.
National Statistical Centre provides the data

for the indicators.
Monitoring: Ministry for Environment and
Spatial Planning.
Some of the SD indicators are also being
integrated in the progress reports.
The challenge is to develop a set of indicators which is more effectively linked to the action plan targets.
Norway
A set of national indicators has been update

for the new NSDS 2007. Some changes have
been made to some of the other indicators to
make them more politically relevant.
Slovakia
There is not one set which properly used in

measuring progress in action plan.
The data used currently derive mostly from

Eurostat.
A renewal of the action plan as the

development of the set of indicators is planned
82
for 2010 .
National Statistical Office (a central state

administration body) will prepare the data set
for the indicators in the future (still in the
process).
The indicators used were form various

datasets ( UN, Eurostat etc).
They were integrated in the annual progress

reports.
In the future the target setting and indicator

development will be better linked, in order to
increase their usage from the ministries.
Slovenia
A set of SD indicators for Slovenia was

developed in May 2010.
The method for the calculation of the set of

indicators was to better link the indicators with
specific measures.
The SD indicators will be linked to the future

"Development Reports" on the NSDS.
National Statistical Office.
Government Office for Climate Change( there

will be a new dialogue framework in the
future).
The SD indicators were incorporated in the

drafts of the new strategy for Mitigation for
Climate Change.
For the first time, during the budget reform,

the specific budget measures were linked to
SD indicators (inter-ministerial).
The SD Indicators Brochure is made to the

pubic also available.
Set of indicators
and linkages to
the monitoring
process
Responsible
Institutions
Utilization and
communication
of the findings
Spain
Sweden
The set of indicator was developed in 2007 and

The set of indicators has been revised with the
was not revised since then.
NSDS in 2006.
Switzerland
The latest set of indicators ahs been developed

in June 2009, based on the lesson learnt form
83
the old MONET indicator system (2003) .
The Monet measurement system facilitates

regular reporting on the status and progress of
SD and has a monitoring function.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO).

Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE).
Federal Agency for the Environment, Forests
and Landscape.
Indicators are integrated in the internal

evaluation reports and serve as a basis for the
external evaluation.
The findings are made available to the public
through publication.
The Spanish Observatory for SD;

Inter-ministerial Group.
The SD indicators were used during the review

process of the Progress Report 2009.
The set of indicators was developed by the

Statistics Sweden
A working group was charged with facilitating
cooperation at the political levels: national,
regional, local.
Since the indicators were developed with a
broad involvement of the local levels, higher
usage of these should be the result.
83
United Kingdom
The indicators set, developed in 2005, together

with the NSDS, were revised in 2008.
The progress against these indicators is

monitored annually since 2005.
The recent indicator report was published in

2010.
In the future these indicators might be revised

and adapted to new international work on
improvement of wellbeing indicators/ beyond
GDP indicators of the Stiglitz Commission.
National Office of Statistics (NOS).
Statistical Unit of Defra produces annually the

reports with data from the NOS.
The indicators were always used for the review

of policy processes, when reporting to the EU
in 2007 and in the internal review in 2009 and
they are made to the pubic available.
The Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO), the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) and the Federal Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL) joined forces to create the MONET
measurement system. With over 100 indicators, this monitoring tool facilitates regular reporting on the status and progress of SD throughout Switzerland.
2.5 Status quo in participation and consultation processes in NSDSs

All countries, when developing their current NSDSs, have brought in contributions from
across government ministries and involved stakeholders from various sectors as well as a
broad range of interest groups.
Governments are making substantial efforts in broadening the involvement of stakeholders
group in order to strengthen the ownership of the NSDSs.84 Additionally, new mechanisms
and tools are developed to better engage societal stakeholders in policy-making processes
(e.g. Greece, Germany, Switzerland, Austria). In many countries, NCSDs are under revision:
the purpose is to make them more independent and less influenced by governments (e.g.
Estonia). Some countries are also contemplating the opportunity to separate societal
stakeholders' processes from civil servants' coordination (e.g. Slovakia and Slovenia).
As for the institutionalization of the participation processes, one can observe three different
trends: (1) countries that have developed a NCSD, (2) countries that use other platforms,
and (3) countries that are still developing some mechanisms.
NCSD as the main platform for participation processes 85: As can be seen in Table 6, 15
countries out of 29 have institutionalized the participation process through an NCSD.
This, in turn, permits the involvement of stakeholders in the policy making processes.
In some cases, NCSDs are chaired by the Ministry of Environment (e.g. Finland) or the
Government Office (e.g Slovenia, Czech Republic)
Other platforms of participation processes: Countries that do not have an NCSD are
using other platforms, such as SD Dialogues (e.g. Switzerland) or inter-ministerial
strategy working group (e.g. Austria86).
Platform for participation process are still in development87: Several countries (e.g.
Romania, Bulgaria Cyprus, Lithuania, Spain, Denmark 88) have not yet established
permanent platforms for participation of stakeholders. All of them, however, are
working on the improvement and establishment of consultation mechanisms with
societal stakeholders.
The consultation and participatory mechanisms (through councils or other bodies), of the
first and second group display common functions:
1) Discussion forum: the mechanisms facilitate broad debate among the participants
84
The participants in these consultation across countries cover mains stakeholders as representatives from Academia,
NGOs, Business and civil society, and civil servant or politicians
85
The government in United Kingdom will withdraw the funding from the SD Commission from end of March 2011
86
This strategy group, established in 2002, has been working on the elaboration of standard of public participation in
2008, These standard should be applied by the administration when developing programs and policies.
87
Denmark and Lithuania have dissolved their NCSD.
49
2) Outreach and reporting mechanisms: the thematic seminars/workshops serve

awareness raising and education activities
3) Policy preparation, coordination and integration mechanism: regular meetings
are held where various topics are discussed (information distributed in the
ministries) or recommendations presented to the government.
4) Critical reviewer: the mechanisms are also used for the discussion of monitoring
reports and drafts of progress reports with other stakeholders
5) Consensus finding and political guidance: various policy issues are discussed in
regularly meetings are held and develops various reports on crucial SD topics and
presents them to the government.
Outcomes
The outcomes of theses participation mechanisms vary substantially across the countries.
However, the majority of interviewees agreed that consultation with stakeholders were
useful during the review or revision processes of the NSDSs and that the results have
provided direction in the further implementation of the NSDSs. Finally, civil society was more
responsive in countries where NCSDs were very active 89. Therefore, these mechanisms play
an important role in making the society aware of crucial SD issues.
Table 6: Participation and consultation processes in NSDSs
89
One of the best practices in Europe is the Finish National Council on SD, that has a high- political profile and in its 17 years
of work has managed to establish participatory mechanisms , by creating ownership in various societal groups in the field of
SD, that cannot be abolished (see Table 6).
50
Participation
mechanisms
Austria
There are various participations tools and

mechanisms which have been successfully
implemented
90
Strategy group(2002) is still in place and

interlinks the actors working in this field in
Austria
91
Standards of public participation(2008) .
These standards should be applied by the

administration when developing programmes
and policies.
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Institution:
inter-ministerial working group worked on the
standards of public participation, included several
stakeholders (social partners and NGOs) and expert
The strategy group comprises 20 persons from
administration, academia, consulting, NGOs, etc.
Response and
outcomes
The outcomes of these standards and the work of

the strategy groups aimed:
to creates a participative decision preparation;
to increase the visibility of interests through these
participation events;
90
Belgium
The revised Federal Act on Sustainable Development
describes the following consultation provisions
92
linked to the preparation of the new FP .
The
Interdepartmental
Commission
on
Sustainable Development (ICSD) is responsible
for preparing a preliminary draft of the SD plan,
which is then subjected to a legally mandatory
consultation of the population. During the 60
days consultation, the Federal Council for
Sustainable Development (FCSD) has to
formulate its opinion on the preliminary draft.
The scope and method for consulting the
population is decided by the Minister on the
basis of a proposal by the ICSD.
The ICSD then has 60 days to examine the FCSD
opinion and the feedback from the consultation
and to prepare a draft of the new plan.
The draft plan is submitted then to the
government, which has to state the reasons for
deviating from the FCSDs unanimous opinions.
Institution: The FCSD plays a central role, as it
expresses opinions on measures related to the
federal and European sustainable development
policy implemented by the federal government;
provides a forum for exchange of views;
proposes scientific research and stimulates the
active participation of public and private sector
organizations as well as the wider public;
performs these missions at the request of the
federal ministers and the legislative chambers or
on its own initiative.
Members: civil society representatives, including
actors from the economic sector, environmental
protection organizations and development
cooperation organizations. Representatives of each
government member and representatives of each of
93
the regional authorities have a consultative status .
There has been a wide response from experts

and the civil society in the preparation of the
Federal Plans in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
There is a large body of opinions issued by the

FCSD on the federal policy for sustainable
Bulgaria
A broad consultation (September 2007
September 2008) including public authorities,
stakeholders, academia, NGOs, etc a decision
for further analysis and improvements in the
draft text was taken before the NSDS was
submitted for adoption.
Cyprus
More stakeholders have been added in the
mechanism.
Institution: Inter-Departmental Advisory Council

for Sustainable Development.
Participants: This Council is chaired by the
Minister of Economy and Energy. The members
of the Council are vice-ministers and directors of
specialized administrations whose activities are
related to SD.
Participants: General public, local Communities,

Municipalities, Private Profit Organizations, NGOs,
Academia, Political Parties, as well as
Representatives of the Parliament.
The outcomes of these participation processes

were very useful for the finalization of the
2009 Review (as answered in previous
question).
NSDS document was improved with the public
At the end of 2002, a strategy group was established to define participation in relation to SD and to interlink the actors working in this field in Austria.
In July 2008, the Council of Ministers approved the new standards of public participation
92
This alters the existing procedure to date, under which a legally mandatory general consultation of three months on the preliminary draft of the plan is organized. In these 90 days the consultation process is
launched in parallel with a formal opinion of the FCSD. Comments are included by the ICSD in a draft plan, submitted then to the government. The government has to state the reasons for deviating from the
FCSD opinion.
93
Previous composition of the FCSD: representatives of the employers federations, trade unions, energy suppliers, consumer protection organizations, environmental protection organizations, development
cooperation organizations and scientific experts.
91
Participation
mechanisms
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Response and
outcomes
94
to find consensus in various interests.

The response of the public has been very wide and
active
Czech Republic
The Government Council on SD is the main

platform for public participation.
In cooperation with the Committee on the SD

Strategy, the Council facilitates public
discussion by organizing public hearings,
thematic workshops, national stakeholder
forums, email-based discussions, information
campaigns, etc.
The platform used for the public participation is

94
the SD forum .
The Council has the main co-ordination role for

developing the NSDS. It is also responsible for
updating and monitoring processes.
Institution:
Governmental Council for SD consists of
representatives from governmental institutions, local
authorities as well as of all major groups of society
and is chaired by the Prime Minister.
The outcome s have been:
a strong connection of government council and

its bodies and the regional authorities,
development of various managerial tools:

communication strategy and the new
communication action plan(adopted in
September 2010),
regularly information to the sub-national levels.
development, whether at the request of

federal ministers or on its own initiative
(available on http://www.cfdd.be).
Denmark
Estonia
Broad public consultation was undertaken
Public participation mechanisms have

when the NSDS draft was discussed in 2007.
changed substantially, due to the reform of
95
the mandate and functions of the NCSD .
The participants were stakeholders from NGOs,

The reformed NCSD will continue to hold
academia, business and administration.
regularly meetings on crucial SD topics and
forwards the result of these participatory
discussions to the government.
it will also continue to organise various

events as SD conferences (bi -annually) and
ad-hoc events in crucial SD issues.
In all these participation mechanisms the

role of the NCSD is to increase ownership
and serve as an information exchange
platform for stakeholders.
Institution:
Institution:
The NCSD was dissolved in 2002.
NCSD is since February 2009 an independent
body, comprising major stakeholders as NGOs,
businesses, academia, various unions (trade,
labour) and excluding governmental members.
The comments were included in the draft of the
The response has been very wide and the

NSDS.
public has been very active in participating
in these events.
The outcomes of various meetings have

been the Focus reports (twice per year).
These reports are policy driven and are
presented to the government for
implementation and also made available to
97
the public .
The added value remains though in the

participation process rather than the
output.
participation. Additionally, the stakeholders

were satisfied that they were included in the
process.
Finland
The main forum is the FNCSD which:
facilitates broad debate among the

participants,
organises thematic seminars, awareness

raising and education activities,
holds regular meetings where various topics

are discussed(information distributed in the
ministries) or recommendations presented to
96
the government ,
installs evaluation sub-committees or

outsources evaluation to external consultant
which review government programme.
Institution:
FNCSD Members are all possible stakeholders from
academia, business, NGOs governmental officials.
There was a wide response from the

stakeholders.
FNSCD is considered as a politically high-level
body taking care of SD. It has been functioning
for 17 years and has created participatory
mechanisms that are very hard to eliminate.
It continues influencing the activities in the
ministries and the whole society ( through its
98
regular meetings, conferences and seminars .
The SD Forum is a plenary for an annual dialogue with the public on various topics: 'Sustainable Transport'(in 2007), 'Sustainable Energy' in 2008-2009, Public Health in 2010; Sustainable Consumption and
Production in 2011.
95
The NCSD comprises no longer representatives of governmental authorities or civil servants. It is a fully independent organisation from the
96
Meetings are held regularly four time a years ( i.e. green economy, local and regional SD: best practices, on SCP).Ministry of environment sets the agenda for the FNCSD and prepares the questions for the
public discussion. Based on the comments a reports is prepared and also key messages as recommendations are provided to the government and to the relevant ministries
97
The NCSD prepares twice per year 'Focus reports' on crucial SD issues, where special inter-ministerial efforts are required (i. Sustainable Consumption). These 'Focus reports' have a long preparation phase,
where comments/recommendations of various stakeholders are integrates.
98
Example: discussing on how to take part on Rio+20 processes and on what kind of mechanisms are needed to have more broad participation for the Rio+20. Seminars and workshop with lectures and
conferences are held on these topics.
Participation
mechanisms
France
The NCSD, set up in 2003, has been

restructured in 2009 as a result of the grenelle
99
de lenvironnement (2007-2008) follow-up.
Germany
There are always wide participation and

consultation processes linked to the NSDS
101
process cycles organised from the German
Government
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Response and
outcomes
99
A second process broadened the consultation

on SD issues in 2008-2009. These result were
subject to an internet-based consultation with
civil society (open to every citizens) and with
the Economic, Social and Environmental
100
Committee
The new NCSD aims to provide advice and

submit proposals in the preparation,
implementation and follow-up of SD policies
Institution:
National Committee for Sustainable Development
and the Grenelle Environnement (CNDDGE) was set
103
up in 2010
Participants: The CNDDGE bring together actors
104
from civil society and territorial authorities
There was a broad response from stakeholders

in the elaboration of the new NSDS
Their comments have been integrated in the
NSDS
The new NSDS is much strategic and has a
more clear focus, than the former NSDS, in
order to reach more stakeholders than the
former NSDS.
Various ministries as well as the Federal

Chancellery invites selected stakeholders from
alliances, association or civil society, to discuss
draft progress reports in various events
Institution:
German Council for SD
Participants: various social groups as well as of
science and research.
There was always a wide response to the

participation events and consultation
mechanisms.
the specific comments/opinions and
recommended issues in the consultation
processes will be then integrated in the
Progress report in 2012
Specific participatory consultation processes
105
used from the Ministry of Environment will
be also applied in future for the overarching
consultation process of the NSDS
Greece
the government offers a new tool for public
102
consultation, which is internet based
Hungary
It is organized by NCSD, through its members

representing major stakeholders, using
Internet and e-mails.
The Participation arrangements in the NSDS

process are more ad-hoc based, through the
National Council for Physical Planning and SD
the thematic sessions do not always show a
direct strong link to the NSDS process, but deal
with sectoral topics under the SD umbrella
Institution:
National Council for Physical Planning and SD
with members coming from the Ministry of
Environment
Participants : members coming from the Ministry
of Environment, local authorities, employers and
trade unions, research institutes and NGOs
Different stakeholders were invited in two
public consultation phases during the drafting of
the NSDS
the council has informed the review process,
with stakeholders comments
it has informed the government policies, and
contributed to amendments
Institution:
National Council for SD
It is ongoing process at the moment.
The Grenelle de lEnvironnement, which started during the summer of 2007, was an unprecedented multi-stakeholder consultation process in preparation of the new NSDS. It brought together all the
stakeholders dealing with SD issues on a daily basis (central government, local authorities, NGOs, businesses, unions, etc.) throughout a five-fold democratic process: (1) Action propositions: Six working parties
prepared the negotiations; (2) Public debate: meetings in French provinces, internet, consultation with scientific and institutional bodies, consultation with the Parliament; (3) Decisions and guidelines: Four
roundtable discussions led to the adoption of 268 commitments in all sectors; (4) Operational phase: 34 operational working parties prepared implementation propositions; and (5) Legislative phase: Two bills
have been voted by the Parliament.
100
Economic and Social Council (CES) becomes the Environmental, Social and Economic Council (CESE), now integrating a college of environmental actors.
101
Wide participation processes were held during the development of the NSDS in 2002, formulation of the progress reports in 2008.
102
All planned legislation on SD are made available before their adoption to public discussion, www.opngov.gr.
103
The follow-up committee of the former NCSD
104
NGOs, employers associations, enterprises, labour unions, the media and scientist
105
The Ministry of Environment organizes consultation processes in the framework of the preparation of its progress report in the environmental policy fields. The consultation process included two phases: In
the first Phase various topics were discussed in an online forum, where participants had to raise important political questions in the environmental field and discuss them in this forum. In the second phase,
three dialogues of civil society were organised in various topics (i.e. agriculture, biodiversity and land usage), where participants of the civil society were invited to further contribute with their comments in
these discussions.
Participation
mechanisms
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Response and
outcomes
106
Italy
All relevant stakeholders were involved in the

development of the revised NSDS.
The public consultation involved 140

bodies/organizations in the course of 14 official
meetings and through the use of a specific
telematics forum accessible from the web site
of the Ministry of the Environment
Ireland
A National Sustainable Development Council

(Comhar), was established as a forum for
consultation and dialogue on issues related to
SD.
Institution:
Ministries, environmental NGOs, trade unions,
enterprises, local and regional authorities,
Institution:
Comhar' is made up of representatives coming from
the state sector, economic sector, environmental
NGOs, social, community NGOs, and the professional
and academic sector
Annually, Comhar' publishes annual reports

giving details of work carried out during the
reporting period
Comhar carried out stakeholder consultations

during the review of the NSDS, which will be
then integrated in NSDS review
Three regional seminars on SD issues (Dublin,

Cork and Sligo) were held in mid-2007
Latvia
During the preparation of the NSDS: there

was a wide public involvement process
organised
many regional forums: discussion on

scenarios and strategic choices
national forum (1000 people, 6 discussions

national and regional forums),where
specific priorities of SD were discussed
Institution:
NCSD was dissolved in 2010. Anew body such as
the NDC has been created which has become
106
more high level public participation forum
Lithuania
The NCSD does not operate anymore and no

other commission/council has been
established so far
No other information regarding the

participation arrangements is currently
available.
the consultations process led to

improvement of the final draft of the
strategy
General information on the strategy, its
events and the activities, are presented in a
Webpage
NSDS has been awarded for its success in
vitalizing enhanced democratic
participation in governmental planning.
There have been some changes in the composition of participants (not only civil servants, but also the Latvian association of local and regional governments, as their regional planning institutions participate now) and it has changed
the profile to more high level( 11 ministers) and included also more higher level participant from public institution( such as academy of science), NGOs, Social partners, confederation of employers and employees, NOGs etc.
Participation
mechanisms
and outcome
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Response and
outcomes
Luxembourg
The consultation arrangements consist of

roundtable meetings;
NCSD plays an important role in this process
The NCSD carries out following tasks:

Acting as discussion forum on SD issues;
Proposing research and studies on SD topics;
Establishing relationships with similar
committees in the EU Member States
Promoting the largest possible participation of
public and private organizations and the
participation of citizens
Expressing views on any measures relating to
SD national policy taken or planned by the
government.
Institution:
NCSD acts as a consultancy and discussion body, with
representatives form NGOs, trade unions, chambers
of commerce and business association.
107
The participants of civil society remain more or

less the same.
The response of civil society on the last
consultation for the draft of the revised NDP
was not very broad.
Generally the civil society has problems in
understanding the concept of SD.
The outcomes of the various meetings have
contributed to the collection of views of various
stakeholders and amendments of policy
directions in SD.
Malta
The NCSD was not very effective as a plenary
discussion forum; therefore it will be restructured.
The new unit for SD in the office of prime minister
who will be responsible for the whole coordination
process of the NSDS will take over also the
responsibility of contacting public participants and
integrating them in the.
Institution:
In the past: the NCSD was the main institution
responsible for the consultation processes with
various stakeholders.
In the future: the functions will be delegated to the
Unit for SD in the Office of Prime Minister.
Netherlands
There is no official National Council on

Sustainable Development. The reason for
this is that the Netherlands were already
applying policy planning procedures
involving various governmental and nongovernmental actors and agencies long
before the NSDS process.
At the national level, several existing

councils advice the Government on issues
related to SD
Norway
The Government is pursuing a policy to encourage
industry, NGOs, the public administration, schools,
educational institutions and individuals to
participate pro-actively in the effort to ensure
sustainable development.
There is no NCSD still in Norway. The establishment

The VROM-Raad (Netherlands Council of
of such an institution has been recommended in
Housing, Spatial Planning and the
the peer review.
Environment) is a multi-stakeholder
advisory council, charged with advising
Government and Parliament in SD policies
RMNO, the independent and multistakeholder Dutch Advisory Council for
Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and
the Environment, has taken an active role in
107
SD
In the past:
the meeting and seminars the NSDC tried to

integrate the public,
basically the feedback was incorporated in the

NSDS and decision making.
In the future:
The SD Unit in the Prime Minister Office will conduct
enhanced public participatory policy making.
RMNO looks at the knowledge component of policy development, e.g. promoting the use of scientific insights in new policy and channelling the right questions from policy makers to researchers.
Participation
mechanisms
and outcome
Portugal
The main platform for consultation is provided

through the NCSD.
The NCSD is an advisory body to the

Government and Parliament on all SD issues
and should act towards consensus-building
among the members.
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Institution:
The NCSD has members from administration,
industry, trade unions, NGOs, local communities.
Response and
outcomes
108
Due to lack of resources and lack of awareness

raising and communication tools, the outreach
function of the NCSD has been very low.
The response to the events of the NCSD has
been very weak. Lately, only some NGOs
participated in the events.
Romania
Slovakia
Public participation arrangements are taking
The participation events are mostly on an

place with the development of LA 21 initiatives.
ad-hoc basis.
The NSDS points out that in order to
NCSD is the main platform for the

implement the objectives initiated by the
consultation processes.
Government in the "Agenda 21", the
involvement of all social groups is necessary.
Women, young people and NGOs are
specifically mentioned in a sub-chapter and
their contribution to SD is highlighted.
Institution:
The NCSD is responsible for the participation
arrangements.
The Council is supported by a Working Group for
SD, which members are academic community,
NGO's , regional and local governments.
The main response comes from the NGOs,

and less from the public and civil society.
Civil society has not a proper understanding

of SD and is active and concerned more for
concrete environmental or social issues.
The ministries are also reluctant for more

cooperation with the NGOs.
Slovenia
The NCSD, as the main platform for public

consultation in SD policies is undergoing
108
various reforms .
Currently there are mixed concept of

stakeholder processes (state administration
together with representatives of business,
NGOs, civil society etc. These processes
should be divided in the future.
As the NCSD reform has not been

accomplished yet, little can be said on the
future of these arrangements now.
Institution:
In the future: NCSD roles will change, but

nothing clear can be said now.
Once the NCSD set up is accomplished, the

new established Government Office for
Climate Change will take over the NCSD.
Public participation events have not been

organised often from the NCSD in the one and
half years, therefore the response has not
been wide.
The outcomes of the NCSD consultation

process were in the last years generally
depending on the commitment of the NCSD`
chairman.
A concrete outcome was the SD indicators

109
skim .
There should be an open call for the recruitment of NCSD experts, where stakeholders should promote candidate to the governmental office, since last year. But the set up of the NCSD has not been
accomplished yet. Moreover, the Government Office for Climate Change should take over the NCSD. The aim is to strengthen the stakeholder dialogue and also give more power to the NCSD. In order to have an
increased contribution of the line ministries, there should be two separate processes: one for civil servants (which work closely together and on a daily basis.) and one for the other stakeholder as businesses,
NGOs etc.
109
A couple of workshops were organised with NSCD former members and stakeholders coordinated by the statistical office
Participation
mechanisms
and outcome
Spain
The only participation arrangement was during

the preparation of the NSDS in 2007 through
the Conference on Sustainable Development
that was convened within the CAMA
(Environmental Advisory Council).
Sweden
In March 2007, the Swedish Government has

set up an advisory Commission on SD which
replaced the Swedish Council for SD.
The Commission on SD is a forum for

discussion, analysis and dialogue and should,
therefore, stimulate broader discussion in the
society on SD. It aims to analyse SD issues and
develop cross-sectoral action strategies.
Switzerland
There is still no NCSD in Switzerland.
since 2008, 'SD Dialogue is into place ,

where depending on which process phase
the strategy is, SD crucial topics ' are
110
discussed .
The first SD Dialogue was held in the light of

the economic crisis, dealing with the topic
on economic and fiscal stimulation.
he recent one, has proved to be

instrumental in gathering information form
stakeholders in the light of the evaluation
of the NSDS
United Kingdom
In the framework of a new governmental

decision, UK will withdraw funding from the
SDC from the 1st of April 2011.
SDC will therefore not have any future role on

the national level in UK.
In the last years the SDC undertook following

activities:
Monitoring cross-government and

departmental progress towards SD.
Carrying out biennial State of the
Nation progress reports and three
annual thematic in-depth reviews of
public service.
Undertaking critical reviews of policies
such a Treasury spending reviews,
budget and pre-budget reports.
Responsible
Institution and
participants
Response and
outcomes
110
Institution
There is no plenary for dialogue provided

through a permanent body(NCSD),
CAMA (Environmental Advisory Council), made

up of 18 organisations representing civil
society, offered a platform through which the
public consultation could take place.
The outcome reached were suggestions from

various stakeholders to the draft of the NSDS.
Institution
The Commission is chaired by the Swedish

Prime Minister and members are
representatives from national ministries,
business sector, NGOs and the research
community.
Institution:
The Secretariat of the Inter-departmental

SD Committee(ISDC), and the
Federal Office for Spatial Development give

the opportunity to participate in the SD
Dialogue.
Participants:
all kind of association form economy, trade

unions, academia etc.
The results of these kind of workshops are

being reflected in the evaluation process
and in the renewal of the NSDS integrated
in the policy making processes.
Climate change is the major focus of the

Commission in 2008, but no final programme
of the Commission on SD has been set yet the
Commission has contribute d to the NSDS, the
EU SDS, international cooperation on SD and to
the preparation of Sweden's Presidency of the
EU in the second half of 2009.
Monitoring the accountability

framework for sustainable
development.
Institution:
Until April 2011:
The SD Commission comprising stakeholders

form business NGOs, administration and
academia offered a platform for consultations
on the NSDS process.
In April 2006, the SDC officially took on the

role as a SD watchdog, reporting to the
Prime Minister.
After 2011: new mechanisms will be introduced
Recently there ahs not been an engagement

on this platform.
The aim is to continue the involvement of

stakeholders. DEFRA is doing this indirectly
through other departments who are dealing
more with for example business actors and
other stakeholders.
The SD Dialogue is organized in a workshop form, a participation arrangement, which giving an opportunity to other stakeholders (i.e. business, civil society) to participate in the NSDS process and influence
through their comments SD policies.
3 Institution-building and mainstreaming of SD

Based on the interviews with NSDS coordinators, this chapter analyses how NSDS processes
have affected institutions, policy making processes, legislation and sectoral planning 111. The
chapter also discusses how NSDSs are discussed in the political sphere and what the
obstacles and challenges are for the countries transition to sustainability.
With the exception of Denmark and Spain, the NSDS processes have strengthened the
capacities of existing institutions rather than creating new ones. All interviewees agreed that
this process did not weaken any institution112, and only a few were replaced (for example,
the NCSD in Latvia will be integrated in the National Development Council). Across countries,
the NSDSs have strengthened inter-ministerial bodies (e.g. Switzerland, United Kingdom,
Belgium and Luxembourg) and SD units at the Prime Minister offices (e.g. Malta and
Slovakia). In these countries, NSDS processes have also brought to the creation of
departmental SD sub-units (e.g. Switzerland, Malta) or sub-committees, subordinated to the
decision-making bodies such as the Cabinet (e.g. UK).
Vertical policy coordination mechanisms of the NSDS have also contributed to the
establishment of sub-units for SD at the regional and local levels (e.g. Germany, Switzerland
and Austria). Societal consultation processes have further strengthened the role of
stakeholders through the NCSD and vice versa (e.g. Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech Republic,
Finland and Hungary). NCSD capabilities have significantly improved due to several
dynamics: substantial reforms in their profile and composition (e.g. Latvia, Estonia)113, strong
participation in the review processes (e.g. Germany), or through their transformation in
independent bodies with watchdog functions (e.g. UK).
The NSDS implementation at the governmental level has provided impulses to
parliamentarians acting in the SD field to set up institutional settings in order to increase the
control towards the NSDS process in the government (e.g. Germany). There is a new trend
towards the establishment of parliamentary institutions in this respect (e.g. Latvia, Czech
Republic in 2010 and Germany in 2004). Their purpose is to raise awareness of SD issues at
the parliamentary level, to submit proposals for the NSDS process, and to provide
recommendations on individual topics.
111
Interviews were conducted with NSDs coordinators from Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Switzerland, United Kingdom.
112
An exceptional case is Latvia. The Ministry of Environmental lost its coordination role and the Ministry for Regional and
local Development won more power in horizontal policy coordination and in policy creation.
113
NCSD is chaired in Estonia from an independent university rector, and does not include any representatives of the
government. This has strengthened the role of the stakeholders and weakened the role of the government office.
58
NSDS and policy-making processes and legislation

According to interviews, the NSDSs have mixed effects on policy-making, sectoral-planning
or legislation processes. Half of the interviewees claimed that NSDSs have a rather strong
influence in policy making; the other half was sceptical (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic,
Germany, Luxembourg, Greece, Switzerland) or believed that the NSDSs were not affecting
at all their policy-making and planning (e.g. Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary). Most NSDS
coordinators, who were skeptical, believed that the NSDSs are overshadowed by other policy
topics such as crisis management or climate change that proved to have more political
attraction than SD 114. In general, NSDS coordinators had difficulties in evaluating the extent
to which the NSDSs or other policy strategies affected policy-making processes. Several
interviews revealed that the NSDSs remain a very broad and general platform which offers
established-mechanisms for an exchange and coordination of strategies at the
administrative level. Accordingly, the NSDSs have created a participative culture of policy
preparation or policy planning processes. In some countries, these processes have been
extremely relevant, also beyond SD (e.g. Austria for transport policy, construction, etc.).
Reference in political debate
The interviews revealed that NSDSs were rarely referred to in political or public debates. And
when this happened, it was mostly due to those who are either involved in the NSDS
processes or interested in topics such as environmental policy. Several reasons account for
this: Firstly, the economic crisis absorbed political debates. Secondly, the NSDSs are just one
strategy among several other policy strategies. Thirdly, where and when mainstream
economic thinking is dominant, there is little place for debates on SD issues. Finally, due to
SD being a rather complicated and an abstract concept, the public has often difficulties in
understanding its terms, despite all awareness raising efforts.
Obstacles and challenges in the transition to sustainability
Most interviewees believe that the NSDSs alone, as a policy tool, will not suffice to move
countries in the transition towards sustainability. Several obstacles are to be overcome:
Economic factors: The countries' key concern is to recover from the economic crisis, budgets
are constrained, and politicians want to employ the few resources in the most effective way.
This may have mixed results on SD. Budget constraints might attribute priorities only to
sectoral issues and not to cross-sectoral topics, and the reductions may result in loss of
expertise (e.g. UK SD commission will be dissolved in 2011).
114
In Slovenia, a new Government Office for Climate Change is established, which also take over the NCSD and all
coordination mechanisms of the NSDS will be transferred to that body. Moreover, a new long-term strategy on Mitigation
of Climate Change, with a perspective until 2030 will be set up soon
59
Political factors: The main obstacle for the NSDS integration in policy making is the
politicians' concerns for short-term policies. This is in conflict with the long term SD concept.
Nonetheless, some chances are detectable in the political culture: for example, countries are
more and more concerned with issues like green growth.
International and European incentives: At the moment, there is no incentive from the
international level for strengthening SD policies at the national level. Firstly, the EU SDS has
not provided enough guidance to national NSDS processes. Secondly, the failure of reaching
common goals in the climate change debate might also paralyze SD policies at the national
level.
Way of thinking: The complexity of SD requires a holistic approach in thinking. However,
neither policy-makers nor the public is willing to follow and understand the pillars of SD.
Institutional factors: Current institutional structures (e.g. sectoral orientation of political
actions) hinder or complicate the coordination mechanisms of NSDSs.
The interview partners suggested several solutions to address current challenges. In
particular, they underlined the need of better coordination mechanisms, stronger
participation, and a change in SD incentives models. For achieving wider political visibility,
the role of stakeholders (business and public) should be further strengthened. Finally, in
order to overcome vertical coordination problems, EU institutions should put more pressure
and should show more guidance for implanting SD objectives.
60
4 Potential effects of NSDSs

The ultimate criterion for judging the success of NSDSs is to what extent they contributed to
a balanced environmental, social and economic performance of the state (i.e. the impact
on human well-being across generations). However it is quite difficult to make such an
assessment; in 2009, Finland has undertaken a national assessment of sustainable
development as first comprehensive assessment. The causal chains between (i) the
institutional architecture and process of NSDS preparation, (ii) its result in terms of
objectives, measures and means of their implementation as well as mobilisation of political
will and societal support and building of institutions such as working groups or interministerial committees, (iii) actual implementation through work programmes, action plans,
sectoral strategies and partnerships, (iv) mechanisms of achieving change such as new
regulation, changes in procedures or budgeting/investment, (v) change in actual practices
on the ground (changes in behaviour, production and consumption patterns), and (vi)
change in environmental, economic or social indicators are very long and complex
(indeterminate, non-linear) and the changes are taking place in an environment with a
complex influence of a multitude of external factors which makes it difficult to make clear
attributions. (Nevertheless the methodological challenges should not prevent us from asking
questions on impacts of NSDSs.)
Instead of assessing impacts, second-tier criteria, so-called outcomes, can be used to
assess the success of NSDSs: e.g. to what extent they contributed to coordination in national
objective setting, to what extent they influenced delineation of competences, what kinds of
measures have been formulated through NSDS processes and whether they have been
implemented, or to what extent NSDSs affected national policy planning processes (e.g. in
terms of stakeholder participation). Surprisingly, very little evidence exists. Contribution to
coordination in objective setting remains hard to estimate, partially also because of the
differences among NSDSs. In some countries, NSDSs achieve policy integration through a
stapler, when the objectives, targets and measures of an NSDS is a collection of objectives,
targets and measures which were formulated through separate (sectoral) planning processes
thus the NSDS does not serve as a forum for balancing and reconciling sectoral interests
through appealing to an overarching vision, but as a reporting platform for all development
processes in place in the country. Even in countries where NSDSs aspire for more, it is
difficult to identify causal linkages; e.g. policy actors can try to mobilise support for their
interests by referring to the NSDS but the added value of the NSDS is difficult to assess.
There is some evidence that horizontal policy integration mechanisms of NSDSs were in
some countries used by actors involved in strategies related to policy issues beyond the
scope of NSDSs (e.g. biodiversity or climate change) which would indicate a positive
outcome. It would also seem that NSDSs in general do not achieve redistribution of
competences in established policy areas and, although possibly important in identification
61
and raising awareness of new policy issues cutting across boundaries of existing policy areas,
their influence on charting competence boundaries in these new policy areas seems also
low. Here, however, evidence also remains sparse. In terms of effects on processes of policy
making, it can be said that NSDSs typically achieve strong stakeholder participation in NSDS
processes itself, however, their effects on participation in other (sectoral and cross-sectoral)
policy planning processes or potential derived measures (impact assessment, public
procurement, budgeting etc.) is questionable. Evidence for other process-related criteria
such as consideration of long timeframes/intergenerational equity in policy making or
integration of all three dimensions of SD into decision making is also sparse.
Typically, and for reasons of practicality, assessments of NSDSs (including the peer reviews,
which have not become as widespread as expected) focus rather on third-tier criteria
(outputs as per evaluation terminology, although further in the text we use the term
outcomes for all of effects which, not surprisingly, mostly tend to be outputs) centred on
SD institution building (e.g. compositions of national SD councils or inter-ministerial working
groups), capacity building, formulated objectives (e.g. the SMART criteria), work
programmes or action plans and NSDS-related processes (e.g. stakeholder participation in
NSDS preparation). However, the significance and explanatory power of such assessment is
strongly limited and only serves to widen the divide between NSDSs and actors associated in
the networks centred on NSDSs and, on the one hand, national policy planning processes
and development directions as well as mainstream policy actors (e.g. national Lisbon
strategies/reform plans, regulatory impact assessment, budgeting etc.) and, on the other
hand, SD-related processes and actors which are outside of the scope of particular NSDSs
(e.g. corporate social responsibility initiatives, various forms of environmental/sustainability
assessment, green public procurement etc.). Evidence for this level of effects is more
available. On the one hand, the NSDSs often provide tools and forums for vertical and
horizontal policy coordination and strengthen the dialogue among ministries as well as
enable better access to distributed information. NSDSs succeed in raising awareness through
forums and events with involvement of societal stakeholders and through large-scale
participatory processes in bringing the term sustainable development on the radar of
numerous societal actors. In many cases, they contributed to changes in interests and
expectations of involved actors as well as to deepening of mutual understanding across
sectors and political-administrative levels which can be understood as an important
precondition for policy coordination. They often result in creation of further plans such as
sectoral action plans or reports. On the other hand, the effect of SD institution building is
hampered by limited competences of these institutions (competences often tend to be
related only to the NSDS process itself) and frequently lack high-level political and
administrative support and resources.
Almost all of the above relates to identification of positive effects of NSDSs. Surprisingly,
little has been said in literature about the possible negative effects of NSDSs. Evidence is
62
lacking, but we suggest that the following deserve consideration: NSDSs contribute to
competition between national strategies (in particular with national Lisbon
strategies/national reform programmes, but also environmental strategies e.g. of nature
conservation and possibly also with cross-sectoral initiatives to tackle climate change) and to
policy inflation. They can cause placation of stakeholders, contribute to participation
fatigue or possibly through botched participation processes lead to frustration and
resignation of stakeholders. If failing to influence policy objective setting (especially in
comparison with alternative tools of stakeholder participation or policy integration), they
potentially serve as waste of resources of actors representing environmental or social
interests and misdirection of their efforts. Since sustainable development is a concept very
much open to interpretation, and NSDSs often lack mechanisms to control the incorporation
of SD objectives and principles in sectoral policies, they can also provide powerful actors
with opportunities for greenwashing and legitimising business as usual.
63
References
Carew-Reid, J., Prescott-Allen, R., Bass, S., and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1994) Strategies for national sustainable
development: a handbook for their planning and implementation. London: Earthscan, IUCN and IIED.
Cherp, A., and Vrbensky, R. (2002) Sustainability and Transition: Synergies, Opportunities and Threats (SOT)
Analysis. In: Development Policy Journal 1(1): 19-48.
Cherp, A., and George, C., Kirkpatrick, C. 2004. A methodology for assessing national sustainable development
strategies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22 (6): 913-926.
Dalal-Clayton, B., Bass, S., Sadler, B., Thomson, K., Sandbrook, R., Robins, N., and Hughes, R. (1994) National
Sustainable Development Strategies: Experience and Dilemmas. London: IIED.
Dalal-Clayton, B., and Bass, S. (2002a) Bridging the Knowledge Gap in SD Strategies: Research Partnerships for
Sustainable Development. IIED WSSD Opinion. London: IEED.
Dalal-Clayton, B., and Bass, S. (2002b) Recent progress and new thinking on strategies for sustainable
development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact
Assessment,
15-21
June
2002,
Netherlands
Congress
Center,
Hague.
URL:
http://www.nssd.net/pdf/iied14.pdf.
Dalal-Clayton, B., and Bass, S. (eds.) (2002c) Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. London:
OECD, UNDP, Earthscan.
Dalal-Clayton, B., Swiderska, K., and Bass, S. (2002) Stakeholder Dialogues on Sustainable Development
Strategies: Lessons, Opportunities and Developing Country Case Studies. London: IIED.
EC (2005) Draft Declaration on Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development. Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. COM(2005) 218 final. Brussels: EC.
EC (2004) National Sustainable Development Strategies in the European Union: A First Analysis by the European
Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: EC.
Kirkpatrick, C., George, C., and Curran, J. (2001) Development of Criteria to Assess the Effectiveness of National
Strategies for Sustainable Development. A report prepared for UK DFID. Manchester: IDPM University of
Manchester.
Heidbrink, K., and Paulus, S. (2000) Strategies for sustainable development in the thicket of national planning
processes: from convergent concepts to coherent actions in development cooperation. Bonn & Eschborn:
GTZ.
IIED 2002?
IIED, UNDP, and UK DFID (2002) National Strategies for Sustainable Development: New Thinking and Time for
Action. London: IIED.
Meadowcroft, J. (2007) National Sustainable Development Strategies: Features, Challenges and Reflexivity.
European Environment 17(3):152-163.
Mintzberg, H. (2000) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. First published 1994. London: Prentice Hall.
OECD (2000) National Strategies for Sustainable Development: A Guide to Key Issues and Methods for Analysis.
Donor-developing country dialogues on national strategies for sustainable development. Rolling draft, 1
June 2000, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001b) Strategies for Sustainable Development: Practical Guidance for Development Co-operation. Paris:
OECD DCD/DAC (2001) 9.
OECD (2001a) Policies to Enhance Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Studies. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001c) Sustainable development: critical issues. Sustainable Development Studies. OECD Policy Brief.
Paris: OECD.
OECD (2002a) Governance for Sustainable Development: Five OECD Case Studies. Sustainable Development
Studies. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2002b) Improving policy coherence and integration for sustainable development: a checklist. Paris:
OECD.
64
OECD (2006) Good Practices in the National Sustainable Strategies of OECD Countries. Sustainable
Development Studies. Paris: OECD.
Steurer, R. (2009) Sustainable Development as a Governance Reform Agenda: An Aggregation of Distinguished
Challenges for Policy-Making. InFER Discussion Paper 1/2009. Vienna: BOKU.
Steurer, R., and Martinuzzi, A. (2005) Toward a New Pattern of Strategy Formation in the Public Sector: First
Experiences with National Strategies for Sustainable Development in Europe. In: Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy 23(3):455-472.
Steurer, R. (2007) From Government Strategies to Strategic Public Management: An Exploratory Outlook on the
Pursuit of Cross-sectoral Policy Integration. In: European Environment 17(3):201-214.
Swanson, D., Pintr, L., Bregha, F., Volkery, A., and Jacob, K. (2004) National Strategies for Sustainable
Development: Challenges, Approaches and Innovations in Strategic and Co-ordinated Action. Winnipeg &
Eschborn: IISD and GTZ.
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
UK DFID, IIED and CAPE ODI (2000) Strategies for sustainable development: can country-level strategic planning
frameworks achieve sustainability and eliminate poverty? [on-line]. URL: http://www.nssd.net/working/syn/
finalsyn.htm (accessed June 14, 2005).
UNDESA (2002) Guidance in Preparing a National Sustainable Development Strategy: Managing Sustainable
Development in the New Millenium. Outcome of the International Forum on National Sustainable
Development Strategies, Accra, Ghana, 7-9 November 2001. New York: UNDESA.
WB (2002) Sustainable development in a dynamic world: transforming institutions, growth and quality of life.
World Bank Development Report 2003. Washington: WB.
65

Nacionalne Strategije Održ-Razvoja U EU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nacionalne Strategije Održ-Razvoja U EU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nacionalne Strategije Održ-Razvoja U EU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

National Sustainable Development Strategies in Europe: Status quo and

NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES GENERAL OVERVIEW ..............2

DIFFERENCES IN NSDSS ............................................................................................................4

COMPARATIVE STOCK-TAKING OF NSDSS IN 29 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES .......................6

BASIC INFORMATION ON NSDSS AND THEIR INSTITUTIONAL ANCHORING..............................................6

STATUS QUO IN HORIZONTAL POLICY COORDINATION MECHANISMS.................................................... 22

STATUS QUO IN MONITORING AND INDICATORS ............................................................................. 43

INSTITUTION-BUILDING AND MAINSTREAMING OF SD ................................................58

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF NSDSS......................................................................................61

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

1 National Sustainable Development Strategies general overview

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

of strategic decision-making and policy implementation for sustainable development.

1.2 Differences in NSDSs

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

2 Comparative stock-taking of NSDSs in 29 European countries

2.1 Basic information on NSDSs and their institutional anchoring

Interviews were conducted between 23 August 2010 and 22 September 2010.

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

Federal level: Federal Chancellery; Federal

Ministry of Economy and Energy

Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and

Secretariat of the FNCSD located at the Ministry of

Ministry for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable

Committee of State Secretary ('Green Cabinet') on

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local

Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea

Recent developments: Due to the new Parliament

National Council for Sustainable Development

Office of the Prime Minister is responsible for

Government Office of the Slovak Republic

Ministry of Agriculture, Environment, Rural and

Federal Office for Spatial Development

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

2.2 Status quo in vertical policy coordination mechanisms

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

ESDN Quarterly Report September 2010

NSDSs in Europe Status quo and recent developments

Countries with no separate vertical coordination mechanisms

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,

development of various tools for the

Union of Municipalities and Union of Communities

contributing to the reinforcement of the Local

Committee of Communication (NCSD) which has

There are no institutions responsible for the vertical

The SD forum has an information exchanging

Sub-committee on regional and local SD set up in