Experiencias obtenidas como resultado de algunas de las actividades

Environmental problems provide a useful lens through which to focus on this change in governance and its associated drive towards more dehberative pohcy-making. The nature of environmental problems makes their solution unhkely to fah within the responsibhity of any single agency, particularly in the UK, where responsibhity for protecting the environment has always been devolved and decentrahsed within organisation^ with responsibhities divided according to function, with a notable role for non-governmental organisations (Carter & Lowe, 1998). In addition, problems tend to be complex and contested, frequently crossing institutional and administrative boundaries and at risk from problems associated with ‘the tragedy o f the commons’ (Hardin, 1968). Such problems fah under Rittel and Webber’s (1973) definition of ‘wicked problems’ — hl-defined, tightly- coupled with other sectors and resolvable only through imperfect or transitory pohtical agreement. Kooiman’s discussion of governance highhghts clearly the relevance of understanding processes of governance to resolving environmental and ‘wicked’ problems.

dynamic and diversified problems; no actor has sufficient overview to make the application o f particular instruments effective; no single actor has sufficient action potential to dominate unilaterally in a particular governing model.’ (Kooiman, 1993:4, quoted in Vogler & Jordan, 2003).

In the context of environmental issues, devolution of power from the state has also occurred as a result of the scaling up o f governance structures and processes to an international level, with the increased role of international and global institutions in the tackling o f ‘global’ problems. The recognition in the 1970s o f the transboundary nature of such environmental problems as acid rain, led to the identification of a need for global institutions acting on a global agenda to set standards o f behaviour for nation states (WCED, 1987). The creation of sustainable development as the new global narrative was borne out o f the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). This led to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development where governments, acting in the interest of the global citizen, signed up to the Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21, setting a blueprint for sustainable development.

The European Union has also had an important and increasing influence over British environmental policy. Through the setting of standards, procedures and principles the European Union has had a notable effect on the structures, styles and philosophies of British policy (Lowe & Ward 1998). European Directives have imposed uniform standards and standardised procedures on a British system characterised as being dominated by administrative rather than judicial approaches, with a preference for negotiation and persuasion over strict enforcement (Carter & Lowe, 1998). The Europeanization of environment pohcy also required the UK Government to reflect on the principles and frameworks on which its environmental pohcy had until this point been based. On reflection, the structures and processes dominant within the UK were seen as piecemeal and lacking overaU strategy, with pohcy-making itself frequently being conducted through closed pohcy communities (Carter & Lowe, 1998). The Europeanization of pohcy contributed to a raised pohtical profile o f the environment within government, leading to the development o f a strategic statement on environmental pohcy — This Common Inheritance - pubhshed in September 1990 (DoE 1990). Principles, such as the precautionary principle, sustainable development and integrated poUution control, often drawn from more advanced European thinking and procedures, began to infiltrate more fuhy into the UK system.

As with the decentralisation of policy responsibilities within the UK, the presence o f these new global and regional institutions raises issues o f legitimacy and accountability o f the structures and the decisions made. As noted by Vogler and Jordan, and salient to recent political debates about the role o f Britain in the European Union, the EU is criticised for its democratic deficit and lack of pubhc accountabhity (Vogler & Jordan, 2003). The influence of the N G O community, transnational corporations and other international agreements (WTO in particular) on global environmental governance, adds to these concerns of accountabhity and the question o f whose interests count.

These effects of decentrahsation and globahsation have created a more complex system of environmental governance. The relevance of a global agenda and supranational institutions, particularly for the cross-border nature of environmental problems, is undisputed. However, as noted m the-previous, sectioa, it has become clear that despite the global presence of environmental problems, causes tend to be distinctly local (Berkhout et al,

2003). The chaUenge now hes in translating international commitments to more local governance levels and engaging local needs with the global agenda as captured in the slogan of Agenda 21 — ‘Think Global, Act Local’. Operationahsing this concept is comphcated because the causes, distribution, effects and capacity to solve the problem may be located at different levels of governance, and there could be confhcts between these different scales about what constitutes necessary action (Bressers et al, 1998). In addition, the range of state and non-state institutions involved in governance, and the integrated approach encouraged by sustainable development, means there is a need for horizontal integration across pohcy sectors. The key issue for environmental pohcy has therefore become identifying at what scale the appropriate governance levels should he, and developing mechanisms for managing interconnections between international, regional, national and local levels of governance (Coenen et al, 1998; Vogler & Jordan, 2003). These complex interactions between multiple actors operating at different scales and levels is espoused within the concept o f multi-level environmental governance (Jordan, 2000).