Home > Conferences and Events > Previous Events > Previous Study Groups > S015
The EU and Sustainable Development
Organisers:
Jenny Fairbrass (University of
Bradford)
and Charlie Burns (University of
Leeds)
(Venue: Leeds)
Final Report
The UACES study group on the EU and Sustainable Development held its fourth and final meeting at the University of Leeds on 12 December 2007. Sustainable development has been an organising principle of EU environmental policy since the early 1990s, and is classically defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987). This definition is loose enough to provide a common organising locus for activity but considerable differences can and do emerge in the way it is interpreted and acted upon. Hence, one of our key aims in establishing the study group was to bring academics from different disciplines together with practitioners in order to investigate how the EU’s sustainable development strategy operates in theory and practice. In addition we wanted to take the opportunity to consolidate an incipient research network that emerged from a UACES Workshop on EU Multi-level Environmental Governance held at University of Aberystwyth in June 2004, and to provide an informal environment for the exchange of ideas which would be welcoming to research students and new entrants to the discipline. To meet these goals we have held four meetings at the University of Leeds between July 2006 and December 2007.
The first meeting investigated the concept of multi-level environmental governance, building directly upon the meeting held at Aberystwyth in 2004. Patricia Hogwood presented a paper, entitled ‘UK devolution and EU environmental policy making: new roles for regional actors’, which provided a thought-provoking examination of the extent to which UK devolution may (or may not) have opened up the potential for a more proactive policy role of the devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland with respect to environmental policy. Andrew Flynn presented a paper provocatively entitled ‘We wouldn’t report back to anyone in the UK: the Welsh perspective on governance and sustainability’. Drawing on an extensive research base of documentary analysis and key interviews, the paper illustrated how, even where there are legal duties and clear commitments to progressing sustainable development between the UK and the devolved authorities, significant problems can be encountered during implementation. In particular, the paper highlighted the impact of the mismatch between the responsibilities allocated to the National Assembly for Wales and its ability to exercise powers over sustainable development.
In our second event, held in September 2006 we discussed the challenge of environmental policy integration (EPI), with five papers each taking a different focus or perspective in relation to the European Union’s sustainable development policy. Camilla Adelle (University of East Anglia) presented a paper (jointly written with Andrew Jordan) on ‘The European Union and the ‘External Dimension of Sustainable Development: Ambitious Promises but Disappointing Outcomes?. Duncan Russell (University of East Anglia) presented a paper (also jointly written with Andrew Jordan) on ‘Environmental Policy Integration in the United Kingdom’. Sarah Cohen from Northumbria University gave us a local perspective on EPI with her paper on ‘A Practice Approach to Understanding Environmental Integration: The South Yorkshire Objective 1 Programme’. Pamela Barnes (University of Lincoln) demonstrated the problems of EPI in the nuclear policy field in her paper, ‘Integrating Sustainable Development Objectives to EU Nuclear Energy Policy’. Charlotte Burns (University of Leeds) illustrated some of the challenges the EU faces in trying to marry the new governance agenda to its environmental policy aims, in her paper on ‘New Governance and Environmental Policy Integration in the EU.’
The principal aim of our third meeting was to focus upon the competing interpretations and definitions of sustainable development and the implications of differences in approach for policy implementation. To that end we had four papers. A jointly-authored paper by Simon Lightfoot and Jon Burchell (Universities of Leeds and Sheffield) exploring the utility of critical discourse analysis as an analytical tool for understanding the development and implementation of sustainable development in the EU. PhD student Hannes Stephan (Keele University) then offered some thoughts on why the EU has been unable to be more effective as an international environmental actor. In the afternoon the discussion turned to the concept of europeanisation with PhD student Darren McCauley (Queen’s University Belfast) providing an analysis of the impact of the EU upon sustainable development, and more specifically, civil society in France. The day concluded with a spirited discussion of corporate interpretations of sustainable development led by Jenny Fairbrass (University of Bradford).
As a key aim of the study group was to engage with practitioners in order to determine their perspective on the prospects for developing and implementing sustainable development within the European Union, our final session (December 2007) was a closed lunchtime meeting with representatives from industry, and national and local NGOs. We provided the practitioners with a brief summary of our key findings upon which we asked them to comment. These findings consisted primarily of a list of obstacles hampering the implementation of effective sustainable development policies, including:-
the absence of strong political leadership at national, European and international levels of governance;
a set of enduring institutional barriers to cooperation and integration of environmental considerations, such as the so-called ‘silo’ structure of handling sustainable development issues across separate government departments or EU level Directorates-General;
the apparent sidelining of the concept of sustainable development due to two key developments, the pursuit of a ‘better regulation’ agenda particularly at the EU level, and the emergence of climate change as an alternative locus for political action in the sphere of environmental policy;
and finally, the nature of the concept itself, which whilst being loose enough to be able to bring on board a wide range of actors, does not necessarily lend itself well to the development of coherent policies.
By and large our practitioners found that their experiences mirrored our findings. Perhaps one of the most interesting issues to emerge from some very spirited discussion was that sustainable development and environmental policy are still largely viewed as a national preserve, with the perception being that policy emanates from national structures of governance rather than from the EU.
Moreover, EU involvement is perceived at times as hindering the development of environmentally sound policies as economic pressures within the context of regional development can lead to the social and economic dimensions of social development being privileged at the cost of the environmental. Whilst there was agreement that there is a lack of coherent national leadership on the issue of sustainable development, the practitioners were all able to identify examples of strong local leadership. Indeed they concurred with the one positive finding that has emerged from our meetings and analysis to date, namely that at the lower regional and local levels of governance Sustainable development appears to have been embraced and is working. In the specific context of a devolved UK it appears that Welsh and Scottish policy-makers have seized upon the concept as an opportunity to develop a genuinely Welsh or Scottish vision of sustainable development.
Interestingly none of the practitioners agreed that the looseness of the concept of sustainable development was problematic, indeed they were happy to work with the so-called Brundtland definition – an example of the concept’s strength, in that it can bring a wide range of actors on board, and even though all were working in different fields towards different goals they would all argue they were implementing sustainable development. This difference between practitioner and academic perspectives provided some useful food for thought in our afternoon discussion as we considered whether we as academics have become too obsessed with the problems of definition rather than concentrating upon the issue of implementation. Or alternatively perhaps we have identified problems of implementation as arising from definitional issues rather than from a set of other processes and problems?
Another interesting issue to emerge from the day’s discussion with relation to definitions was the fact that sustainable development is viewed differently elsewhere is Europe where its close association with capitalism make it unpopular with radical NGOs. Moreover, the social dimension of sustainable development which is often highlighted in the English literature is almost completely overlooked in states like France. Hence this last session provided us with an excellent opportunity to reflect on our earlier workshops and received very positive feedback from the academics and practitioners alike. Indeed overall our meetings have provided much food for thought and a strong desire to carry on with regular seminars to exchange ideas and develop publication projects.
To that end we will be seeking further funding to hold a conference and to continue meeting with each other on a regular basis. A key output of our meetings (in addition to academic papers) has been the establishment of a mailing list, Euroenvi, which enables those with an interest in the field to keep in touch, develop collaborations and communicate with one another about upcoming events. We are happy for our members to use the list to find co-panellists for conferences etc, thereby reducing traffic on the main UACES list (see below for details). We would like to thank UACES for its support which has enabled us to develop and consolidate a research network which will endure. Our fulsome thanks also go to the University of Leeds’ Faculty of Education, Social Sciences and Law, who through Roberts Funding reduced our (and therefore ultimately UACES’ costs) by providing us with excellent facilities and refreshments. Thanks to UACES and ESSL we were able to support the participation of PhD students in the workshops (over 50% of our papers were from research students) thereby contributing to the development of the next generation of young researchers. Anyone interested in our future activities is welcome to email either of us (details below). If you are interested in joining the mailing list simply send an email saying ‘Join euroenvi’ to euroenvi-request@jiscmail.ac.uk.
Further information on request from Jenny Fairbrass (University of Bradford) j.fairbrass[a]bradford.ac.uk and Charlie Burns (University of Leeds) c.j.burns[a]leeds.ac.uk
Last modified:
Friday, 01 February 2008
idS015 +01Feb2008 ©UACES 2008