This article was downloaded by: [University of Edinburgh] On: 24 October 2011, At: 08:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Regional & Federal Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/frfs20

Governance for Sustainable Development at the Intersubnational Level: The Case of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD)
Sander Happaerts , Karoline Van den Brande & Hans Bruyninckx
a a a a

Global Environmental Governance and Sustainable Development Research Group, Institute for International and European Policy, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium Available online: 19 Mar 2010

To cite this article: Sander Happaerts, Karoline Van den Brande & Hans Bruyninckx (2010): Governance for Sustainable Development at the Inter-subnational Level: The Case of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD), Regional & Federal Studies, 20:1, 127-149 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13597560903187362

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 20, No. 1, 127 149, March 2010

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Governance for Sustainable Development at the Inter-subnational Level: The Case of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD)
SANDER HAPPAERTS, KAROLINE VAN DEN BRANDE & HANS BRUYNINCKX
Global Environmental Governance and Sustainable Development Research Group, Institute for International and European Policy, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium

ABSTRACT Subnational entities increasingly exert agency in multilateral decision making. Since they are often not recognized as actors in multilateral bodies, they use several mechanisms to gain representation. An example of an extra-state mechanism is the participation in inter-subnational networks. This article is about the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD), a network that focuses on sustainable development and that has a unique global scope, addressing the UN institutions above all. A rst part of our analysis shows that, although it is a relatively young initiative, nrg4SD has evolved into an institution with a permanent character, but subsequently went through a period of stagnation and criticism. It also demonstrates that, besides offering subnational entities an extra-state route to multilateral decision making, it entails an important internal dimension as well, through the promotion of policy learning and bilateral co-operation. The second part of the article offers a comparative analysis of three of the networks members (Flanders, the Basque Country and North Rhine-Westphalia), which shows that they have diverging views on nrg4SD and its functioning and use their participation in very different ways and with different results. KEY WORDS : Subnational entities, governance for sustainable development, networks, nrg4SD

Introduction Sustainable development is a policy area that needs to be tackled at different levels of governance. Today, a large part of sustainable development policies is formulated in multilateral fora, such as the United Nations, the European Union or the Organization

Correspondence Address: Sander Happaerts, Institute for International and European Policy, Leuven University, Parkstraat 45 box 3602, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Email: sander.happaerts@soc.kuleuven.be ISSN 1359-7566 print/1743-9434 online DOI: 10.1080/13597560903187362 # 2010 Taylor & Francis

128

S. Happaerts et al.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

for Economic Co-operation and Development. However, the implementation of these policies needs to happen at lower levels, including at the subnational level. We dene a subnational entity as a coherent territorial entity situated between local and national levels with a capacity for authoritative decision-making (Marks et al., 2008: 113). While it has not been the object of many studies, the role of subnational entities in governance for sustainable development is signicant for three reasons. First, subnational entities are important spatial entities, giving their policies signicance for ecosystems, resource use, etc. (Berger and Pohoryles, 2004: 1). Secondly, they are often responsible for the implementation of national and supranational policies, especially in the EU where they have responsibilities concerning the management of programmes important for sustainable development, such as the Structural Funds (Morata, 2002: 51; Jeffery, 2005: 33). Thirdly, it is frequently stated that subnational entities are in proximity to citizens, which is important for stakeholder participation and vital for the effectiveness of sustainability processes (Jorgensen, 2002: 1-2; Bomberg, 2004: 8; Catenacci, 2007: 5). Despite the important role of subnational entities in governance for sustainable development, they are often not represented in multilateral bodies where decisions are made. Because of that lack of representation, subnational entities use other mechanisms to inuence multilateral decision making. The mechanism we focus on in this article is the participation in inter-subnational networks. In a rst part of this article, we will present a conceptual framework to describe this kind of association between subnational entities. Subsequently, we will proceed to an in-depth analysis of a case study. The Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD) has been selected because it is the rst inter-subnational network for sustainable development that operates at a global scale. Moreover, nrg4SD is often mentioned in the policy documents of its members, which suggests its importance and policy relevance. Our choice is also motivated by the fact that it has never been the object of empirical research.1 After a description of the network itself, we present the results of a comparative analysis conducted among three of its European members, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), the Basque Country (Spain) and North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). We conclude by illustrating how the case ts into our conceptual framework. Inter-subnational Networks as an Extra-state Route to Multilateral Decision Making For several years, scholars have witnessed a shift from the traditional way of governing with an exclusive focus on the nation-statecalled governmenttowards a view that social functions and processes are performed and implemented in different ways, by a variety of actors and at different times and placesdescribed by the term governance. It is said that attention needs to be given to actors and organizations both inside and outside the governmental realm, such as private actors, social movements, partnerships, networks, etc. In addition, both formal and informal rule systems need to be taken into account (Rhodes, 1996; Stoker, 1998; Rosenau, 2005: 31 32). States are no longer the sole actors in international negotiations. Their monopoly is challenged by a new set of actors, including subnational governments (Keating, 1999: 6; Lecours, 2002: 92 93). Sustainable development is typically analysed using a governance approach, taking

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

129

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

into account its policy principles of stakeholder participation and vertical policy integration (Bruyninckx, 2006: 268 269). Subnational entities are increasingly trying to gain inuence in multilateral decision making. This has rst and foremost been studied at the level of the EU, where subnational mobilization has been observed for several years (Hooghe, 1995; Jeffery, 1997). Their increasingly important role in policy processes is often described through the lens of Multi-level Governance (e.g. Hooghe and Marks, 2001). To a large extent, subnational entities seek access to multilateral decision making by inuencing their national governments, but more direct channels are exploited as well. An example is the participation in inter-subnational networks, which can be dened as associations formed between subnational entities of different states whose ultimate purpose is to act as pressure groups in multilateral institutions, and foster co-operation based upon common interests, needs and aspirations (adapted from Sodupe, 1999: 62). Most of such networks operate within a European context (e.g. AER, ENCORE, Four Motors for Europe, CPMR or REGLEG, see Balme, 1996; Weyand, 1997; Sodupe, 1999), but recently an inter-subnational network with a global scope was created: nrg4SD. It can be considered as an extra-state and extra-European route to multilateral decision making (Table 1). Table 1 shows the different routes subnational entities can use to inuence multilateral decision making. It is based on a distinction between intra- and extra-state on the one hand, and between intra- and extra-European on the other.2 Intra indicates an indirect way to inuence decision making (through the nation-state or the EU), while extra refers to a direct way of inuence (the subnational entities thus bypassing the national and/or the regional level). Inter-subnational networks can be considered as extra-state mechanisms, because they aim at giving subnational entities direct representation in multilateral institutions.
Table 1. Subnational routes to inuence multilateral decision making Intra-state (indirect) Intra-European (indirect) Mandatory approval of EU treaty revisions by the subnational governments. Appointing a subnational attache to the national permanent representation to the EU. Participating in the national delegation for EU and global negotiations. Establishing subnational electoral districts for European parliamentary elections. Extra-European Inuencing national decision making. (direct) Extra-state (direct) Participating in the Committee of the Regions. Approaching members of the European Commission. Inuencing members of the European Parliament. Campaigning for direct representation in the Council of Ministers/ European Council. Subnational information ofces in Brussels. Appointing a subnational attache to multilateral organizations. Participation in inter-subnational networks.

Source: Adapted from Van den Brande et al. (2008: 18).

130

S. Happaerts et al.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

The international activities of subnational entities, such as participating in intersubnational networks, not only serve to inuence multilateral decision making, but can also be used to develop international personalities. In that sense they become a form of identity politics3 aimed at helping identity or nation-building at home, e.g. by showing subnational leaders in international contexts (Keating, 1999: 5; Lecours, 2002: 97 100,104; Paquin, 2003: 622). Such identity politics are more likely to be found in cases where subnational entities have their own language and culture or in those with aspirations for higher autonomy. In those cases the international activities are applied in a highly political manner, as a strategy to escape from central governments control and to acquire state-like qualities (Keating, 1999: 4 5, 13; Lecours, 2002: 100 101; Palermo and Santini, 2004: 20). Representing subnational entities and inuencing multilateral decision making is what we call the external dimension of inter-subnational networks. In addition, intersubnational networks have an important internal dimension. Subnational entities invest in such networks because they realize that a joint or co-ordinated approach is needed to address certain problems (Weyand, 1997: 167). Participation in networks leads to a vast network of relations between subnational entities, which can eventually lead to concrete bilateral co-operation (Sodupe, 1999: 67). In that regard, inter-subnational networks can give rise to policy learning, by providing governments with easy mechanisms that facilitate learning about successes or failures of other governments, and copying eventual best practices (Bomberg, 2004: 15, 18 19; Catenacci, 2007: 34; Baker and Eckerberg, 2008: 208). The desire for policy learning is especially signicant in the area of sustainable development, since it is a policy domain characterized by conceptual vagueness, uncertainty related to the outcome of policy choices and complexity (e.g. because it entails the integration of different sectors) (Dovers, 1997: 312; Bomberg, 2004: 15; ORiordan, 2004: 22; Bruyninckx, 2006: 270 271). Furthermore, the co-operation of subnational entities in inter-subnational networks for sustainable development can stimulate the promotion of key norms and principles, such as environmental policy integration (Bomberg, 2004: 19). Recent empirical research has conrmed that most inter-subnational networks are created with this double aim, both representing subnational entities in multilateral decision making (external dimension) and fostering bilateral co-operation and policy learning (internal dimension) (Happaerts, 2008).

The Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD)4 Gauteng Declaration The World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002 brought together thousands of people from all over the world. Besides delegates from national governments, participants included representatives from international organizations, the private sector and civil society. Whereas local authorities enjoy a special status under Agenda 21, subnational governments remained largely absent in the international sustainable development debate. This lack of representation prompted some subnational ofcials and NGOs to organize a parallel conference of subnational

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

131

governments in the margins of the World Summit. The event was attended by representatives of a few dozen subnational governments. They were convinced of the importance of the subnational level in the domain of sustainable development, especially for the implementation of policies. In addition, they expressed a motivation to share knowledge and to work together on sustainability issues and they were animated by an overall sense of pessimism regarding the results of the Summit.5 The meeting resulted in the signing of the Gauteng Declaration (an overview of the initial signatories can be found in Appendix B), which expressed the intention of creating a global network of all subnational governments focusing on co-operation for sustainable development (The Gauteng Declaration, 2002).
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Institutionalization The global network suggested in the Gauteng Declaration institutionalized at a relatively fast pace. Institutionalization commonly refers to a process in which values, norms and social practices crystallize into institutions (van Tatenhove and Goverde, 2000: 30). We understand institutions as the rules by which political decision making and implementation is structured and they can refer to social entities as actors as well as to systems of rules shaping behaviour (Spangenberg et al., 2002: 70). Spangenberg distinguishes between three types of institutions: institutional orientations, institutional mechanisms and organizations. The network discussed here can be considered as an organization, as its institutionalization process will result in a permanent structure with internal rules (Spangenberg, 2002: 140). After the Gauteng meeting, a second conference was held in the Basque Country in March 2003, where the subnational governments present agreed to an initial structure for the network, which was baptized Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development or nrg4SD (hereafter also referred to as the Network) (Loperena Rota, 2003: 175). A Steering Committee (which meets at least twice a year) was set up as the governing body and the Network would be supported by a Secretariat (provisionally housed by the Basque Country) and a Treasury (offered by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, CPMR) (nrg4SD, 2004a: 1, 2004b: 3 4), both provided free of charge. The Steering Committee elects two Co-chairs, one from the North and one from the South, who formally represent the Network. The Network also established a budget, made up by annual membership fees. The fees range from E250 to E6000 and are calculated on the basis of the members population and their GDP per capita (nrg4SD, 2006a: 11, 2006b: 1). In its co-ordination tasks the Secretariat is aided by the Focal Points, designated members in each of the six continents that serve as intermediaries between the Secretariat and the subnational governments of each continental region. After having obtained a certain formalized structure, the Network convened other conferences in September 2003 and March 2004. In July 2004, the Network obtained a legal foundation as its statutes were incorporated into Belgian law, registering nrg4SD as an international non-prot association. That legal registration was an important and necessary step towards the recognition of nrg4SD in the global arena (cf. infra). The nal steps of the institutionalization process were taken in 2005. Since then, the Network has convened an annual General Assembly, during which decisions regarding

132

S. Happaerts et al.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

the organization of its activities are taken. Every three years, the General Assembly goes hand in hand with a high-level Summit to which subnational governments from all over the world and other actors are invited to discuss an overarching theme. The rst Summit was held in North Sumatera (Indonesia) in March 2005, a few months after the area was severely hit by the tsunami, and focused on rehabilitation and reconstruction of post-disaster settlement. One of the outcome documents of the North Sumatera General Assembly was the Networks strategy, in which it afrmed the mission and vision of nrg4SD and the priorities for the period between 2005 and 2011. The goals of the Network, as they emerge from this strategy, can be grouped into two main ambitions, reecting the external and the internal dimension that we distinguished as characteristic of inter-subnational networks. On the one hand, nrg4SD aims for recognition at the global level (external dimension): . to be a voice for and to represent [subnational] governments at the global level; . seek greater international recognition of the importance of the contributions made by the [subnational entities] in the eld of sustainable development; . contribute to the international discussions on sustainable development by providing the view point of the [subnational entities] as well as information on these [subnational entities] (nrg4SD, 2005: 1-2, 6). On the other hand, the Network wants to promote co-operation between its members (internal dimension): . promoting sustainable development at the [subnational] level around the world; . bring together all [subnational entities] of the world to work together and to answer the specic needs of each [subnational entity] specially those coming from developing countries; . exchange information and experience regarding the policy making on sustainable development at the [subnational] level of governance (nrg4SD, 2005: 1 2). In conclusion, in less than three years time nrg4SD evolved from a mostly ad hoc initiative to a fully institutionalized organization, with a structure and permanent character and functional procedures. The Network disposes of formalized organs and decision-making mechanisms, a budget and a legal statute. Membership and Outreach At the time of writing,6 the ofcial nrg4SD website accounts for 31 subnational entities and four inter-subnational associations. While several governments who participated in Johannesburg did not turn their commitment into concrete membership (e.g. Bavaria or Pennsylvania), new members have joined. An overview of the members can be found in Appendix B. When looking at the membership, it is clear that European members outweigh others in number. There is a strong presence of Latin American governments, but African or Asian members are relatively scarce. A second obvious observation is that the Networks members are very diverse, in size as well as in level of development

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

133

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

or in competences (from a highly autonomous entity, such as Flanders, to a county of Lithuania). Despite the mainly Western character of the membership, the balance between the members from the North and from the South is considered of paramount importance (nrg4SD, 2005: 9). The few developing country members are thus highly cherished. The Networks Standing Rules also state that nancial problems ought not to be an obstacle to becoming a member of nrg4SD. Governments can always ask for an exemption from the fees (nrg4SD, 2006b: 2). Besides subnational governments, the Network also allows for stakeholders7 and for other inter-subnational associations to become members. If we include the four inter-subnational associations that have joined (see Appendix B), nrg4SD indirectly represents several hundred subnational entities. But, in a strict sense, the Network can so far only count on a few dozen actual member governments. Several respondents conrm that only a small group of subnational entities are truly active in the Network. These are mostly the founding members and often those who exercise formal functions within its structure. We have to conclude, therefore, that the Network does not yet dispose of an extensive membership, certainly with regard to its ambition of representing subnational entities on a global scale. Moreover, a few governments who have been members of nrg4SD from the outset pulled out in 2008, most importantly North RhineWestphalia, one of the Networks most active members, as well as the largest contributor to its budget. Not surprisingly, one of the Networks objectives is to expand its membership. In nearly every document issued by nrg4SD, it invites other subnational governments to join. However, besides two specic Latin American and Caribbean continental meetings, no concrete outreach activities have been undertaken until the approval of the nrg4SD Promotion Campaign by the General Assembly of Khanty-Mansiysk in 2007. Three continental events (in Latin America, Asia and Europe) were subsequently organized to present the Network to other subnational governments and to invite them to join. Whether as a result of these outreach activities or not, Burgundy (France) and Sofala (Mozambique) joined nrg4SD towards the end of 2008. Activities within the External and the Internal Dimension Besides nrg4SDs already mentioned formal meetings (Steering Committee meetings, General Assemblies and Summits), its main activities can be discussed using the distinction between its external and its internal dimension. In the external dimension, one of the main ambitions of nrg4SD is to represent subnational governments at the global level in the domain of sustainable development. The focus of the Networks global interest has been the UNs Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), one of the most important organizations for sustainable development at the global level (Van den Brande et al., 2008: 26 27), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which illustrates the importance that subnational governments attach to climate change policies as a means of achieving sustainable development. Given that nrg4SD wants to be actively present at those fora, accreditation processes have been at the core of its concern. It has been recognized as an ofcial CSD Partnership and it has organized ofcial presentations at the CSD Partnerships Fairs. Other international recognition followed after the legal registration. So far,

134

S. Happaerts et al.

nrg4SD has been granted observer status to the Conference of the Parties (CoP) of UNFCCC and to the Governing Council and the Global Ministerial Environment Forum of the UN Environment Programme. The ultimate goal for accreditation is to obtain observer status to the UNs Economic and Social Council. As a consequence of these processes, the Network intents to be annually present at the session of the CSD and at the meeting of the CoP of UNFCCC. To full its role as a voice for subnational governments in these fora, it has developed a series of policy papers in which it expresses the subnational entities point of view on several issues related to sustainable development.8 In addition to presenting the subnational entities positions, the Network also uses multilateral meetings to organize side-events, to present itself to the outside world and to give information on best practices developed by its members. The Co-chairs and the most active members represent nrg4SD at those events and give presentations about their own policies. Other external activities have included a consultation for the review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN Development Programme (in the context of its Hub for Innovative Partnerships). Another large part of nrg4SDs activities can be situated within its internal dimension. In the margins of the Networks meetings, about a dozen bilateral partnerships have been concluded. The partnership agreements usually take the form of protocols of intentions, in which the parties declare how and on what issues they would like to collaborate. In some occasions, these protocols are followed by action plans in which very concrete projects are planned. As interviews with policy ofcials have shown, not all partnerships are actually concretized. Often declarations are solemnly signed by ministers in the margins of ofcial conferences, and forgotten afterwards. However, some partnerships do make way for co-operation between ofcials or technical experts of specic departments (e.g. transfer of information, experiences or staff). As this happens in a less ofcial sphere, the impact of such co-operation is difcult to assess. In addition, policy learning between the members can happen through presentations made at nrg4SDs events. A less direct way is the mechanism for informationsharing supplied by the website. It provides links to relevant websites of the member governments and it reports about their plans and strategies and about best practices. However, co-operation between the members mostly happens in an informal way. Nrg4SD events offer a good opportunity for the members to share information about their policies. Over the years, the subnational ofcials who serve as contact persons for nrg4SD have come to know each other very well. Needless to say, individual relations play a large role here. Those personal contacts not only support policy learning, but they can also give way to other forms of informal co-operation (e.g. aligning positions for other meetings or upcoming negotiations). Challenges for Future Development Nrg4SD is a relatively young initiative. During its six-year existence, however, it has managed to set up institutional structures with a permanent character and it has undertaken a vast array of activities. What will the future look like for this inter-subnational network with a unique global scope? Two processes that will potentially have an impact on nrg4SDs evolution are important to mention.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

135

First, in March 2007 representatives of several inter-subnational networks joined in Marseille and set the rst steps towards the establishment of an umbrella structure meant to encompass all existing networks of subnational entities: the Forum of Global Associations of Regions (FOGAR).9 While nrg4SDs Secretariat was in favour of the initiative, several member governments were rather reluctant. They feared that yet another organization would overshadow nrg4SDs efforts. In addition, some members were sceptical about the true goals of certain actors (e.g. within nrg4SDs and CPMRs secretariats) with regard to FOGAR. That reluctance is apparently the reason why FOGAR is only a forum and not a network in itself. However, according to some of our respondents, FOGAR has great ambitions, including recognition by the UN as an intergovernmental organization (IGO). Nrg4SD would by extension be considered an IGO itself and be lifted out of the non-governmental realm. The legal registration of nrg4SD as a non-prot association could, however, prove an obstacle. In addition, it is unclear and contested how FOGAR could ever achieve recognition as an IGO. Whatever statute it might obtain, in the Marseille Declaration, the founding document of FOGAR, nrg4SD is assigned as the sole representative of FOGAR in the domain of sustainable development (Declaration of the regions on their participation in the governance of globalisation, 2007: 3). Considering that FOGAR is still a very young initiative, it is too early to make an assessment of the role of nrg4SD in this new structure. Secondly, nrg4SD has recently gone through an internal review process. After a boom of initiatives and documents in the rst years of its existence, the Network seemed to have lost some of its initial momentum. For instance, after 2005 several years have passed without the adoption of a policy paper. Besides the decrease in output, several members also seemed to have lost some of their enthusiasm, because of recent events, such as the development of FOGAR and the withdrawal of North Rhine-Westphalia, among other things. On that account some nrg4SD members came together in the margins of the 15th session of the CSD in New York in 2007 and agreed that the Network needed revitalizing. A few weeks later, the General Assembly of Khanty-Mansiysk conrmed the decision and called for an independent contractor to draw up the strategy (2008 14) and work programme (2008 11) of the Network. In September 2007, the co-chairs (the Basque Country and the South African province Western Cape) and the Treasurer of the Network (CPMR) assigned the task to a team of the University of the Basque Country, which undertook a survey among the members. Although most members agreed on the difculties, our interviews show that there is strong disagreement about the reasons for the problems. The drafting process of the new documents has lasted until October 2008, when the strategy was adopted at the second Summit of nrg4SD, held in Brittany with climate change as general theme. Since the process was still running when the empirical research for this article (including the interviews) was conducted, and the new strategy was not yet publicly available, it is not examined further in the present article. The future development of nrg4SD could tell us something about the robustness of the institution. Robustness is a measure of the capacity of an institution to survive various pressures intact in the sense of withstanding the impact of destabilizing forces without suffering collapse or experiencing transformative change (Young, 2002: 7). According to Young, destabilizing forces can come either from within or

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

136

S. Happaerts et al.

without the institution and they may take the form of either sharp shocks or crises, or pressures with gradually increasing intensity. The previous overview shows that nrg4SD as an institution is threatened by certain destabilizing forces, such as the withdrawal of some members and the distrust towards the creation of FOGAR. Since it has decided to react by drafting a new strategy, it looks like it aims at surviving these pressures through a process of transformative change. Yet a more in-depth analysis of that process exceeds the scope of this article. Nrg4SD and the Strategies of Member Governments: A Comparative Analysis
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

In the previous section, we have discussed the genesis, the institutionalization, the activities and the challenges of nrg4SD as an organization. However, it is important to point out that a network like nrg4SD is rst and foremost an association constituted by a series of actors, in this case subnational governments. An analysis of the Network as an organization thus falls short in giving a complete image. It needs to be complemented by an analysis at the level of its members. This article wants to take a rst step in doing so, by comparing three subnational governments in terms of their views and strategies towards nrg4SD. In order to be able to frame the analysis in the proposed conceptual framework and to obtain a certain degree of comparability, we selected three subnational entities of EU member states with a considerable degree of autonomy,10 namely Flanders, the Basque Country and North Rhine-Westphalia. The three subnational entities are treated separately. First, their participation in nrg4SD is analysed. We are interested in the degree of commitment of the members, and in their initiatives and activities in the context of the Network. Secondly, we give an outline of the views and opinions concerning nrg4SD and its functioning, expressed by our respondents. Thirdly, we look at the impact that the participation in nrg4SD has on the members own policies, including the benets that they extract from their membership. We conclude this section by discussing certain patterns of convergence and some of the most noticeable differences. Flanders Participation Flanders has been involved in nrg4SD from the outset, starting from the informal talks leading up the event in Johannesburg. The Flemish Minister of the Environment subsequently co-negotiated and signed the Gauteng Declaration. As a co-founder, Flanders draws a certain degree of authority within the Network. It is also often cited as one of the more active members. For these reasons, but also because of Flanders prestige among other subnational entities in Europe (due to its very high degree of autonomy)11 and because of the strategic location of Brussels for lobbying activities, it has often been approached by other members to assume a more prominent role within nrg4SD (e.g. the function of co-chair or continental Focal Point, or the host of the Secretariat). But so far, Flanders has only been a candidate for a seat in the Steering Committee. Although the Flemish involvement has always been high at administrative level, it seems that political engagement has never been substantial enough in order to make a bigger contribution to nrg4SD.12 This seems conrmed

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

137

by the Flemish participation in nrg4SDs events. While Flanders has been almost continuously represented at administrative level,13 Flemish ministers have attended nrg4SDs meetings only on a few occasions. The highest commitment of Flanders to nrg4SD so far has been the organization of the General Assembly in Brussels in 2006. Opinions and evaluation In the Flemish view, the Networks most interesting characteristic is its accreditation at multilateral bodies, which gives visibility to subnational entities at the international level. The Belgian subnational entities regularly use the opportunities offered by the international arena for identity politics. One of the priorities of the Flemish foreign policy is precisely to put Flanders on the international map and to gain a political voice in the international arena (Massart-Pierard, 1999: 713714, 718; Lecours, 2002: 97100; Keating et al., 2003: 9293; Paquin, 2003: 632634). The goal of contributing concretely to policy and decision making is, however, less pronounced in the Flemish participation in nrg4SD. Because of its high degree of autonomy, it feels it has much more impact through intra-state routes than through extra-state routes.14 As for nrg4SDs weaknesses, our Flemish respondents deplore the institutional dispersion of the Network. With the seat legally in Brussels, the Secretariat in the Basque Country and the budget administered by the CPMR in France, things are often difcult to manage, with a lack of transparency and often confusing communication as a result. Furthermore, the Network is sometimes plagued by politico-strategic games (e.g. regarding the involvement of nrg4SD in the establishment of FOGAR). Other observed weaknesses include the heterogeneity of nrg4SDs members and the recent setback in output. Flanders sees three challenges for nrg4SD in the near future. First, it must review its goals and prioritize its activities. Subsequently, the internal organization of the Network needs to be revised, and the functioning needs to be more efcient and transparent. Finally, the Network needs more members, especially larger and active ones.15 Because of its criticism, Flanders has been one of the members strongly lobbying for a revision of nrg4SDs strategy. Although critical voices have been rising, the Flemish government did not have the intention to leave the Network during the reection phase. However, the results of the internal review were expected to have an impact on future Flemish involvement in and contribution to nrg4SD (Deketelaere, 2008). At the Summit in October 2008, Flanders pulled out of the Steering Committee. Flanders could thus be expected to become a silent member of the Network, focusing only on the most important meetings. A total withdrawal seems unlikely, since Flanders remains one of the co-founders of nrg4SD. Impact The low engagement of Flanders in nrg4SD at a political level stands in contrast with the Networks high visibility in Flemish policy documents (e.g. Bourgeois, 2004: 16; Leterme, 2004: 6; Vlaamse Regering, 2006: 14, 2007: 20; Vlaamse Overheid, 2007: 131). However, apart from the brief appearance in these documents, our interviews have suggested that nrg4SDs activities have no concrete inuence on Flemish sustainable development policy in terms of policy learning. Its policy impact in Flanders seems thus virtually non-existent.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

138

S. Happaerts et al.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Flanders is interested in co-operation with other members in the framework of nrg4SD. Its privileged partners are other European entities, including North Rhine-Westphalia, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Wales (Leterme, 2004: 17; Vlaamse Overheid, 2007: 131, 133, 2008: 151), all of which are members of the Network. Although Flanders has not made many formal partnerships within the framework of nrg4SD, its membership is sometimes used in a more informal way. When cooperation with other subnational entities is desired, networks like nrg4SD can be used to approach other subnational governments directly. However, if concrete co-operation follows, the framework offered by nrg4SD is largely left aside. In addition, nrg4SDs events are good occasions to align positions for the EU Councils of Ministers with German partners. Despite the global scope of the Network, Flanders does not use nrg4SD for co-operation with members from the South. The Basque Country Participation As co-founder, the Basque Countrys engagement in nrg4SD has been at a maximum level from the outset (illustrated by the fact that it hosted the Networks second meeting early 2003). It has always wanted to be actively involved, which is why it presented itself for a seat in the Steering Committee and why it offered to provide the Secretariat free of charge. In addition, during the rst Summit of nrg4SD the Basque Country was appointed co-chair. Without any doubt the Basque Country has been the single most active member. Partly due to the functions that it assumes within nrg4SD, it displays a maximum degree of participation at its activities and its presence is always at ministerial or vice-ministerial level. It is one of the rare members that invest a lot of resources, including political capital, in nrg4SD. Ugalde Zubiri (1999: 172 174) shows that external projection is inherent to Basque nationalism. The objectives of the Basque foreign policy include international alliances, relations with other governments and contact with the Basque diaspora (most notably in Latin America). This form of identity politics was manifest in the policies of the nationalist governments, which were strong supporters of extra-state routes to multilateral decision making. As a member of nrg4SD the Basque Country has taken various initiatives. Several policy papers were initiated by the Basques. Also other output (e.g. the development of subnational indicators for sustainable development) need to be traced back to proposals made by the Basque government. As the co-chair and the host of the Secretariat, moreover, it has had a strong say in the direction taken by the Network (cf. infra). Opinions and evaluation The Basques initial participation in nrg4SD was motivated partly by the aim of development co-operation, with a strong focus on Latin American subnational entities. The Basque Country wants to play an active role in their development, including by providing expertise in the area of sustainable development. Nrg4SD is found very useful for those purposes, because it offers a framework in which bilateral contacts are easily maintained and strengthened. Furthermore, the Basque Country is clearly interested in the external dimension of the Network. Through its participation it has access to

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

139

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

many places, bodies and ofcials that otherwise would be impossible to reach for non-state actors. The Basque Country was not an active supporter of reviewing nrg4SDs strategy. The single most important weakness of the Network, according to our Basque respondents, is the low political implication of many members. Administrative involvement is often present, but the Network also needs a dose of commitment at ministerial level. With more political involvement, nrg4SD would be able to make more use out of its lobby functions, to be more actively present in decision making (e.g. by responding to EU Green Papers), to strengthen its Secretariat and to have more dynamic meetings. Other observed weaknesses include the fact that the bureaucracy of the Network often restrains dynamic decision making. Besides gaining more political commitment from all members, another challenge for nrg4SD pronounced by some of our Basque respondents is the ambition of being recognized, through FOGAR, as an IGO. Impact The membership of nrg4SD has an impact on the Basque policy which is noticeable in several ways. Its participation has a strong domestic visibility, which has much to do with the fact that the Secretariat is headed by a former Environment Minister. But nrg4SD is also mentioned very often in all kinds of policy documents (Gobierno Vasco, 2007: 48, 62, 64, 2008: 29, 2006: 12). At the global level, the extra-state route offered by the Network gives the Basque ofcials an access to fora where they would not be present otherwise, including the CSD, the CoP of UNFCCC, and meetings with EU Commissioners and UN ofcials. Of course, interventions are made on behalf of nrg4SD and are not meant for the exclusive benet of the Basque Country. But in the context of identity politics, it is clear that the opportunities offered by the Network to be present at the global level were highly welcomed by a nationalist government seeking to stress the importance of subnational participation in decision making.16 The Basque government makes much use of the framework provided by nrg4SD to conclude partnerships with other members, especially with Latin American subnational entities. The investment in bilateral partnerships is explained by the aim of development co-operation and policy learning on the one hand, and image-building on the other. Another impact on the Basque policy is observed in environmental plans and programmes, where use is made of the knowledge of other governments experience with sustainable development strategies, e.g. Flanders (Gobierno Vasco, 2007: 4, 2008: 30). It is partly thanks to the informal mechanisms provided by the Network that the Basque Country is able to follow-up easily what other subnational governments are doing and that policy learning can take place. In the Basque case, besides the impact nrg4SD has on its policy, an impact in the opposite direction is noticeable as well. It is clear that the Basque Country, due to the specic role it plays in the Network, has a very strong inuence on the direction nrg4SD is taking. It is remarkable, for instance, that many of the recent incoming members are Latin American or Spanish subnational entities. Furthermore, it is striking that the contract for drawing the new strategy was assigned to a multidisciplinary team of the University of the Basque Country.

140

S. Happaerts et al.

North Rhine-Westphalia Participation North Rhine-Westphalia was not among the founding members of nrg4SD, but, after its accession, it immediately became one of the most active participants with an almost constant presence. It is largely due to the personal involvement at administrative level, but on several occasions the government has also been represented at ministerial level.17 North Rhine-Westphalia was also an active participant in nrg4SDs side-events at multilateral meetings. Its absence has been noticeable since the 15th session of the CSD in 2007. It is around that time that the political decision to withdraw was made, motivated by the argument that the Ministry chooses to concentrate its scarce resources on other domains, including bilateral contacts and the ENCORE network (Environmental Conference of the European Regions). The withdrawal can possibly be explained by a change of governments. In 2005, a shift in government coalitions marked a change in the North Rhine-Westphalian sustainable development policy. Most projects and programmes (including the Agenda 21 process) were not continued by the new coalition of Christian democrats and liberals. During its membership, North Rhine-Westphalia has taken several initiatives for the functioning of nrg4SD. Its input includes the policy paper on renewable energies and the co-ordination of an online platform about the use of renewables at the subnational level.18 In addition, North Rhine-Westphalia was the representative of nrg4SD in the steering committee of REN21, a policy network on renewables set up during the Bonn International Conference on Renewables in 2004 (at which nrg4SD participated). In REN21, nrg4SD seated as the voice of subnational governments. Now that North Rhine-Westphalia has left nrg4SD, the steering committee of REN21 no longer includes a subnational representative. Opinions and evaluation In the view of the ofcials who have been involved in nrg4SD at administrative level, the main function of the Network needs to be situated in the internal dimension. Although the lobby functions at multilateral bodies are considered important as well, the emphasis is placed on networking. Participation in networks is considered a useful and efcient mechanism to maintain contact with ofcials from other governments, much more than individual bilateral relations. Afterwards, it is up to each member to choose how they want to make use of those contacts. Although the decision to withdraw from the Network was not based on a negative evaluation of nrg4SD or its functioning, ofcials in North Rhine-Westphalia do have some criticisms. Some of its organizational characteristics (e.g. the holding of mixed meetings with administrative and political ofcials) are considered inefcient and the goals and objectives of the Network are felt to be unclear. In addition, North Rhine-Westphalia was among the sceptical members with regard to the establishment of FOGAR. It also considers the undemocratic character of FOGAR as problematic for accreditation at UN bodies. While the associations within FOGAR have a democratic structure and a clear legitimization, FOGAR itself does not. Besides these criticisms, voices in North Rhine-Westphalia repeat that the biggest problems the Network has to deal with are political. That is why a new strategy will not offer much relief. According

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

141

to North Rhine-Westphalia, nrg4SDs biggest challenge for the future is expanding its membership, preferably with big subnational entities. Impact North Rhine-Westphalias withdrawal from nrg4SD will probably pass without a sound in Dusseldorf, considering the low visibility its membership had in domestic politics. Apart from brief mentions in one or two policy documents (e.g. MUNLV, 2007: 343), the governments participation in the Network has not been largely displayed. However, North Rhine-Westphalia had some obvious benets thanks to its membership, such as the seat in REN21s steering committee. In the multilateral arena, North Rhine-Westphalia had less direct interests in participating in nrg4SD. As Germanys highest populated and richest subnational entity, it feels it has much more inuence through intra-state routes, both formal and informal. The desire of using extra-state routes for identity politics is not felt in North Rhine-Westphalia. Although almost no impact is noticeable within the external dimension of nrg4SD, many of the bilateral contacts maintained by the Environment Ministry do result from its participation in the Network. Sometimes these contacts lead to concrete bilateral cooperation. However, when the government co-operates with other subnational entities it prefers to do so on an informal level, without the framework offered by networks like nrg4SD. It is felt that the formal obligations of ofcial partnership agreements are rather restrictive to efcient co-operation. Patterns of Convergence and Divergence Some observations correspond in all three entities. Flanders and the Basque Country, as well as North Rhine-Westphalia before 2007, are three very active members in nrg4SD. All three have a seat in the Steering Committee and are almost continuously present at nrg4SDs meetings. Ofcials of the three governments also make regular presentations at nrg4SDs international events, which shows a high commitment at administrative level. Equally, there are marked differences among the three members. These mostly concern the view on nrg4SDs weaknesses. In addition, the Networks impact on the sustainable development policies of its members shows striking differences. The Basque Country displays a large impact, with a high visibility of nrg4SD in its policy and tangible policy learning, largely due to the investment in partnerships and bilateral co-operation. In addition, the Basque Country benets from substantial access to multilateral policy making thanks to its participation in nrg4SD. In North Rhine-Westphalia, in contrast, nrg4SD has a low impact and a limited visibility, due to the fact that the government prefers informal ways of co-operation. However, many bilateral contacts are a consequence of North Rhine-Westphalias participation in nrg4SD, so its indirect impact should not be ignored. In Flanders the situation is somewhat ambiguous, with a high visibility in documents but relatively no policy impact. The Basque Country shares some characteristics with North Rhine-Westphalia. They both have given much input for nrg4SDs organization, which Flanders has done less. Another similarity is that the Basques and North Rhine-Westphalia attach a strong importance to the internal functions of nrg4SD. Finally, both the Basque

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

142

S. Happaerts et al.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Country and North Rhine-Westphalia doubted that the revision of the Networks strategy would formulate an answer to its problems, especially not to the political ones. The biggest similarities are found between the Flemish and the North RhineWestphalian cases, which are often in contrast with the Basque observations. Both Flanders and North Rhine-Westphalia show a much lower commitment at the political level. They fail to assume an ofcial function, which stands in contrast with the activeness at administrative level. Also, both Flanders and North Rhine-Westphalia feel they have more inuence in multilateral decision making through intra-state routes, which is why they attach a less important role to nrg4SD in that regard.19 The nationalist governments of the Basque Country strongly prefer the extra-state route and want to be present in multilateral fora as part of an inter-subnational delegation. In contrast to the Basque Country, Flanders and North Rhine-Westphalia make much less use of nrg4SDs framework to conclude partnerships with other members. If bilateral co-operation does follow, it is mostly with governments from fellow European subnational entities. Flanders and North Rhine-Westphalia also shared their overt scepticism towards the establishment of FOGAR, and both express the need for nrg4SD to attract more and bigger members. Conclusion In the area of sustainable development, subnational entities are increasingly seeking access to multilateral decision making. The conceptual framework in this article shows that one of the possible ways in which subnational entities can do this, is through participation in inter-subnational networks. Those networks offer subnational entities a direct ticket to the multilateral arena, a function that can be situated within what we call the external dimension of the networks. In addition, inter-subnational networks are characterized by an internal dimension. They enable subnational entities to work with their peers towards the solution of common problems and they offer mechanisms to learn from each others experiences. While much research has been done on inter-subnational networks with a European scope, little is known about nrg4SD, a network with a unique global scope and a strong emphasis on North South relations. This article has taken a rst step in analysing the creation, institutionalization, membership and activities of nrg4SD. It has demonstrated that, although it is a relatively young organization, nrg4SD has gone through an institutionalization process and has evolved in its rst years from an almost ad hoc initiative to an organization with a relatively permanent character, formal decision-making rules, a budget, a legal statute, etc. The study has also shown, however, that after a wave of enthusiasm (e.g. the drafting of many consecutive policy papers), the Network experienced a period of stagnation. It also faced the withdrawal of some important members and internal criticism regarding the establishment of FOGAR. In response to those challenges, nrg4SD held an internal review, the outcome of which could test its robustness as an institution. The study of nrg4SD is complemented by a comparative analysis of three of its members. Conclusions from this comparative analysis can be drawn only for subnational governments operating in an EU context. First, it appears that the impact of nrg4SD on the policy of its members is correlated with the level of political

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

143

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

engagement. The Basques, who have invested a lot in nrg4SD and show a strong commitment at ministerial level, extract tangible benets from their membership, both within the external dimension (e.g. having direct access to multilateral bodies and ofcials) and within the internal dimension (e.g. learning from the experiences of other governments for their own sustainable development policy). Furthermore, the analysis has shown that the three members have very different views on nrg4SD, on its functioning and on the challenges it is facing. Different subnational entities do not make the same use out of the networks they participate in. Some opportunities are exploited, others are not, depending on the members political interest and on their domestic context (e.g. the access they enjoy to intra-states routes to multilateral decision making). Moreover, it has been proven that extra-state mechanisms to multilateral decision making, such as participation in inter-subnational networks, can be used for identity politics. We have observed this in the Flemish and Basque cases, which conrms that this form of identity politics is more likely to appear among subnational entities with their own language and culture or with nationalist aspirations. The case study of nrg4SD conrms that subnational entities need to be considered as new actors wanting to participate in multilateral decision making, including in the area of sustainable development. In contrast to most inter-subnational networks, nrg4SD offers a unique global scope, with a strong NorthSouth dimension and a focus on UN bodies. The difculties it faces in being heard in those bodies are possibly due to the little experience the UN system has with subnational entities, unlike the EU. Up to now, it seems that nrg4SD is more successful with regard to its internal dimension, particularly in terms of formal or informal bilateral co-operation, than with regard to its external goals.

Acknowledgement This research was funded by the Flemish Policy Research Centre for Sustainable Development (www.steunpuntDO.be). Previous versions of this article were presented at the Politicologenetmaal (29 30 May 2008, Berg en Dal, the Netherlands) and at the International Sustainability Conference (21 22 August 2008, Basel, Switzerland). The authors would like to thank participants for their helpful comments, especially Bertjan Verbeek. The authors appreciate the interviewed ofcials for their valuable contributions to this article.

Notes
1

While no specic studies have been conducted on nrg4SD, some authors do mention it as an example of inter-subnational co-operation, or list it among important institutions for sustainable development (Loperena Rota, 2003: 174 178; Geeraerts et al., 2004: 76 77; Catenacci, 2007: 3435). 2 This distinction is based on Geeraerts et al. (2004). The four routes are further developed in Van den Brande (2009). 3 According to Hill and Wilson (2003: 3), identity politics refer to processes, actions or discourses whereby various entities (political, economic or social) attempt to mould collective identities into xed frames for understanding political action. In the context of the international activities of subnational entities, Paquin (2003: 622, personal translation) talks of identity paradiplomacy, a paradiplomacy or a subnational foreign policy whose fundamental objective is the reinforcement or the construction of the nation in the framework of a multinational country.

144
4

S. Happaerts et al.

The following analysis is based primarily on study of literature, analysis of policy documents and internet research, including the website of nrg4SD itself (www.nrg4SD.net). The subsequent comparative analysis is based mainly on personal interviews conducted in 2007 and 2008, both with representatives of nrg4SD and high-level political and administrative ofcials of the three members compared (see overview of respondents in Appendix A). 5 See Video Diaries (Earth Summit, 2002). 6 The empirical research for this article was nalized late 2008. 7 The Network species stakeholders as interested parties such as non-governmental organisations, universities and academic institutes, trade unions, trade associations, employers associations and other associations/groupings committed to sustainable development, and agreeing to the Gauteng Declaration (nrg4SD, 2004b: 2). Only one has joined at the time of writing, the Fundacion Comuni dad Valenciana-Region Europea, a non-prot association under the auspices of the subnational government of Valencia. 8 Such policy papers have been published on the themes of international co-operation, sustainable development strategies, water, sustainable energy and renewables, sustainable tourism, sustainable forest management and fair trade. At the 2008 Summit, a policy paper on climate change was adopted as well. The policy papers are not meant as binding declarations with which the Networks members have to comply, but as instruments to make the viewpoints of the subnational entities known to the outside world. 9 The founding networks of this forum, the signatories of the Marseille Declaration, are AIRF (Associ ation Internationale des Regions Francophones), AEBR (Association of European Border Regions), CPMR, IT4ALL (Network of Local Authorities for the Information Society), nrg4SD, Morte Grande, The Northern Forum, OLAGI (Latin American Organization of Intermediate Governments), ZICOSUR (Zona de Integracion del Centro Oeste de America del Sur) and Conference des Presidents de Regions ultraperipheriques de lUnion europeenne (Declaration of the regions on their participation in the governance of globalisation, 2007: 3 4). 10 In a recent study by Hooghe et al. (2008b), Flanders, the Basque Country and North Rhine-Westphalia have similar scores on the aggregate indicator of self-rule (respectively 13.0, 14.0 and 12.0 out of a maximum of 15.0), which measures the independence of a subnational government from central domination and the scope of subnational decision making. On the overall Regional Authority Index, the three entities score 20.0, 15.5 and 21.0 (of a maximum of 24.0). 11 The Belgian subnational entities dispose of several exclusive competences in many areas important to sustainable development, such as environment, spatial planning, economic development, natural resources, transport, etc. (Hendriks, 2001: 290, 297; Hooghe et al., 2008a: 185 186). In addition, they have considerable nancial resources and very large spending autonomy (De Rynck, 2005: 485; Swenden et al., 2006: 864). It is argued that the Belgian subnational entities enjoy the largest degree of autonomy in Europe and the share of competences allocated to them is often viewed as the main example for other subnational entities (Hopkins, 2002: 71; Deforche and Bursens, 2008: 15). Especially in external relations, their autonomy is exceptional (Massart-Pierard, 1999: 712 714; Paquin, 2003: 624). 12 This is both true in the time of the green ministers (up to 2005), as well as under the Christian democratic ministers (from 2005 on). However, Flanders does show a high degree of political commitment in other networks, such as REGLEG or the Four Motors for Europe (to which it is an associated member), which suggests that the lack of commitment to nrg4SD is not due to its character as an inter-subnational network, but more to the topic it focuses on, i.e. sustainable development. 13 With regard to nrg4SDs event at multilateral meetings (such as the sessions of the CSD or the CoPs of the UNFCCC), the high degree of participation is explained partly by the fact that Flemish ofcials are always present at those meetings as part of the Belgian delegation (see note 14). That presence facilitates input in nrg4SDs events. 14 As a consequence of the in foro interno, in foro externo principle, which permits the Belgian subnational entities to conduct an external policy for those subjects for which they are internally competent, Flanders is involved in the Belgian negotiation process for multilateral meetings for sustainable development, and it can include its representatives in Belgian delegations at those meetings (Paquin, 2003: 627; Van den Brande et al., 2008: 34 35).

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

15

145

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

This opinion could be regarded as a paradox, given that Flanders itself has not fully exploited its capacities to be active, certainly on a political level. But the reasoning could be reversed as well, arguing that the level of political involvement in Flanders would possibly be heightened when nrg4SD attracts more and bigger members. 16 It needs to be pointed out that Basque ofcials, when they are present at multilateral fora, are usually registered as members of nrg4SDs delegation, and not of the national delegation of Spain. This was certainly true during the Aznar-led governments. As our respondents have pointed out, the socialist governments have shown more openness in this regard. 17 This was especially true at the time of the green Minister during the previous political term (up to 2005). 18 www.regional-renewables.org. This website is no longer updated. 19 In the Regional Authority Index, Flanders and North Rhine-Westphalia score high (7.0 and 9.0 out of a total of 9.0) on the aggregated indicator of shared rule, measuring the capacity to shape central decision making, while the Basque Country has a much lower score of 1.5 (Hooghe et al., 2008b).

References
Baker, S. and Eckerberg, K. (2008), Conclusion. Combining Old and New Governance in Pursuit of Sustainable Development, in S. Baker and K. Eckerberg (eds), In Pursuit of Sustainable Development. New Governance Practices at the Sub-national Level in Europe. London: Routledge, pp.208228. Balme, R. (ed.) (1996), Les Politiques du Neo-regionalisme. Action Collective Regionale et Globalisation. Paris: Economica. Berger, G. and Pohoryles, R. J. (2004), Policy Integration and Capacity-Building in Regional Sustainable Development: Analysis of Experiences in Europe. Paper presented at the Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Berlin, 3 4 December. Bomberg, E. (2004), Regions, Multi-level Governance and Sustainable Development: Reections and Strategies, Paper presented at REGIONET Workshop 4: Regional Sustainable DevelopmentCross Fertilisation and Integration of Results of REGIONET, Brussels, 14 16 January. Bourgeois, G. (2004), Beleidsnota Buitenlands Beleid en Internationale Samenwerking 2004 2009. Vlaams Parlement Stuk 88 (20042005), No.1. Bruyninckx, H. (2006), Sustainable Development: the Institutionalization of a Contested Policy Concept, in M.M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler and D. Stevis (eds), Palgrave Advances in International Environmental Politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.265298. Catenacci, M. (2007), EPI at Regional and Local LevelA Literature Review. Paper presented at the second EPIGOV conference Integrating the Environment into National, Regional and Local Policies. Current Practices and Future Directions, Milan, 2223 November. De Rynck, S. (2005), Regional Autonomy and Education Policy in Belgium, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.15, No.4, pp.485500. Declaration of the Regions on their Participation in the Governance of Globalisation (2007), Marseille. Deforche, J. and Bursens, P. (2008), Strategieen van Deelstaten in Institutionele Hervormingen (working paper). Antwerpen: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen. Deketelaere, K. (2008), Welcome Salutation and Introduction to the Meeting (Speech Made on Behalf of the Flemish Minister of Public Works, Energy, Environment and Nature during nrg4SDs Event The Contribution of Regions to Sustainable Development and to Tackle Climate Change), Brussels, 6 February. Dovers, S. R. (1997), Sustainability: Demands on Policy, Journal of Public Policy, Vol.16, No.3, pp.303318. Earth Summit (2002), Video Diaries, available from http://www.earthsummit2002.org/subnational/video_ diaries.html (accessed 14 December 2007). Geeraerts, K., Bursens, P. and Leroy, P. (2004), Vlaams Milieubeleid Steekt de Grenzen Over. De Vlaamse Betrokkenheid Bij de Totstandkoming van Europees en Multilateraal Milieubeleid, Universiteit Antwerpen: Steunpunt Milieubeleidswetenschappen. Gobierno Vasco (2006), Plan Vasco de Consumo Ambientalmente Sostenible (20062010). Gobierno Vasco (2007), II Programa Marco Ambiental de la Comunidad Autonoma del Pas Vasco. Disenando el Futuro 2007 2010.

146

S. Happaerts et al.

Gobierno Vasco (2008), Plan Vasco de Lucha contra el Cambio Climatico 2008 2012. Happaerts, S. (2008), Inter-subnational Networks for Sustainable Development. State-of-the-Art and the Experiences of Flanders and Wallonia (working paper). Leuven: Steunpunt Duurzame Ontwikkeling. Hendriks, F. (2001), Belgium: Federalism and Subnational Democracy in a Divided Country, in J. Loughlin (ed.), Subnational Democracy in the European Union. Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.289316. Hill, J. D. and Wilson, T. M. (2003), Identity Politics and the Politics of Identities, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Vol.10, No.1, pp.18. Hooghe, L. (1995), Subnational Mobilisation in the European Union. Florence: European University Institute. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001), Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Langham, Boulder: Rowman & Littleeld. Hooghe, L., Schakel, A. H. and Marks, G. (2008a), Appendix A: Proles of Regional Reform in 42 Countries (19502006), Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.18, Nos.23, pp.183258. Hooghe, L., Schakel, A. H. and Marks, G. (2008b), Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.18, Nos.23, pp.259274. Hopkins, W. J. (2002), Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal & Devolved Government in the Member States of the European Union. London: Cavendish. Jeffery, C. (ed.) (1997), The Regional Dimension of the European Union. Towards a Third Level in Europe? London: Frank Cass. Jeffery, C. (2005), Regions and the European Union: Letting them In, and Leaving them Alone, in S. Weatherill and U. Bernitz (eds), The Role of Regions and Sub-National Actors in Europe. Oxford: Hart, pp.3345. Jorgensen, K. (2002), Policymaking for Ecological Sustainability in Federal States: The Examples of the German Bundeslander and the U.S. States (working paper). Washington: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. Keating, M. (1999), Regions and International Affairs: Motives, Opportunities and Strategies, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.9, No.1, pp.116. Keating, M., Loughlin, J. and Deschouwer, K. (2003), Culture, Institutions and Economic Development. A Study of Eight European Regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lecours, A. (2002), Paradiplomacy: Reections on the Foreign Policy and International Relations of Regions, International Negotiation, Vol.7, No.1, pp.91114. Leterme, Y. (2004), Vlaanderen, het Noorden en het Zuiden duurzaam ontwikkelen. Beleidsnota Duurzame Ontwikkeling 2004 2009. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Loperena Rota, D. (2003), New Institutions for Sustainable Development, in Strategies for Sustainable Development. Roles & Responsibilities along the Global-local Axis. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible. Marks, G., Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. H. (2008), Measuring Regional Authority, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.18, Nos.23, pp.111121. Massart-Pierard, F. (1999), Politique des Relations Exterieures et Identite Politique: la Strategie des Entites Federees de Belgique, Revue Etudes internationales, Vol.xxx, No.4, pp.701727. Ministerium fur Umwelt und Naturschutz; Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein Westfalen (MUNLV) (2007), Umweltbericht NRW 2006. Dusseldorf: MUNLV. Morata, F. (2002), The Role of the Regions in the Local/Global GSD Axis, in CADS (ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible. nrg4SD (2004a), Report on the activities of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD) 20022004. Vitoria-Gasteiz: nrg4SD Secretariat. nrg4SD (2004b), Statutes for the Legal Registration of the Network. Vitoria-Gasteiz: nrg4SD Secretariat. nrg4SD (2005), Nrg4SD Strategy 2005 2011. Vitoria-Gasteiz: nrg4SD Secretariat. nrg4SD (2006a), Information Package of the Network. Vitoria-Gasteiz: nrg4SD Secretariat. nrg4SD (2006b), Standing Rules of the Statutes of nrg4SD. Vitoria-Gasteiz: nrg4SD Secretariat. ORiordan, T. (2004), The Institutional Dimension of Sustainable Development, in CADS (ed.), Institutions for Sustainable Development. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

147

Palermo, F. and Santini, A. (2004), From NUTS to Constitutional Regions: Addressing EU Regions in the EU Framework, in R. Toniatti, F. Palermo and M. Dani (eds), An Ever More Complex Union. The Regional Variable as Missing Link in the EU Constitution? Baden Baden: Nomos, pp.326. Paquin, S. (2003), Paradiplomatie Identitaire et Diplomatie en Belgique Federale: le cas de la Flandre, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.36, No.3, pp.621642. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996), The New Governance: Governing without Government, Political Studies, Vol.XLIV, pp.652667. Rosenau, J. N. (2005), Strong Demand, Huge Supply: Governance in an Emerging Epoch, in I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.3148. Sodupe, K. (1999), The European Union and Inter-regional Co-operation, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.9, No.1, pp.5881. Spangenberg, J. H. (2002), Institutions for Sustainable Development: Indicators for Performance Assessment, in CADS (ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible, pp.133162. Spangenberg, J. H., Pfahl, S. and Deller, K. (2002), Towards Indicators for Institutional Sustainability: Lessons from an Analysis of Agenda 21, Ecological Indicators, Vol.2, Nos.12, pp.6177. Stoker, G. (1998), Governance as Theory: Five Propositions, International Social Science, Vol.50, No.155, pp.1728. Swenden, W., Brans, M. and De Winter, L. (2006), The Politics of Belgium: Institutions and Policy under Bipolar and Centrifugal Federalism, West European Politics, Vol.29, No.5, pp.863873. The Gauteng Declaration (2002), Johannesburg. Ugalde Zubiri, A. (1999), The International Relations of Basque Nationalism and the First Basque Autonomous Government (1890 1939), Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.9, No.1, pp.170184. Van den Brande, K. (2009), The Flemish Subnational Government in the Decision-Making Process for the UN CSD. Case Study: CSD-16 (working paper). Leuven: Steunpunt Duurzame Ontwikkeling. Van den Brande, K., Happaerts, S. and Bruyninckx, H. (2008), The Role of the Subnational Level of Government in Decision-making for Sustainable Development. A Multi-level Governance Perspective (working paper). Leuven: Steunpunt Duurzame Ontwikkeling. van Tatenhove, J. P. M. and Goverde, H. J. M. (2000), Institutionalisering van milieubeleid, in P. P. J. Driessen and P. Glasbergen (eds), Milieu, samenleving en beleid. Den Haag: Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie, pp.2950. Vlaamse Overheid (2007), Milieujaarprogramma 2007. Brussel: Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie. Vlaamse Overheid (2008), Milieujaarprogramma 2008 en doorkijk 2010. Brussel: Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie. Vlaamse Regering (2006), Strategienota Duitsland. Brussel: Departement internationaal Vlaanderen. Vlaamse Regering (2007), Samen grenzen ver-leggen. Vlaamse Strategie Duurzame Ontwikkeling (fase 1). Brussel: Diensten voor het Algemeen Regeringsbeleid, available from http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ duurzameontwikkeling/downloads/GrenzenVerleggen-LR.pdf. Weyand, S. (1997), Inter-Regional Associations and the European Integration Process, in C. Jeffery (ed.), The Regional Dimension of the European Union. Towards a Third Level in Europe? London: Frank Cass, pp.166182. Young, O. R. (2002), The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, and Scale. London: The MIT Press.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Appendix A: Interviews . Policy adviser (2001 06) at Flemish Government; Department of the Environment, Nature and Energy; Division of International Environmental Policy (26 July 2007). . Head of division at Flemish Government; Department of the Environment, Nature and Energy; Division of International Environmental Policy (31 July 2007). . Policy adviser at Flemish Government; Department of the Environment, Nature and Energy; Division of International Environmental Policy (31 July 2007, 4 June 2008).

148

S. Happaerts et al.

. Co-ordinator of the nrg4SD Secretariat (200508), previously Minister for Land Use Planning and the Environment at Basque Government (200105) (5 September 2007). . Vice-minister for the Environment at Basque Government (11 October 2007). . Head of department at North Rhine-Westphalian Government; Ministry of the Environment and Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection; Department of Cross-Sectoral Environmental Affairs and Sustainable Development (30 January 2008). . Policy adviser at North Rhine-Westphalian Government; Ministry of the Environment and Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection; Department of CrossSectoral Environmental Affairs and Sustainable Development (30 January 2008).
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Appendix B: Members of nrg4SD Table B1 gives an overview of the initial signatories of the Gauteng Declaration (31 August 2002), and the current members (subnational governments, inter-subnational associations and associate members) of nrg4SD according to the website (late 2008). To give an image of the geographical distribution, we distinguish between the different continents. Members who pulled out in 2008 are in italics.
Table B1. Signatories of the Gauteng Declaration and current members of nrg4SD Gauteng Declaration Europe Flanders (Belgium) Walloon Region (Belgium) Bavaria (Germany) Lapland (Finland) Poitou-Charentes (France) Tuscany (Italy) Basque Country (Spain) Catalonia (Spain) Greater London Authority (UK) Wales (UK) Association of European Regions Committee of the Regions of the EU Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) Current nrg4SD members Flanders (Belgium) Walloon Region (Belgium) Brittany (France) Burgundy (France) Poitou-Charentes (France) North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) Tuscany (Italy) Kaunas (Lithuania) Azores (Portugal) Tulcea (Romania) Andalusia (Spain) Aragon (Spain) Basque Country (Spain) Catalonia (Spain) Galicia (Spain) Wales (UK) Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) Fundacion Comunidad Valenciana Region Europea Reunion (France) Sofala (Mozambique) Western Cape (South Africa)
(Table continued)

North America Africa

Pennsylvania (USA) Gauteng (South Africa) Mpumalanga (South Africa)

Governance for Sustainable Development: nrg4SD

Table B1. Continued Gauteng Declaration Asia West Java (Indonesia) Current nrg4SD members North Sumatera (Indonesia) Riau (Indonesia) West Java (Indonesia)

149

Latin America and the Caribbean

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:05 24 October 2011

Entre Rios (Argentina) Goias (Brazil) Mato Grosso (Brazil) Pernambuco (Brazil) Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) Tocantins (Brazil)

Chaco (Argentina) Santa Fe (Argentina) Goias (Brazil) Sao Paulo (Brazil) Callao (Peru) ABEMA (Brazilian Association of State Environmental Entities) OLAGI (Latin American Organization of Intermediate Governments) Australian Capital Territory (Australia) South Australia (Australia) Victoria (Australia) Western Australia (Australia) The Northern Forum

Oceania and the Pacic

Australian Capital Territory (Australia) Western Australia (Australia)

Cross-continental associations

The Northern Forum