Matriz de evaluación social

In designing appropriate arrangements for managing the environment, institutional architects face a range of conflicting demands and objectives when determining the appropriate locus of power, with three possibilities, of centralisation, decentralisation or devolution. They must also square technical and allocative efficiency demands, determining how specialist the individual agencies are to be. The dominant model has been a decentralised institution, with more recent attempts to depoliticise environmental decision-making. Devolved authority has been less often used.

Most western countries have adopted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) model for managing the environment. Within federal countries, such as USA, Germany and Australia, individual states also have state-level EPA type institutions. This model separates out policy from technical advice and policy implementation. As a generalisation, a small Environment Ministry provides policy advice to the government. It is in turn informed by a much larger standalone EPA which has scientific research and technical divisions. The EPA is therefore at arms‘ length from government, though ultimately dependent upon it for funding. Some variation can exist. For example, in the USA the head of the USEPA is a presidential appointment and can be expected to be supportive of presidential policy ambitions. Regional offices of the EPA are able implement government environmental policy either directly or through funding sub-national agencies. Accordingly, some caution is needed in comparing environmental management arrangements between countries, recognising the different institutional arrangements such as federal versus unitary state models, the role of supra-level government, especially in Europe, and the different spans of control of different agencies.

The EPA model allows for technical efficiency, but with its clear focus on the natural environment is less able to implement integrated policy across the social and economic environment to provide allocative efficiency.

An alternative approach is to deflate environmental issues so that they are redefined as environmental problems. Rather than institutions focusing on either inputs or outputs to attain legitimacy for managing the environment, recent examples suggest a dual institutional arrangement that allows for both. Technical institutions are appropriate to address environmental problems, while more democratic institutions are appropriate to resolve environmental issues. This requires depoliticising issues, through the identification and

agreement of broad goals and objectives, so that they can be addressed technically. Failure to do so suggests solutions to environmental issues by technocratic institutions will not be enduring. Conversely, reliance on democratic input into addressing the causes and solutions to environmental problems may lead to expedient decisions that also do not endure.

A broad political consensus that the problems exist, and broad policy to address them can be agreed on spanning political parties, is required. Sweden and the Fraser Basin Council in Canada provide examples of different approaches to achieving such consensus, as discussed below.

Sweden provides an apparently successful example of this approach and has some relevance to New Zealand, to which it has been compared, both sharing a social democratic welfare state philosophy and being democratic unitary states. As well, Sweden‘s land mass and population are roughly double that of New Zealand‘s suggesting similar population densities, while both have extensive natural environments. However, there are significant differences, notably Sweden‘s long history, and politically its membership of the European Union. As well, populations of both countries are seen to be more environmentally aware than those of many other western countries, suggesting comparisons between the two countries are appropriate (Ecologic, 2007).

At the national level, Sweden has a small Ministry of the Environment (160 staff) responsible for policy development and thirteen implementation agencies. The largest of the implementation agencies is the Environment Protection Agency (550 staff); others include the Chemicals Inspectorate (138 staff) and the Radiation Protection Institute (105 staff). At the sub-national level Sweden has a dual decentred model of autonomous local and regional government consisting of municipalities and twenty-one counties and decentralised county administration boards. The counties are responsible mainly for medical care (80% of expenditure), owning nearly all the hospitals in Sweden, but are also responsible for cultural activities, and work with regional growth and development issues. Municipalities and counties are responsible jointly for local and regional public transit systems and are funded through income tax (on average the local government tax take is about 30% of taxable income). County administrative boards are largely autonomous central government agencies headed by appointed governors, who are responsible for implementing environmental protection and nature conservation. The Environmental Advisory Council is a multi-stakeholder body providing information to the government on its own initiative or at the government‘s request.

Sweden reformed its environmental legislation, adopting the Environmental Code in 1999, to provide comprehensive institutional arrangements for the environment by consolidating previously fragmented legislation, establishing environmental courts, environmental sanctions and ambient quality standards and transposing EU directives (OECD, 2004). It is founded on five fundamental principles that form the basis of Swedish environmental policy and apply across legislation specified in the code or other legislation:

1. promotion of human health 2. preservation of biodiversity

3. preservation of cultural heritage assets

4. preservation of ecosystems‘ long-term production capacity; and 5. wise management of natural resources.

The Code stipulates that the government can apply environmental quality standards for land, water, air, or the environment in particular a geographic areas or for all of Sweden. These are addressed through 15 environmental quality objectives (EQO) (Table 4-1). The EQOs set long-term strategic orientation, identify interim targets requiring medium term planning and a decentralised implementation of policies. These include: reduced climate impact, clean air, natural acidity only, a non toxic environment, zero eutrophication, flourishing lakes and streams, good-quality groundwater, a balanced marine environment, thriving wetlands, sustainable forests, a varied agricultural landscape, a magnificent mountain landscape and a good built environment, while a 16th _{EQO, on biodiversity, is}

being prepared (OECD, 2004). The 15 EQOs were adopted by parliament in 1999 and interim targets were set to provide medium-term planning tools.

Table 4-1: Example of Swedish water-related environmental objectives

EQO 7. Zero Eutrophication: Nutrient levels in soil and water must not have adverse effects on human health, the