Governing Local Sustainability

BOB EVANS*, MARKO JOAS**, SUSAN SUNDBACK{ &KATE THEOBALD**Sustainable Cities Research Institute, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

**Department of Public Administration, Abo Akademi University, Abo, Finland

{Department of Sociology, Abo Akademi University, Abo, Finland

(Received March 2005; revised January 2006)

ABSTRACT This paper draws upon the DISCUS (Developing Institutional and Social Capacityfor Sustainable Development) research project, co-funded by the European Commission. Theproject was undertaken during 2001 – 2004 and involved an in-depth study of 40 European townsand cities in order to understand the institutional and social factors and conditions that mightcontribute to policy ‘achievement’ or ‘failure’ in local sustainable development policy andpractice. Based on the findings of this research it proposes a conceptual framework for localsustainable development, linking the concepts of institutional capital, social capital andgovernance to provide a model for understanding the governing of local sustainability. Theresearch shows that in those cases that exhibit sustainable development policy achievements, thereare also greater levels of civil society activity and knowledge regarding sustainability issues, andhigh levels of institutional capacity. Confident local government is crucial to the development ofinstitutional capacity and to institutional learning. One aspect of this is local authorities beingequipped to address the longer-term issues and to have a strategic vision for a sustainable future.

Introduction

One of the key propositions of Chapter 28 of the 1992 Rio declaration is thatthe process of ‘good governance’ is a precondition for achieving sustainability at thelocal level. The logic behind this proposition is two-fold. First, it is based upon thebelief that the changes required to achieve sustainable development are of suchmagnitude that they cannot be secured by governments acting alone. It will benecessary to mobilize the energies and initiative of citizens, interest organizationsand stakeholders—‘local communities’—if changes in attitudes, values andbehaviour are to be secured. Second, the governance process is regarded as a keymechanism to involve and incorporate citizens and local organizations into thedecision-making process, thereby increasing political engagement and levels ofacceptance of what are often difficult decisions.

This commitment to ‘good governance’ has been a central feature of the localsustainability discourse throughout the last 15 years, but the veracity of theproposition that good governance is a prerequisite for sustainability has never been

Correspondence Address:Dr Kate Theobald, Sustainable Cities Research Institute, Northumbria University,

6, North Street East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK. Email: kate.theobald@northumbria.ac.uk

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,Vol. 49, No. 6, 849 – 867, November 2006

ISSN 0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 Online/06/060849-19 ª 2006 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

DOI: 10.1080/09640560600946875

tested. Moreover, the assertion that ‘governance’ is unarguably preferable to‘government’ has been equally uncritically accepted.

Drawing upon the recently completed DISCUS (Developing Institutional andSocial Capacity for Sustainable Development) research project (Evans et al., 2005),this paper examines both these propositions and proposes a conceptual frameworkfor local sustainable development, linking the concepts of institutional capital, socialcapital and governance to provide a model for understanding the governing of localsustainability. The DISCUS project, co-funded by the European Commission andoutlined below, was undertaken during 2001 – 2004 and involved an in-depth studyof 40 European towns and cities in order to understand the institutional and socialfactors and conditions that might contribute to policy ‘achievement’ or ‘failure’ inlocal sustainable development policy and practice.

Governance, Government and Governing

The concept of governance was central to this research but as the title of this paperindicates, our principal interest was in the process of governing for sustainabledevelopment. By this we mean that governing encapsulates two related and inter-twined processes, those of government and governance.

We need to be precise in our use of these terms because, within the wide andextensive discourse of sustainable development, there has been a tendency to suggestthat, first, governance is somehow unarguably a ‘good thing’ and that more ofit should be encouraged; second, by implication, that ‘government’ is somehow lessdesirable; and, finally, that changes in the processes of local politics and adminis-tration can usefully be conceptualized as a continuum moving from government togovernance with a clear assumption that any movement along this continuumtowards governance is both progressive and supportive of sustainability. To anextent, these positions reflect the analysis offered by the academic political sciencecommunity (see, for example, John, 2001; Goss, 2001); but the sustainable develop-ment discourse and the actors operating within it, tends to be more normative inapproach. Moreover, there is a tendency within this discourse to conflate governmentand governance, sometimes using the terms interchangeably. However, for thepurposes of this paper and the research upon which it is based, it is necessary to beclear that these two processes have distinct identities.

Figure 1 illustrates these different interpretations. We have chosen to regard thesphere of local authority activity, the internal organization of local government, andthe legal, financial and political processes therein as government. In particular, aswill be seen below, we are concerned to assess what we term ‘institutional capital’:the knowledge, resources, leadership and learning that can make local governmentseffective and dynamic entities. Governance, however, is the sphere of public debate,partnership, interaction, dialogue and indeed conflict and dispute entered into bylocal citizens and organizations and by local government. ‘Governing’ is the termthat we will use to describe the interaction between these two processes.

In much of the literature reviewing sustainable development, the qualifier ‘good’usually, and unnecessarily, precedes ‘governance’. For example, the Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2002, p. 2) asserts that: ‘goodgovernance and sound public management are preconditions for the implementationof sustainable development policies’, and the UN-Habitat and Global Development

850 B. Evans et al.

Figure 1. Contrasting interpretations of governance.

Research Centre websites both seek to define and outline the principles of ‘good’governance (www.unhabitat.org; www.gdrc.org). Unsurprisingly, there is no gen-erally agreed definition of governance; but there are common points of departure,which are reflected in the final choice of words comprising the many definitions.Thus, governance for an international organization is:

. . . the sum of the many ways [in which] individuals and institutions, public andprivate, plan and manage the common affairs of the city. It is a continuingprocess through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodatedand cooperative action taken. (UN-Habitat, 2002, p. 15)

This contrasts with academic interpretations, where governance is:

. . . a flexible pattern of public decision-making based on loose networks ofindividuals. The concept conveys the idea that public decisions rest less withinhierarchically organized bureaucracies, but take place more in long-termrelationships between key individuals located in a diverse set or organizationslocated at various territorial levels. (John, 2001, p. 9)

Or governance is:

. . . crucially about politics, both formal and informal . . . [it describes] emergingforms of collective decision-making at [the] local level, which lead to the

Governing Local Sustainability 851

development of different relationships, not simply between public agencies butbetween citizens and public agencies. (Goss, 2001, p. 11)

As has been emphasized above, governance is central to the sustainability discourse.Christie & Warburton (2001, p. 154) argue that:

the fundamental driver of sustainable development must be democraticdebate—decisions reached through open discussion, consensus based on sharedgoals and trust. Sustainable development needs representative democracy that istrusted and vibrant, and new forms of participatory democracy to complementit that can inspire greater engagement by citizens in creating a better world.

The document enigmatically known as Agenda 21 was the ‘global action plan’ forsustainable development that was agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio deJaneiro, and Local Agenda 21 was the mechanism that emerged as the means ofimplementing much of this plan. The rationale behind this brief (less than three-page) document was simple. The changes implied in a move towards more sustain-able societies are so immense that governments alone cannot impose them. Changeof the magnitude envisaged by Agenda 21 can only be achieved by mobilizing theenergy, creativity, knowledge and support of local communities, stakeholders,interest organizations and citizens across the world. More open, deliberative pro-cesses, which facilitate the participation of civil society in making decisions, will berequired to secure this involvement.

Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, ‘Local Authorities’ Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21’,outlines the objectives of Local Agenda 21 (LA21) and the actions required. Inparticular, local authorities should enter a dialogue with their citizens, local organ-izations and private enterprises and adopt a LA21. Furthermore, local governmentsshould foster partnerships with other organizations in order to both mobilizesupport and to promote knowledge and local capacity.

All of this may be broadly conceived as a process of local governance—localauthorities reaching out to learn, to promote dialogue, and to mobilize resources andenergy, and through these activities to generate policies and public actions that willreceive consent and support. It is this relationship between civil society and govern-ment, this process of governance, which is the focus of this paper. However, inmaking this statement, and as indicated above, we are also clearly differentiatinggovernance from government. The key agency for initiating change is local govern-ment itself, and as the history of LA21 in Europe over the last decade has clearlyshown, very little would have happened without the energy, leadership andcommitment of local government politicians and officials (Evans & Theobald,2001, 2003).

Local governments can regulate, control, invest and promote within their legaland political remit; with effective leadership, both political and administrative,they may achieve objectives well beyond their formal duties. These achievementsmay only be realized through consultation, dialogue and participation (theprocess of governance); but in most cases this will only happen if there is alsoeffective government. One key element in government is what we refer to asinstitutional capital or institutional capacity—the organizational, knowledge and

852 B. Evans et al.

leadership resources of local governments, the possession of which may be a motorfor change.

Institutional Capital and Social Capital

The starting point for the DISCUS project was the proposition that goodgovernance is a necessary precondition for achieving sustainable development atthe local level. Given the foregoing discussion on governing, a key issue for theresearch team was the nature of the relationship between on the one hand, localgovernment and on the other, interest or ‘stakeholder’ organizations representingcitizens, business, environmental, and social interests. Two central conceptions ininforming the research were thus institutional capacity (or capital) and socialcapacity (or capital). The research focused particularly upon institutional capacitywithin local government and its relationship to social capacity, but the subsequentmodel building outlined below makes reference to both, and also to the capacitybuilding measures undertaken by local government.

The internal patterns of behaviour and ways of working, as well as thecollective values, knowledge and relationships that exist within any organizedgroup in society may be referred to as institutional capital (see for example Healeyet al., 2002). Institutions that have high levels of such capital might reasonably beexpected to act effectively and efficiently and to demonstrate institutional initiativeand responsibility. In the context of sustainable development it might be expectedthat such institutions would be proactive in the undertaking of sustainabilityinitiatives.

The complex ways in which sectors of civil society build and maintain capacity(economic, social and mutual support) for action to promote the needs of differentgroups is encompassed in the concept of social capital. The concept has achievedwide usage in social science since it was popularized by James Coleman (1988) andPierre Bourdieu (1986), and further developed by Robert Putnam (1993, 2000) andFrancis Fukuyama (1995, 2001). The concept can be broadly defined as: ‘thosenetworks and assets that facilitate the education, coordination and cooperation ofcitizens for mutual benefit’ (Putnam, 1993, see also Van Deth, 2000). Social capital inthis context therefore refers to the collective capacity that has been built or existswithin a ‘community’ and within a local context.

Putnam (2000) makes an important distinction between what he terms ‘bridging(inclusive) social capital’ and ‘bonding (exclusive) social capital’. Bonding socialcapital is good for ‘getting by’. However, bridging social capital is crucial for ‘gettingahead’—that is, making links between groups/organizations in a more collective andcooperative sense. Thus, Putnam sees bonding social capital as ‘sociologicalsuperglue’ and bridging social capital as ‘sociological WD40’.

More recently, Rydin & Holman (2004), reflecting on social capital in the contextof sustainable development, propose an extension of Putman’s categories bysuggesting a third, that of ‘bracing’ social capital, which:

. . . is primarily concerned [with strengthening] links across and between scalesand sectors, but only operates within a limited set of actors. It provides a kind ofsocial scaffolding. (Rydin & Holman, 2004, p. 123)

Governing Local Sustainability 853

Putnam (2000) and Rothstein (2001) both note that in older democracies, such asSweden, the level of social capital is positively correlated with the size of government—that is, the larger the scale of government or the greater the involvement of the publicsector in areas of social life, the greater the existence of trust between civil society andgovernment institutions. This is not necessarily applicable to newer democracies, suchas the ‘Eastern’ European countries in our study, where large-scale government hasexisted alongside a low level of civil society activity. As a general trend Putnam arguesthat public participation in formal political activity is declining across modernWesterndemocracies. In relation to Sweden, Rothstein notes that, in terms of politicalparticipation (time spent in established forms of political activity) there have been twoopposing trends. There is an increasing interest in politics; but this interest is less intraditional channels and more towards ‘one-issue’ organizations. ‘Cooperative’ formsof behaviour have declined more rapidly than ‘expressive’ forms.

Effective democracy can occur, instead, through representative organizations orstakeholder groups, putting forward the needs and concerns of the individuals whomthey represent. Civic engagement matters equally on the demand side—civil societyexpecting better government—and on the supply side (the performance of represent-ative government is facilitated by the social infrastructure of civic communities andof officials and citizens). The interrelationship between the ‘demand’ and ‘supply’sides is thus directly affected both by the nature and levels of social capital withinsectors of civil society. It is also affected by the ways in which governments (of alllevels) support and encourage the development of social capital.

Many of the terms associated with the notion of social capital have resonancewith involving different sectors of civil society in decision-making processes andcreating the conditions where stakeholder groups feel that their views and concernsare adequately considered and incorporated. Arguably, social capital needs toexist for stakeholders to feel that they do have a stake in, and an impact upon,decision-making processes for sustainable development policy formulation andimplementation.

The Interplay Between Social Capital and Institutional Capital

Maloney et al. (2000) and Lowndes & Wilson (2001) have emphasized the roleplayed by government institutions in the creation and function of social capital.Furthermore, Rothstein (2001, p. 207) notes that social capital can, in fact, ‘becaused by how government institutions operate and not by voluntary associations’.Lowndes & Wilson (2001) propose four interacting dimensions of what they term‘institutional design’ within local governance that shape the creation andmobilization of social capital:

1. Relationships with the voluntary sector: the ways in which local governmentsupports and recognizes voluntary associations.

2. Opportunities for citizen participation: the institutional design of local govern-ance may influence prospects for the formation of new groups and new stocks ofsocial capital. Local authorities may, in practice, rank service improvement asthe main purpose of participation, ahead of citizen development and buildingsocial capital.

854 B. Evans et al.

3. Responsiveness of decision-making: even where there are institutional arrange-ments to involve citizens and groups in policy formulation, social capital canonly have an impact on democratic processes where policy-makers actually takeaccount of citizen preferences.

4. Democratic leadership and social inclusion: the relationship between socialcapital and democracy is shaped by the capacity of government institutions tolisten to, and channel, citizen demands.

This interplay between local government and the ‘local community’—what could betermed the process of governance—is likely to result in tangible benefit both to theparticipants and to policy outcomes. The central focus of the DISCUS project was toassess the relationship between institutional capacity, social capacity, and sustain-able development policy achievements.

The DISCUS Project

The DISCUS research project was funded by the European Commission and wasconducted over a three-year period (2001 – 2004). Eight partners from across Europeundertook an in-depth investigation of local sustainability policy and practice in 40European towns and cities (see map in Figure 2). We refer to these herein as ‘cases’.Thirty of these cases were drawn from a group that had demonstrated their advancedstanding in local sustainability in that they were either past winners of the EuropeanSustainable Cities and Towns Award, or they had been identified as ‘good practice’cases in the earlier LASALA research.1 These cases were selected on the basis thatthey had achieved tangible results in sustainable development policies and had some

Figure 2. Map of the 40 participating DISCUS cities.

Governing Local Sustainability 855

explicit forms of active governance process for sustainability, such as an LA21programme. They were thus expected to be useful cases for exploring the researchquestions outlined above. In contrast, the remaining 10 cases were chosen as acontrol group. As far as the project team could ascertain, these cases had noprogramme for local sustainability, no known LA21 process and no membership ofthe European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign or other local sustainabilitynetworks.

As a starting point the research team, in conjunction with practitioners andpolicymakers at local level, and drawing upon already existing work conducted byICLEI, UNDP and other international organizations, developed a checklist of thepossible conditions for ‘success’ or policy achievement for sustainable development,to be investigated in the 40 cases. This checklist included the factors and conditionsrelated to both institutional capacity and social capacity, and to the relationshipbetween local government and civil society. This checklist enabled the research teamto develop a framework of questions that would guide the fieldwork process.

In each town and city, researchers conducted an analysis of relevant documents,undertook interviews with key respondents from local government and civil society,and conducted a survey questionnaire with local government and civil societyrepresentatives. This combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches wasemployed to develop an understanding of the relationship between institutional andsocial capacity in very different local contexts, through comparing the policy‘rhetoric’ in local strategies, with individuals’ perceptions of where and why progresshad been made.

The remainder of this paper draws upon the research findings of the DISCUSproject, full details of which may be found in Evans et al. (2005).

The premise of the research was that good governance is a necessary preconditionfor achieving sustainable development, particularly at the local level. This, in turn, ledto the project research questions:

1. What constitutes ‘success’ in urban sustainable development policy andpractice?

2. What are the factors and conditions that permit or obstruct ‘success’ in localsustainable development policy and practice?

3. What constitutes ‘good governance’ for urban sustainable development?

Our proposition was that existing institutional structures and existing social capitalwithin a society impact upon each other. This interaction is a condition for all forms ofdemocratic government, and in forms of governance where a society moves beyondthe traditional mode of democratic rule. Furthermore, our assumption was thatdifferent forms of institutional structures lead to different levels of institutionalcapacities for sustainable development policy-making. In a societal setting where(local) government capacities are generally at a high level, we could also expect thatthis would be the case in the sustainable development sector. In terms of identifying‘success’, we used the 13 Commitments in the Aalborg Charter as the frameworkwithin which to assess ‘progress towards’ (or ‘policy success in’) local sustainability.From this we specified a series of policy outcomes and processes to deliver theseoutcomes that represented ‘progress’ in a range of policy areas. Our approach also

856 B. Evans et al.

built upon the earlier work of Janicke & Weidner (1995), who list five factors thatexplain environmental policy success:

(1) structures: political, economic and cultural framework conditions for policyaction;

(2) situations: specific situations steer the policy action;(3) actors: proponents and opponents of policy action;(4) strategies: capacities for planned and oriented policy action; and(5) time: important for investment and learning processes.

We also assumed that a high level of social capital could be a basis for a high level ofsustainable development capacity within civil society. Within civil society we mightalso find independent capacity-building measures, but we would expect this activityto be less important. However, joint capacity-building measures with (local) govern-ment may have a greater likelihood of leading to sustainable development policysuccess. Table 1 attempts to arrange these assumptions through setting out fourdifferent categories or ‘ideal types’ of governing arrangements for sustainabilitypolicy achievement. These categories provided the basis for our analysis of thefindings in the 40 cases.

1. Dynamic Governing for sustainable development describes a situation where thehigher the levels of both social and institutional capital, the greater the likelihoodof sustainable development policy success.

2. With Active Government, it is assumed that better results can be achieved if thelocal government institutional structures have clearly included the goals ofsustainability within their activities. This kind of active government can, from atheoretical point of view, be viewed as (eco-) efficient in that it is making

Table 1. The relationship between social and institutional capacity, capacity-building measuresand sustainable development policy outcomes

High institutional capacity

for sustainable development

Low institutional capacity

for sustainable development

High social capacity for 1 Dynamic governing 4 Voluntary governingsustainable development ! Active

sustainabilitycapacity-building

! Voluntary sustainabledevelopmentcapacity-building

! High possibility forsustainability policyachievement

! Low possibility forsustainabilitypolicy outcomes

Low social capacity for 2 Active government 3 Passive governmentsustainable development ! Medium sustainable

developmentcapacity-building

! Low/no sustainabledevelopmentcapacity-building

! Medium or fairly highpossibility for sustainabilitypolicy outcomes

! Sustainabilitypolicy failure

Governing Local Sustainability 857

attempts to implement some sustainable development policies—perhaps thosethat are less sensitive to the need for public participation.

3. Passive Government would, in practice, mean policy failure for sustainabledevelopment policies at the local level. Even in this case local government wouldretain some routine tasks within the national setting; but local action would berestricted. This situation is likely to remain unchanged as there seems to be lowpressure from civil society for change as the social capacity for sustainabledevelopment is also very low.

4. A more problematic case to interpret and study is where civil society is expectedto act alone in order to make progress with sustainability. This situation wouldmean some form of Voluntary Governing. The functions of local government areonly meant for routine tasks, although there could still be (fairly low) positiveoutcomes for sustainability. In addition, capacity building for sustainabledevelopment would, in practice, be somewhat limited and only distributed by andthrough civil society actors. To rely just on a high social capacity for sustainabledevelopment would present limited possibilities to secure policy achievement.

Using the four categories described above, we analysed both the individual city data,and aggregate data in order to examine the broad trends emerging in terms of localgovernment capacity, capacity building by local government, and policy achievementfor sustainable development. As noted above, we were not attempting to makedetailed comments on the nature and level of social capacity from our data, but wereable to identify some factors of relevance in this area.

The four categories of governing are presented below in the DISCUS model(Figure 3). This figure illustrates how the various elements of governance and government

Figure 3. Dynamic institutional capacity and sustainable development policy achievement.

858 B. Evans et al.

interact to produce our four ‘ideal types’ of governing. We now focus on the componentsof the model—institutional capacity, social capacity, capacity building, and sustainabledevelopment achievements, in order to present the key findings from DISCUS.

Institutional Capacity for Sustainable Development

In the fieldwork, we identified a number of elements of institutional capacity withinthe local authorities—for example committed officers and politicians; systematictraining for sustainable development; the mainstreaming of sustainability into theworking practices and ‘norms’ of a local authority; and the building of alliances withother local governments, in order to promote good practices and to learn from otherlocal authorities.

The Role of Key Individuals

The findings have shown the importance of key individuals in driving a localsustainable development process forward. These individuals may be paid officials (asin the case of Falkenberg’s Local Agenda 21 officer (Sweden), or a team of dedicatedstaff, as in Dunkerque (France). There were many cases where executive Mayors wereperceived by others within the local authority as ‘entrepreneurial’ figures with thecharisma and commitment to motivate others and to promote the sustainabilityagenda. This was evident in examples across Europe such as Ferrara (Italy),Barcelona Province (Spain), Valenciennes (France), Calvia (Majorca in the BalearicIslands), and Dunajska Luzna (Slovak Republic). In cases such as these, officers andpoliticians were prepared to prioritize long-term sustainable development goals andto take often unpopular decisions in support of this. However, in relation to bothofficers and politicians, there is always the possibility that the impetus for sustainabledevelopment mainstreaming and innovation will be lost, or at least slowed, when akey individual leaves the organization, or the local politics change. In one particularcase (Calvia in Majorca), there was strong political commitment to sustainabilityfrom the former Mayor (whose party was in power for 20 years until the 2003elections), and the local authority had been proactive in driving forward sustainabilitypolicies and actions. There was evidence of mainstreaming of sustainability into theculture of the local authority, yet, with the shift to a different political party in 2003 itwas unclear whether this momentum would be continued.

Training for Sustainable Development

Institutional capacity for sustainable development was also evident in terms of thelevels of investment in training for sustainability for both officers and politicians, forexample Haarlem (The Netherlands), and Dunkerque (France), where specificbudgets are allocated for sustainability training.

Mainstreaming of Sustainability Practices

There were a number of examples of the establishment of a ‘horizontal’ organ-izational structure that encourages cross-departmental working and a stable

Governing Local Sustainability 859

environment for sustainability policy-making; and the adoption of sustainabledevelopment principles for internal practices, such as eco-procurement. In Ferrara(Italy), the local authority had integrated ‘green’ purchasing across all departments.Vantaa in Finland had developed an environmental budget, and in Hanover(Germany), environmental services were networked between all the Directorates. InFano (Italy), the perception was that LA21 had been instrumental in thedevelopment of greater cross-departmental links.

Institutional Learning for Sustainable Development

The research identified a clear association between the intensity and level ofsustainable development achievement and high levels of institutional capacity. Thiscapacity is, in the main, generated as a consequence of conscious decisions taken bylocal governments that have been effective in supporting and maintaining new waysof working and innovative ways of thinking. Much of this process is aboutinstitutional learning, whereby organizations do not have to continually ‘reinvent thewheel’. This ensures that, as personnel change, knowledge remains locked within thestructure and practices of the institution and can be built upon as circumstanceschange. Actions can be taken to support and nurture this process of learning, and theDISCUS research shows that those authorities that have invested in this process arealso those that have tangible sustainable development achievements.

The process of institutional learning is not an easy one to summarize or topractice; but it is of crucial importance for sustainable development because of theinnovation that is required to address the complex challenges faced. However, asNilsson & Persson (2003) have pointed out, this process of institutional learning maybe best understood as a ‘double-loop’ process. The first ‘loop’ involves learningwithin existing frameworks, whereas the second ‘loop’ of learning actually changesthose frameworks.

Civil Society Capacity for Sustainable Development

The research shows that in those cases that exhibit sustainable development policyachievements, there are also greater levels of civil society activity and knowledgeregarding sustainability issues. The research focused particularly on stakeholderorganizations representing key sectors of local society, based upon the premise that itis these organizations that constitute the ‘engaged actors’ in sustainable developmentpolicymaking, rather than individual citizens. Sectors that were found to besupportive of local authority sustainability initiatives were:

. The local media. This was mainly newspapers, with examples of a supportivepress being found in Albertslund (Denmark), Gotland (a Swedish island),Stavanger (Norway), and Korolev (Russia).

. Universities and the education sector. Examples of this were in Tampere(Finland), Vaxjo (Sweden), Korolev (Russia), and Santa Perpetua de Mogodain Spain.

. Business and industry. There were a number of cases where there was a strongrelationship between this sector and local authorities, in support of sustainable

860 B. Evans et al.

development. Notable examples were the ‘expansive Vaxjo’ initiative, aimed atlinking the local authority and business, the city of Fredrikshavn in Denmarkworking with business on energy saving initiatives, Modena Province in Italyencouraging SMEs to adopt EMAS, and Calvia in Majorca working closely withthe hotel industry to improve the local environment.

. Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). A particular example ofa strong influence by NGOs was in Vantaa (Finland), where an umbrellaorganization of environmental organisations was in existence, and supported bythe local authority.

The research found that, in general, where the intensity of policy achievement is high,there appears to be a greater ‘buy-in’ to, and civic engagement with, localgovernment policy-making and action. In these cases, it seems that local governmentrecognizes the contribution that civil society groups can make to the process; in turn,those groups respond by recognizing that they can have some influence. Thesefindings reinforce the point made by Rydin & Holman (2004) about the ‘bracing’social capital that exists between a limited group of actors—here, organizations withan interest in local sustainability issues, as a result of the goals of that organization(for example environmental NGOs), or those with an interest in the economicdevelopment of a locality (such as business and industry). Thus, local social capacityis built through these organizations engaging in the process, but local authorities alsorecognize that they need to engage with these and enlist their support andknowledge. Where this activity exists, the local authority could be seen as falling intothe category of ‘dynamic governing’.

A further finding was that where civil society has a tradition of being more active—for example, in terms of voluntary work, taking part in local decision-makingand voting—these cases were also the ones with the highest levels of sustainabledevelopment achievement.

We were unable to draw clear conclusions about the relationship between levels of‘trust’ that exist between groups in civil society (as one element of social capacity),and sustainable development policy achievement. However, if one considers the rela-tionship between civil society organizations and local government, the indicationsare that where ‘trust’ in local government per se is stronger and more widespread,such local governments have a better chance of sustainable development success thanwhere this trust is only related to a limited number of individuals in a local authority.This is discussed further below.

Capacity Building for Sustainable Development

Sustainable development capacity-building efforts within local governments can bedefined as all measures that strengthen the governmental structures to meet thedemands of sustainable development, as well as measures that create these capacities incooperation with civil society. In the research we expected to find a strong relationshipbetween institutional capacity and social capacity, with local governments playing akey role in influencing the creation of both institutional and social capacity byaffecting the mobilization of local-level agents within the sphere of sustain-ability policies. Thus, the institutional framework of sub-national (local or regional)

Governing Local Sustainability 861

government could be a crucial factor in determining the long-term prospects for civilsociety engagement in sustainability policy processes.

The research findings show that where there is evidence of strong governanceprocesses for sustainability (including active engagement of civil society in localdecision-making processes) and where there is also evidence of policy achievement inthis field, those local governments also tend to have a high level of fiscal, legal andpolitical autonomy (for example in the cases of Ferrara in Italy, Calvia in Majorca,and also some of the Scandinavian cases). However, this is not simply a case ofequating autonomy with achievement. What appears to be happening is that whenlocal governments are granted higher levels of autonomy and independence, theyrespond to this by being more proactive and adventurous in their policy-making andimplementation. Self-confidence, conviction and self-awareness seem to increase inline with levels of autonomy.

These findings concur with the point made in the first part of the paper that civicengagement matters equally on the demand side—civil society expecting bettergovernment—and on the supply side (the performance of representative governmentis facilitated by the social infrastructure of civic communities and of officials andcitizens). In the case of sustainable development policymaking, the interrelationshipbetween the ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ may be affected by the ways in which localgovernments support and encourage the development of social capacity.

The research has identified aspects of institutional design that Lowndes & Wilson(2001) have described within local governance, and which shape the developmentand mobilization of social capacity. In the field of sustainable development, theDISCUS local governments that are making progress with sustainable developmentare those that are also recognizing the importance of working with stakeholderorganizations, and are making serious attempts to engage with civil society morebroadly. Examples such as the Green Accounts and Green Days initiative inAlbertslund, Denmark, indicate that local authorities are making serious attempts tobe more transparent about their internal workings, and are also being examplars ofgood practice through their own actions.

As noted earlier, committed politicians and officers are clearly important in termsof capacity building for sustainable development, often acting as the key linkbetween local governments and civil society organizations and bringing expertise andnew ideas to the process, and this was particularly evident in cases such as Stavangerin Norway and Fredrikshavn in Denmark. The issue here is that those localgovernments who show the widest range and greatest intensity of achievement arealso those who have recognized their central role in taking action on, and promotingmore widely sustainable development issues and policies. These local governmentsare setting the agenda and being proactive in establishing and maintainingpartnerships and alliances both within the local authority itself and with externalorganizations. Thus the cases in the ‘dynamic governing’ category of localgovernment could be described as ‘well-designed political institutions’ (Lowndes &Wilson, 2001), which are creating opportunities for citizen participation, but also aredriven by the purpose of service improvement in terms of sustainable developmentachievements.

There is evidence from the 40 cases of what Stocker (2002) describes as ‘agreater willingness to cope with uncertainty and open-endedness on the part of

862 B. Evans et al.

policy-framers’ (p. 6). We found that confident local government was key to thedevelopment of institutional capacity and to institutional learning. One aspect of thisis local authorities being equipped to address the longer-term issues and to have astrategic vision for a sustainable future. There were several examples where localauthorities were taking a lead in the local community, and taking high profile policydecisions that may not be popular with citizens, but demonstrate the municipality’scommitment to sustainable development, and to taking action to achieve this. Anumber of these local authorities were also engaged in providing relevant and ‘user-friendly’ information to citizens on local sustainability issues and policies, forinstance the provision of training on sustainable development to civil society inBarcelona Province; Citizens Commissions in local authorities such as Granollers inSpain, a Consumption Centre in Lahti, Finland for the public to find out informationon issues such as energy consumption; and a website for citizens to measure theirecological footprint in Stavanger (Norway). Those cases showing clear evidence ofsustainable development achievements are also those that have established capacity-building initiatives and approaches, and are making citizens aware of the policiesthat are being implemented.

One particular case (Calvia in Majorca) was involved in capacity building forsustainable development, both in terms of developing institutional capacity,engaging with key actors and organizations in moving forward with sustainabilityprojects and programmes, and informing citizens about the process. Manyincremental steps had been taken over a number of years, and had been generallyaccepted by civil society as beneficial. Yet a more ‘radical’ initiative (attempting toaddress the economic development aspect of sustainability) met with resistance bythe local population, and the political party in power was voted out of office. Thisseems to suggest that if local government has a ‘radical’ long term strategy foraddressing sustainable development issues, capacity building for this needs still to beachieved in an incremental way.

To some extent, local government may be able to achieve change on its own (ourcategory of ‘active government’). However, those cases where there are high levels ofachievement are also those where some level of social capacity and a relationshipbetween local government and civil society organizations exist. Thus, in most casessustainable development achievement requires local government to involve externalorganizations in partnerships, both formal and informal.

Governing for Sustainable Development

The research shows that dynamic governing patterns are clearly most efficient inachieving positive policy achievements for sustainable development. While it isdifficult to identify a definite causal link between these elements, the evidence fromthe research shows local authorities with clear tangible policy achievements, alsoexhibit high levels of institutional capacity, and evidence of capacity building withincivil society. Results, (but to a lower extent), can also be achieved if local governmentis active in terms of developing its own capacity for delivering sustainabledevelopment—but not taking civil society fully into account. Passive governments,only carrying out routine tasks, are clearly lagging behind in terms of policyoutcomes. Active civil society can, to some extent, help this process; but progress is

Governing Local Sustainability 863

still marginal. In general, however, the civil society respondents appear more criticalthan local government with regard to the policy outcomes.

Effective, or dynamic governing for sustainability is most likely to occur whengovernments work closely with civil society agents in a process of governance,whether this is stimulated by Local Agenda 21 or some other process. Moreover,‘success’ or policy achievement is also directly related to the inventiveness,leadership, knowledge and skills of local government politicians and officials. Highlevels of institutional capacity or capital relate directly to sustainability policy‘success’.

It is clear from this research that local government is the primary ‘mover’ for locallevel policies towards sustainable development. Our research has shown that in orderto achieve policy outcomes we must always expect an active government. This activegovernment can, in order to enhance possibilities for policy achievement, lead theway towards active cooperation with an active civil society—creating possibilities forcivil society stakeholders to participate in the policy process. Active capacity-building measures will, in addition, enhance their capability in participating in thepolicy-making process. This activity does not replace the normal representativedemocratic process; it seems instead to add an intensity dimension to the politicalrepresentation.

Figure 4 below shows the ranking of the cases, according to their capacity andsustainable development achievements. The index used to identify these cases iscreated from the scorings allocated to each of the 40 cases, based on the qualitativematerial only (interviews and document analysis). All 40 cases were given a score forthe elements of sustainable development capacity (combining capacity in localgovernment and in civil society), for capacity building, and for sustainabledevelopment policy outcomes (a score of 5 for very low, 7.5 for fairly low, 10 formedium, 12.5 for fairly high, and 15 for high).

Figure 4. Rankings from the qualitative material (Source: DISCUS database).

864 B. Evans et al.

These cases can then be located in one of the four categories of ‘governing’ (asshown in Figure 3). This provides the following division of cases between the fourcategories of ‘governing’.

1. Ten cases (25%) fall in the category of Dynamic Governing2. Nineteen cases (47.5%) fall in the category of Passive Government3. Seven cases (17.5%) fall in the category of Active Government4. Four cases (10%) fall in the category of Voluntary Governing

The research found that to a large extent, the group of ‘reference’ cases (i.e. thosewithout an explicit programme for local sustainability, no known LA21 process andno membership of the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign or otherlocal sustainability networks) fell under the passive government category, while themajority of ‘good practice cases’ fell into the dynamic governing category. Thissuggests a clear association between sustainable development policy achievement atlocal level, and the development of capacity-building measures for sustainabledevelopment by local governments.

Conclusions

The current emphasis upon governance within the sustainable development discourseserves to conceal more than it reveals. The DISCUS research clearly demonstratesthat governance and government are the two intertwined but distinct elements of theprocess of governing. ‘Governance’ alone cannot adequately convey the substance ofthe process of governing which, when it is effective, involves both the activeinvolvement of local civil society and the leadership and commitment of localgovernment. ‘Governance’ underplays the essential role that local governments haveto play in innovating, supporting and nurturing sustainable development (and forthat matter most local policies). In our terminology, ‘governance’ alone is unlikely(for it needs government to stimulate and support it), and ‘government’ without‘governance’ cannot generate the local resources, support and energy needed todeliver outcomes in the complex policy environment of the early 21st century. As theDISCUS research has indicated, the two elements together can create a process ofgoverning which can promote and sustain real policy progress.

The research also supports the proposition of Lowndes & Wilson (2001) andothers, that governmental action, or the application of institutional capital, cansupport the creation of social capital. By the same token, it seems likely that thereverse is also true—that activity and action within civil society can support thebuilding of institutional capacity. Thus, as with governance and government,institutional capital and social capital can exist in a symbiotic relationship, although,as has been seen above, this is not inevitably so. Nevertheless, in the case ofsustainable development policy, the intensity of tangible policy achievement is almostalways linked to a high level of dialogue between local government and civil society.

According to Agenda 21, local government is ‘the level of governance closest tothe people’ and it is therefore best placed to pursue the sustainability goal of‘thinking globally, acting locally’. To a large extent, the DISCUS researchsubstantiates this position. Local governments in Europe have been remarkably

Governing Local Sustainability 865

proactive in their pursuit of sustainability—in many cases, in the face of nationalgovernment apathy or even opposition. Certainly, on the basis of the 40 towns andcities studied, it is possible to conclude that local government has been the principlemotor for change, mobilizing local agencies and resources to secure objectives.Although other local actors have also been active, little can be achieved unless localgovernment is supportive, and in most cases, it is from here that the initiative hascome.

The main point is that those local governments who show the widest range andgreatest intensity of achievement are also those who have recognized their centralrole in promoting and taking action on sustainable development issues. These localgovernments are setting the agenda and acting proactively in establishing andmaintaining partnerships and alliances both within the local authority itself and withexternal organizations. Local government may be able to achieve change on its own.However, those cases where there are high levels of achievement are also those wheresome level of social capacity and a relationship between local government and civilsociety organizations exists. Governance is certainly central to sustainability, butonly as one part of a process of governing.

Acknowledgement

The DISCUS research project was co-funded by the European Commission’sDirectorate-General for Research Fifth Framework Programme, 1998 – 2002,Thematic Programme: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development,Key Action: ‘City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage’, Contract NumberEVK-4-2001-00103.

Note

1 The Local Authorities’ Self-Assessment of Local Agenda (LASALA) project was conducted in 2000 –

2001. It involved a self-assessment exercise with 230 local governments across Europe, examining

progress with their LA21 and local sustainability process, including the role of citizens and stakeholders.

The research demonstrated the significant levels of commitment to the LA21 process among European

local government, and some notable achievements during a very short space of time (Evans & Theobald,

2003; Joas & Gronholm, 2004).

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital, in: J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the

Sociology of Education, pp. 241 – 258 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press).

Christie, I. & Warburton, D. (Eds) (2001) From Here to Sustainability: The Politics of the Real World

(London: Earthscan).

Coleman, J. S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94

(Suppl.: ‘Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of

Social Structure’), pp. 95 – 120.

Evans, B. & Theobald, K. (2001) Local Authorities’ Self Assessment of Local Agenda 21 (LASALA):

Accelerating Local Sustainability—Evaluating European Local Agenda 21 Processes, Vol. 1 (Freiburg:

ICLEI).

Evans, B. & Theobald, K. (2003) LASALA: Evaluating Local Agenda 21 in Europe, Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management, 46(5), pp. 781 – 794.

866 B. Evans et al.

Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S. & Theobald, K. (2005) Governing Sustainable Cities (London:

Earthscan).

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: The Free Press).

Fukuyama, F. (2001) Social capital, civil society and development, Third World Quarterly, 22(1),

pp. 7 – 20.

Goss, S. (2001) Making Local Governance Work (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

Healey, P., Cars, G., Madanipour, A. & de Magalhaes, C. (2002) Transforming governance, institutionalist

analysis and institutional capital, in: G. Cars, P. Healey, A. Madanipour & C. de Magalhaes (Eds) Urban

Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Janicke, M. & Weidner, H. (Eds) (1995) Successful Environmental Policy: A Critical Evaluation of 24 Cases

(Berlin: Edition Sigma).

Joas, M. & Gronholm, B. (2004) A comparative perspective on self-assessment of Local Agenda 21 in

European Cities, Boreal Environmental Research, 9, pp. 499 – 507.

John, P. (2001) Local Governance in Europe (London: Sage).

Lowndes, V. & Wilson, D. (2001) Social capital and local governance: exploring the institutional design

variable, Political Studies, 49, pp. 629 – 647.

Maloney, W., Smith, G. & Stoker, G. (2000) Social capital and urban governance: adding a more

contextualized ‘top – down’ perspective, Political Studies, 48(4), pp. 802 – 820.

Nilsson, M. & Persson, A. (2003) Framework for analysing environmental policy integration, Environment

Policy and Planning, 5(4), pp. 333 – 359.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002) Improving Policy Coherence

and Integration for Sustainable Development: A Checklist (Paris: OECD).

Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press).

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York:

Simon and Schuster).

Rothstein, B. (2001) Social capital in the social democratic welfare state, Politics and Society, 29(2),

pp. 207 – 241.

Rydin, Y. & Holman, N. (2004) Re-evaluating the contribution to social capital in achieving sustainable

development, Local Environment, 9(2), pp. 117 – 133.

Stocker, G. (2002) The challenge of governance, in: Istituto per Il Lavoro (Eds) Governance and

Institutions: Open Economy versus Bounded Contexts (Bologna: Istituto per Il Lavoro).

UN-Habitat (2002) The Global Campaign on Urban Governance, Concept paper, 2nd edition, March

2002 (New York: The Global Campaign on Urban Governance Campaign Secretariat at UN-Habitat).

Van Deth, J. W. (2000) Interesting but irrelevant: social capital and the saliency of politics in Western

Europe, European Journal of Political Research, 37, pp. 115 – 147.

Governing Local Sustainability 867