The Baltic Sea region and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. ...... The UN accentuates that the regional level provides a useful forum for peer ...... http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Sustainable_development_-.
Assessing the status of sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region: a macro-regional perspective A report to the CBSS by the Baltic University Programme December 2015
1
2
Assessing the status of sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region: a macro-regional perspective A report to the CBSS by the Baltic University Programme December 2015
© Baltic University Programme and Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development, Uppsala University, Council of Baltic Sea States, Expert Group on Sustainable Development 2015 Authors Sam Grönholm, Lars Rydén, and Olga Zuin the Baltic University Programme Carmen Elrick-Barr and Neil Powell, Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development
3
4
Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive summary and conclusions.............................................................................................................. 7 The report ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Review of SD policies and strategies in the Baltic Sea region ...................................................................... 7 BSR macro-regional cooperation for sustainable development ................................................................... 8 Sector studies ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Opportunities for SD in the BSR ....................................................................................................................12 Conclusions and recommendation..................................................................................................................12 1. The Baltic Sea region and the UN Sustainable Development Goals ..............................................14 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................14 1.2 Baltic Sea region governance .....................................................................................................................16 1.3 Outline of the report ...................................................................................................................................17 2. National Governance for SD in the Baltic Sea region .........................................................................18 2.1 A framework for sustainable development strategies in the Baltic Sea region countries.................18 2.2 National SD Governance Strategies .........................................................................................................20 2.2.1 DENMARK .........................................................................................................................................21 2.2.2 ESTONIA .............................................................................................................................................23 2.2.3 FINLAND ............................................................................................................................................25 2.2.4 GERMANY ..........................................................................................................................................27 2.2.5 LATVIA ................................................................................................................................................30 2.2.6 LITHUANIA .......................................................................................................................................33 2.2.7 NORWAY ............................................................................................................................................35 2.2.8 POLAND..............................................................................................................................................38 2.2.9 RUSSIAN FEDERATION ...............................................................................................................41 2.2.10 SWEDEN ...........................................................................................................................................44 2.3 SD national governance narratives ...........................................................................................................46 2.4 SD national goals .........................................................................................................................................48 2.5 National SD stakeholder engagement ......................................................................................................49 2.6 SD implementation structures ...................................................................................................................51 2.7 National SD monitoring .............................................................................................................................52 3. The Baltic Sea region SD macro-regional governance narrative and the BSR civil society organisations ........................................................................................................................................................54 3.1 Macro-regional governance and relevant SD stakeholders ...................................................................54 3.2 Macro-regional SD goals ............................................................................................................................56 3.3 Macro-regional public and civil society organisations, CSOs ...............................................................58 4. Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in BSR ..............................................................61 4.1 BSR SD governance implementation .......................................................................................................61 4.2 Methods for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals........................................................62 4.3 Means for implementing the SDGs in the BSR .....................................................................................64
5
5. The SDGs and cooperation in the BSR ...................................................................................................68 5.1 Shared SD goals – inclusive growth, climate and energy, saving the Baltic Sea and quality of life 68 5.2 Implementing the 17 SDGs .......................................................................................................................69 6. Baltic Sea region SD capacity .....................................................................................................................74 6.1 The Baltic Sea region has unique opportunities .....................................................................................74 6.2 Multi-stakeholder partnerships are needed .............................................................................................74 6.3 Key governance features for enabling SD capacity development .......................................................75 6.4 Three recommendations ............................................................................................................................77 6.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................80 7. Climate, energy and sustainable development in the BSR – a sector study .................................81 7.1 International policy and governance for climate and energy ................................................................81 7.2 Climate and energy policy in the European Union and Russia ............................................................81 7.3 Climate and energy policy and programs in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) ..........................................82 7.4 The energy and climate targets ..................................................................................................................85 7.5 Macro-regional cooperation platforms and initiatives for energy and climate ..................................87 7.6 Trends in the BSR - Energy consumption ..............................................................................................88 7.7 Energy productivity and performance .....................................................................................................91 7.8 Renewable energy ........................................................................................................................................93 7.9 Energy dependency .....................................................................................................................................96 7.10 Energy infrastructure ................................................................................................................................97 7.11 GHG emissions ...................................................................................................................................... 100 7.12 Discussion on energy and climate in BSR .......................................................................................... 104 8. Sustainable consumption and production in the Baltic Sea region – a sector study .............. 107 8.1 The concept of sustainable consumption and production (SCP) ..................................................... 107 8.2 The European Union policy on Sustainable Consumption and Production .................................. 109 8.3 UNEP's Resource Efficiency Programme ........................................................................................... 110 8.4 Organizations working with Sustainable Consumption and Production ........................................ 111 8.5 Trends observed in EU on sustainable consumption and production ............................................ 113 8.6 Trends of sustainable consumption and production in BSR............................................................. 113 8.6.1 General trends are positive .............................................................................................................. 113 8.6.2 Ecological footprints ........................................................................................................................ 114 8.6.3 Total material flows .......................................................................................................................... 116 8.6.4 Wasting ............................................................................................................................................... 119 8.6.5 Production .......................................................................................................................................... 123 8.6.6 Consumption ..................................................................................................................................... 124 8.7 Sustainable Consumption and Production in the Sustainable Development Goals. ..................... 126 8.8 Possible governance initiatives in the field of Sustainable Consumption and Production for the Baltic Sea region. ............................................................................................................................................. 129 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 131
6
Preface This report was commissioned by the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) Expert Group on Sustainable Development as a background study to enable fruitful cooperation between the Baltic Sea states in implementing and pursuing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the 25th of September 2015. For the task the Baltic University Programme (BUP) and the Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD) at Uppsala University were contracted. Master of Political Science Sam Grönholm of Åbo Akademi, Åbo/Turku, Finland were responsible for writing Chapter 1-6, Master Student Olga Zuin collected all background information for chapter 2, and contributed its writing, Ass. Prof. Neil Powell and Prof. Lars Rydén developed the two case studies, the first on Energy and Climate (Neil Powell and Carmen Elrick-Barr) and the second on Sustainable Consumption and Production (Lars Rydén). The first draft report delivered in September 2015 was then thoroughly edited and much shorted by Lars Rydén to produce the present final report. During the writing of the report the CBSS Expert Group on Sustainable Development have met twice to voice their opinion of the work and provide guidance. At the Secretariat of the CBSS in Stockholm Ms Krista Kampus, head of the Sustainable Development Unit, has coordinated the work on the report and guided its development. The main source of data for the case studies were Eurostat as nine of the ten studied countries are EU member states or an EEA state (Norway). Ms Tereza Wennerholm Caslavska of Eurostat helpdesk has generously supported us in finding data from Eurostat. Data from the National Footprint Accounts 2015, was provided by Global Footprint Network in Geneva. Energy data on Northwestern Russia was provided by Dr Ksenia Shelest, and Prof. Victor Ionov of St Petersburg State University, Faculty of Geography, and data on waste management and energy in Northwestern Russia and Federal Russia was provided by Assoc. Prof. Elena Kropinova of Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University of Russia. Research students Simon Davidsson and Henrik Wachtmeister at the Departement of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development of Uppsala University helped to manage Excel tables. All are gratefully acknowledged for invaluable contributions to the report. The main concern for study has been to provide a background and a resource for developing governance for sustainable development in the region. Thus the task has been dual. First to outline the conditions in the region, secondly to relate this to the UN2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. . We have in addition expressed our conclusions and added recommendations for future work. We do hope that we will in the future see an enlarged multi-stakeholder partnership and cooperation in the Baltic Sea region for increased capacity-building and better monitoring in order to support the implementation of the SDGs and secure the sustainable future for our region. Uppsala December 2015
Lars Rydén
Krista Kampus
The Baltic University Programme
CBSS Secretariat, Sustainable Development Unit
7
Executive summary and conclusions The report This report was commissioned by the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) Expert Group on Sustainable Development as a background study to enable fruitful cooperation between the Baltic Sea states in implementing and pursuing the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the 25th of September 2015. The CBSS Secretariat signed an agreement with Uppsala University on the project “Assessing the status of Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea region: a macro-regional perspective”. The Baltic University Programme (BUP) Secretariat at the Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD) at Uppsala University has produced the report. The report provides a background and a resource for developing governance for sustainable development in the region, outlines the conditions in the region, and relates to the UN sustainable development goals. The report addresses each of the nine Baltic Sea littoral states and Norway. It includes a review of SD policies and strategies in each of the countries, as well as SD policies and activities in the macro-region especially in view of other stakeholders than national governments. Special studies were done for the sectors climate and energy and sustainable consumption and production. The report include conclusions on the possibilities of cooperation in the region and suggestions on how to organise future work for the global SD goals with an emphasis on indicators.
Review of SD policies and strategies in the Baltic Sea region What emerges from the various national SD narratives is that there is not a shared common understanding of the notion per se as expected by the plurality of societies. Still some common traits are visible. The social and the environmental domains constitute an imperative part of the SD notion; however these domains and related concerns are often viewed in relation to the economies of the countries. Though the social, environmental and the economic spheres comprise the SD pillars on a national level in the BSR, these three spheres are not viewed on equal terms. Instead activities in the social and environmental spheres must adhere to the limits set by economic boundaries. As a synthesis inclusive economic growth including social and environmental concerns is viewed as pivotal and what enables activities in other societal spheres. The four Nordic countries and Germany pursue SD goals not only nationally but also with global commitments, to support sustainable growth in developing countries. SD is cross-sectorial and integrated to enable the society to achieve a development towards intergenerational equity. As a societal commitment SD is envisioned to engage various actors re-presenting the society, not only governmental or public actors, but actors at large. The three Baltic countries sees SD as a way to pursue national capacity building, to develop the social and cultural capital of the society, and to become a knowledge-based society. SD policies is focused on environment and economic growth, to enable a development on a level with other EU countries, and become internationally competitive. Poland focuses on the development of the energy sector as a means to pursue national goals especially inclusive economic growth. Russia does not see the principles of SD as independent guiding principles for future development, and have no institutional coordinated SD framework in place. Instead the principles of SD are integrated with the national general development discourse, often reduced to a few areas. Even if the differences in national strategies are clear, some common features emerge.
8
1. Energy and climate change related policy goals are often perceived in the BSR SD national sphere as a fundament on which a general economic development is envisaged to deliver future inclusive economic growth. These goals are generally operationalized to fundamentally transform the energy sector as energy efficiency or energy savings measures, or by developing the field of renewable energy. Innovation is often the key in particular within the energy and climate change policy sectors. The reasons why energy policies constitute a key area for national SD strategies include 1) most Baltic Sea States are members of EU, and thus adhere to the EU 20-20-20 strategy to combat climate change and pursue a low-carbon economy; 2) an expected economic benefit in terms of costs savings; 3) as a means to mitigate GHG emissions. 2. Other recurring national SD goals in the BSR are broad societal development, welfare growth, and development of human, cultural and social capital especially via education, innovation and employment efforts. Preserving the natural capital emerges as a national goal, often in terms of protecting the biodiversity, or achieving an ecological balance via an efficient use of raw materials, reduced pollution, preserving the natural capital, and promoting sustainable production and consumption. 3. A majority of the Baltic Sea States have established a committee, or a commission to assist the Ministry of charge of implementation. These centres are a response to the complex nature of SD, and the subsequent implementation efforts SD related activities require to ensure better cross-sectorial coordination. SD implementation are steered by national mandatory obligations, which are based on the provisions set out in law. The central government, along with affiliated Ministries and Agencies comprise one group set of stakeholders, whilst other groups of stakeholders comprise regional or local authorities. Many mandatory duties of local authorities fall within the national SD sphere, e.g. land use planning. Projects and networks emerge as a form of action that enables issue-based collaboration among affiliated stakeholders. The national level often facilitate implementation actions by providing financing. Implementation actions are thus either authority guided top-down or ad hoc bottom-up initiatives. 4. The Baltic Sea States generally monitor national SD related activities by the same overall procedures. The monitoring of national implementation progress use a set of indicators, often developed by the national statistical offices or by the EU or the UN, for data which are coherent and assess whether countries adhere to agreed international SD targets. There are no indicators that are directly developed with a focus on the BSR per se, although the Nordic countries have developed a set of SD indicators in specified areas. There are thus three shared SD goals on a national and macro-regional level. Both the macro-regional and the national level pursue climate change by addressing largely the same means, especially by transforming energy production in the region from traditional fossil fuel based to alternative energy resources. Saving the Baltic Sea is on the national SD level focused on preserving the natural capital, though the Baltic Sea is not always explicitly mentioned. Also the third SD macro-regional focal point, the quality of life, is also implicitly pursued on a national level, by for example, increasing prosperity and improving the wellbeing of the citizens.
BSR macro-regional cooperation for sustainable development National policies, often advocating international commitment, rarely mention the BSR context and there are currently few monitoring systems in place for the macro-region. An exception is the work conducted by Helcom regarding the Baltic Sea itself. A series of macro-regional stakeholders do have an SD policy, most often focusing on a specific area or goal. Important macro-regional stakeholders include four intergovernmental organisations, IGOs, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, BSPC,
9
two networks of local/regional authorities, and a large number (estimated to be 200-300) of civil society organisations, CSOs. The intergovernmental organisations are: -
-
-
The Council of the Baltic Sea States, CBSS, contributes towards advancing SD in the BSR by coordinating goals and activities, and cooperation across borders and stakeholder groups. CBSS focuses on Climate change, Sustainable urban and rural development, Sustainable consumption and production and Innovation and education for SD. The European Union, EU, develops an overarching strategy for the region, the EUSBSR, to reinforce cooperation in BSR to face common challenges by working together and promoting a more balanced development in the area, under three themes Save the sea, Connect the region, Increase prosperity. The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, HELCOM, protects the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation to achieve a good ecological status. The Nordic Council of Ministries, NCM, promotes greater knowledge and more efficient use of resources. It focuses on the Nordic welfare model, viable ecosystems, changing climate, sustainable use of the Earth’s resources, and education, research and innovation.
The most active group of local/regional authorities is the Union of the Baltic Cities, UBC, a network of local authorities in the Baltic Sea region focusing on Sustainable urban and rural development by raising SD awareness and commitment, supporting local SD management, including the sustainable management of natural and energy resources, and promoting quality of life and equity. The Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation, BSSSC, is one of several networks of regional authorities. In the area of education most prominent is the Baltic University Programme, a network of universities and other institutions of higher education and research in the Baltic Sea region. BUP focuses on sustainable development, environmental protection, and democracy in the Baltic Sea region by research, education, and cooperation with authorities, municipalities and others. Secondary school networks include the Baltic Sea project, an UNESCO supported cooperation in the region, and Life-Link Friendship Schools, both with a strong emphasis on education for sustainable development. The SWEDESD at Uppsala University works on Teachers education for ESD in the region. Several nature protection organisations are very active in the region. These include the World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF, focusing on protecting biodiversity and Coalition Clean Baltic, CCB, a cooperation between Nature Protection Associations in the BSR, Stockholm International Water Institute. SIWI concerned with the Baltic Sea, and others, e.g. Race for the Baltic supported by Zennström Foundation.
Sector studies Two of the focus areas of CBSS were chosen for special sector studies, Energy and Climate and Sustainable Consumption and Production. An important goal was to collect relevant statistics in these two sectors to get a clear view of progress. Mainly statistics from the Eurostat was used while data for Russia were either provided by the Baltic University network in Russia or from international organisations such as International Energy Agency and the Ecological Footprint Network. The data sets have allowed a comparison between the countries in the region, and also indicated which measures are most urgent for improving the status of SD in the region. The data sets were finally discussed in relation to the SDGs considering future indicator work.
10
Sustainable consumption and production Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) concerns the wise use of resources, and minimisation of waste and pollution. Key areas include how to use renewable resources, e.g. fisheries, forests and many ecosystem products within their capacity for renewal; fuller product life-cycles; and out-phasing the use of non-renewable resources, in particular fossil fuels. The comparatively far-reaching EU policies on SCP is relevant for most of the countries in the BSR. This includes the 2008 Action Plan for Sustainable Consumption and Production; the Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, the Eco-Design Directive for Energy-Using Products: the Energy Labelling Directive, the EU Eco-Label, the Communication on Green Public Procurement, the Integrated Product Policy; the Thematic Strategy on the Use of Natural Resources, and the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. These policy measures seek both to foster resource conservation and resource efficiency and to "decouple" economic growth from environmental degradation. The annual use of natural resources in the world is larger than what the planet produces each year, its carrying capacity, by about 50 %, and it is even larger in the BSR. The BSR countries have footprints from 3.7 to 6.4 Gha/capita corresponds to the use of natural resources requiring 2 - 3.5 planets, assuming a globally equal per capita consumption, and thus sustainability requires that the resource flow is reduced to about a third. The total domestic material consumption in the BSR - which is the total of material used in the economy - was about 25 000 tonnes annually per capita, with slightly smaller values for the less advanced economies. The largest fractions in the material flows, the nonmetallic materials and the fossil energy flows, are both decreasing. Economic value per amount of material flow, the resource efficiency, is on the average EUR 1.52 per kg in the Baltic Sea region, with very large variations. In 2013 Norway had the highest value with 2.63 EUR/Kg followed by Germany 2.17 and Sweden and Denmark 2.00 EUR/Kg. The three Baltic States and Poland have values between 0.4 and 0.7. There are thus large potentials for improvements, to decouple economic growth from material flows. On the waste side we see a reduction of the amount of waste going to landfill, that is, the least favourable alternative of waste management, and a slow increase of recycling and composting. Data on recycling demonstrates that 30-60 % of waste is recycled in several countries. Data on sustainable production is difficult to extract, but we see signs of improvement. Thus the number of companies which has introduced environmental management systems, especially ISO 14001, has increased with up to 80 % since 2003, and so has the land area cultivated under ecological conditions (organic farming). Other positive signs include a reduction of polluting substances, especially air pollution, per economic unit. For consumption good data to follow the development is mostly lacking. The largest categories of resource use in the consumption phase is caused by the house and building sector, the transport sector, and the food sector.
Energy and climate Trends in energy efficiency and progress towards the reported sustainable development indicators in the BSR are presented in three parts: energy consumption, energy productivity and performance, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The since 1990 the best performing countries (Sweden and Germany) in the BSR have reduced final energy consumption between 6% and 8%. Between 1990 and 2003, growth in relative final energy consumption was greatest in Latvia (21%), Lithuania (39%) and Estonia (40%). Between 2003 and 2013,
11
variation in final energy consumption was small, except for the transport sector, where energy consumption increased in all BSR countries, most in Poland (35%) and Lithuania (22%). Consequently, there remains significant work to achieve the 20% reduction sought under the EU Climate and Energy Policy target. The Scientific Advisory Board for the 2009 Russian Energy Efficiency Legislation argues that delivering the 40% pledge by 2030 is very unlikely. The sources of all data are given in the full report. Russia and Norway are net exporters of energy, while all other countries in the BSR rely on energy imports. Generally, this dependency has remained steady or declined since 1990, excluding in Lithuania and Poland, which have seen an increase in energy dependency since 2010. Between 2004 and 2013, Denmark and Sweden had the greatest growth in the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources. Estonia and Sweden have surpassed their overall renewable energy target, while Germany and Poland are the furthest from their target (5.6% and 3.7% respectively). While renewables are not well developed in Russia, at the State level, the objective of expanding renewable energy in electricity and heat production as a means to focus energy security is specified. Estonia and Sweden have surpassed their overall renewable energy target, while Germany and Poland have the smallest proportion (excluding Russia 2.8%) and are the furthest from their national target (5.6% and 3.7% respectively). In the period 2004-2013, the ratio of electricity produced from renewable energy sources increased across the BSR. Poland, Estonia and Lithuania are the only countries not meeting the 21% target as of 2013. Hydro is the most extensively used renewable energy source in Russia, accounting for 18% of total electricity generation in 2000. Germany has significant biofuel and solar energy production. As of 2013, Sweden had the highest proportion of renewable fuels in transport (17%), followed by Finland (9%). Sweden and Finland also experienced the greatest growth in the proportion of renewable energy in transport fuel from 2004 to 2013. As of 2013, Denmark (51%), Latvia (38%), Finland (34%) and Lithuania (35%) had the highest proportion of electricity from Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation in total gross electricity generation. Between 2000 and 2013, the greatest growth in CHP generation occurred in Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia. In terms of energy productivity, the greatest proportional increase in productivity during 2003-2013 was seen in Lithuania (54%), followed by Latvia (39%) and Poland (39%). Norway and Estonia experienced the lowest increase in energy productivity over this period (27% and 26% respectively). As of 2013, Denmark has the highest and Estonia the lowest energy productivity. Since 1990 there have been declines in the total GHG emissions across the BSR, excluding Norway which experienced a 5% growth. The greatest proportional reductions over this period were seen in Latvia (133%), Lithuania (125%) and Estonia (111%). Over the period 2002-2012 the greatest reductions in total GHG emissions were seen in Denmark (41%), Finland (36%) and Sweden (21%), while Latvia (3%), Estonia (2%), Lithuania (1%) and Russia (12%) showed increased emissions. As of 2012, all BSR countries had achieved a 20% decrease of GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels, excluding Finland, Norway and Poland. Of those, only Norway has not yet met the 8% reduction, but from a very high level. The GHG emission reduction target for Russia implies growth as current levels are approximately 30% lower than 1990. A note of criticism is needed here. The EU countries in general are increasingly outsourcing their heavy industry and replace it by importing industrial products. Then at the same time they are increasingly importing CO2 emissions. Including emission in imported goods shows that Sweden is rather increasing its emissions then decreasing as reported by the Eurostat, even if it is happening somewhere else in the world. As it is still ending up in our common atmosphere it does not help but moves the problem to someone else.
12
Opportunities for SD in the BSR It is clear from the report that the Baltic Sea region has excellent opportunities for becoming a forerunner in the transition towards a sustainable future. This is also emphasised by the fact that the BSR is the first region in the EU for which a regional strategy has been initiated. The Baltic Sea region was also the only macro region that initiated a regional Agenda 21 – Baltic 21 – in 1996. Baltic 21 was established by the Prime Ministers of the BSR countries and the European Commission with the aim to support implementation the Rio Declaration and the global Agenda 21, adopted in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development, UNCED. The region also has a uniquely long history of cooperation between Eastern and Western Europe exemplified by the Convention for the Protection of the Baltic Sea initiated by Finland already in 1972, and a history of Nordic cooperation being much longer. The natural resource base in the region is in a global perspective rich. Thus the share of renewable energy in some of the countries is the highest in the EU and in general increasing, with hydropower and biomass as a large resource base. Opportunities for cooperation in the region is likewise rich. The BSR has a very large number of networks for all kinds of cooperation, such as alliances in the fields of environment, economy, social affairs, culture, research, etc. The states with the task of governing a transition towards sustainability thus have a unique support from other stakeholders in the region. Most of the SD activity in the region, with the exception of national level activity, is an outcome of multi-stakeholder partnerships. The potential in terms of further enhancing SD governance are great. The regional groups often have a very large competence in their specific areas and provide opportunities for expertise, innovation and mutual learning. Drawbacks include that operational cooperation arrangements are to an extent impeded by in-built barriers, which thus need to be eased. For this reason cross-scale cooperation is often of short-term. The UN sees multi-stakeholder partnerships as key to respond rationally to the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, but also as a mean to tackle systematic barriers. Many of the shared challenges in the region are addressed via SD related activities, carried out across the region, by stakeholders operating at the various governance levels. In general these activities are difficult to coordinate as the SD goals are set to target challenges that require integrated responses, but activities are often carried out in terms of sectorial approaches. The features of the financing available for BSR SD activity provides opportunities for just-in-time action by a variety of stakeholders. The drawback of the financing available is, besides only enabling short-term action, that the funding schemes are not necessarily aligned with the SD focal points in the BSR
Conclusions and recommendation The following conclusions and recommendations intend to identify main features of BSR governance, and point to possibilities to strengthen the capacity of SD governance. From a BSR national perspective inclusive growth, meaning that social and environmental concerns are included, is a main goal of every national government in the region. It is by and large categorized by pursing goals which aspire to fundamentally transform the energy sector in the region, either via energy efficiency or energy savings measures, or by developing the field of renewable energy. These are expected to support the creation of jobs in the environmental sectors, via e.g. new innovations enabling the emergence of ‘green’ technologies. The other identified macro-regional goals, ‘Saving the Baltic Sea’ and ‘Quality of Life’, are also pursued on a national level.
13
The relative cohesive nature of the transformation of the energy sector derives largely from EU initiatives, which constitute a significant macro-regional influence in the BSR. The overarching EU policy initiative, the EU 2020 Growth Strategy, represents the main influence in relation to the transformation of the energy sector in the BSR. Three recommendations on strengthening the SD governance in the BSR can be highlighted: 1. Facilitate SD cooperation for responding coherently in relation to the SDGs There is a need to strengthen BSR SD ownership. A strengthened BSR SD ownership suggests that stakeholders with a macro-regional SD mandate need to be given a stronger mandate for SD in the region by the national governments. Thus, macro-regional entities need to be viewed as legitimate governance stakeholders, and their position should be acknowledged to a greater extent, especially by national SD stakeholders, as facilitators of SD action. This does not imply that macro-regional stakeholders should be part of related national SD policy processes, but rather that the added value of these stakeholders should be acknowledge more fully. Macro-regional stakeholders themselves should embrace the integrated SD view, interact more frequently with other peer macro-regional stakeholders to provide better prerequisites for an overall coordination of SD activities, reducing possible overlapping activities, and increasing the coherency of SD activities. 2. Introduce BSR SD monitoring in selected areas The UN accentuates that the regional level provides a useful forum for peer review and learning, and encourage countries to work at the regional level to ensure progress on trans-boundary issues and on regionally shared targets (UN, 2015). The regional level could also function as place for monitoring regionally shared SD targets, though monitoring is usually prescribed to the national level. Regional monitoring could help ensure progress on trans-boundary issues, and facilitate a coherent progress towards shared SD goals, and thus be beneficial for a future SD cooperation in selected areas. The basis for monitoring would be to utilize relevant SD indicators to follow the implementation in shared BSR SD areas. Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU could provide the base on which BSR SD monitoring could be based on. For example, Eurostat has developed a set of Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI). 3. Establish regional platforms in the BSR for mutual learning The countries in the BSR working together to implement the SDGs will have a general need for mutual learning, not only at a national level, the level implementing the SDGs, but also at other governance levels, in order to develop the necessary capacity. The UN encourages Member States to identify suitable regional fora in which to engage on useful opportunities for mutual learning, cooperation on trans-boundary issues and discussions on shared targets. The platforms for mutual learning could be hosted by relevant macro-regional entities in the region. For example, for SDG number 13, “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact”, the CBSS emerges as a rational choice. Excellent possibilities and macro-regional partners for cooperation for a more sustainable future Baltic Sea region exists for all 17 of the SDGs to be implemented in the region.
14
1. The Baltic Sea region and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 1.1 Introduction The introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, as a central component of the global 2030 Agenda, has led to a renewed interest for Sustainable Development as a notion and as a political agenda in the BSR countries. This report is intended to support the development of governance capacity for Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea Region, for the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the coordination of SD policies in the region. The process of developing a new set of SD goals was initiated by the UN Conference on SD in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, the so-called Rio+20. The outcome document, titled The Future We Want, established a common vision for the future by reaffirming a global commitment to the principles of SD. It reaffirmed the commitment to advance integration, implementation and coherence, to assess progress to date and to address new and emerging challenges as well as to engage major groups and stakeholders in promoting SD (The Future We Want, 2012). The Future We Want authorized the UN to establish an ‘Open Working Group’ (OWG), with the task to develop a set of SDGs on a global level. The OWG was instructed to ensure that the SDGs embody a “universally shared common global vision of progress towards a safe, just and sustainable space for all human beings to thrive on the planet” (Osborn, Cutter and Ullah, 2015). At the same time, the SDGs were to be “action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, and universally applicable to all countries, while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities” (The Future We Want, 2012). After the OWG’s successful drafting effort, and a subsequent year of inter-governmental negotiations at the UN, a total of 17 universal goals (Box 1) was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2015 as part of a new global 2030 Agenda, which will be in effect from 1 January 2016 through 31 December 2030. The SDGs were created in cooperation between a broad range of stakeholders (UN Development Group, 2014). The UN Development System enabled nearly 5 million people to express their priorities for the post 2015 SD development agenda (UN Development Group, 2014). The SDGs include 169 targets, which are to be reached, depending upon area, within a time span of 5 to 15 years. The SDGs cover all prioritized areas for the achievement of SD, ranging from ending poverty in all its forms across the globe, to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for SD. Implementing the SDGs has significant challenges. Gaps in the implementation of the SD agenda exist at all governance levels, including national, regional and international levels (UN, 2015). These gaps come from a number of sources, such as the notion that SD has a vague character, that many stakeholders see it differently, and that the SD agenda is driven by markedly differently ambitions. There may also exist differences across governance levels in terms of implementing the global SD agenda. Even if the global SD agenda is to be guided by the SDGs, the actual implementation process is driven within national contexts and specific policies, which may not be aligned with the overall goals.
15
Box 1.1 The UN Sustainable Development Goals Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts* Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development * Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.
The SDGs underline the enhanced role of multi-stakeholder partnerships for SD as a complement to global the SD institutional framework and inter-governmental arrangements for SD. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for SD should be viewed as a mobilizer, which shares knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support the achievement of SDGs in all countries. Institutional frameworks and intergovernmental arrangements for SD, and the means of implementation via e.g. financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building need to be strengthened. (The Future We Want, 2012). The new 2030 Agenda should not be limited to action on one level of governance, but rather by activities across levels to be able to deal with multidimensional issues such as energy, water management and food security (Independent Research Forum, 2013). To address development in this integrated way it needs to be aligned with current governance frameworks. These have undergone a profound shift during the last decades, especially by the increased importance of multi-layered governance levels (MLGs) typical for the European Union (EU) (Rosamund 2010; Pierre and Peters 2000). Different levels of governance are important since the both facilitate and drive action. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda depends on combined actions taken by a variety of stakeholders. Collective action of regional and sub-regional intergovernmental partnerships along with national and sub-national action is needed. National and local level activity is judged to be a key enabler and driver for implementing 2030 Agenda, although the governance levels ultimately is responsible for implementation (UN Development Group, 2014).
16
1.2 Baltic Sea region governance The BSR1, often referred to as a macro-region, is made up of a number of societies, which operate in vastly different socio-economic surroundings and with different capacities to respond to SD related activities. As a result, the Baltic Sea states operate in very diverse SD national governance contexts. The national SD governance contexts are then operating in the wider BSR SD governance setting. The levels involved in governing the region is, as mentioned, referred to as the Multi-Level Governance (MLG) framework. The MLG framework reflects the recent history of the societies of the region. It includes events such as the end of the Cold War and the EU’s Eastern enlargement which effectively turned the Baltic Sea into an internal EU sea, with the exception of the Russian coasts. Both events facilitated and increased the already existing cooperation between the Baltic Sea states. The cooperation in the BSR has primarily been geared towards the management of problems and challenges, which all neighbouring countries or communities share (Johansson, 2002). The EU enlargement placed candidate countries under extreme pressure, and consequently EU has strongly influenced Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the pre-accession phase. Although financial instruments also played an important role, these countries were not allowed to join the Union before complying with the acquis communautaire, i.e. the entire body of EU legislation (Kern, 2011). This process of ‘governance by conditionality’ (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2004) led to a relatively high degree of compliance in the area of environmental policy (Joas et al, 2008). The MLG framework includes several governance levels. Each level has its own tasks and responsibilities, and serves different functions and has different agendas in relation to governing the BSR. The macro-regional level is represented by pan-Baltic networks or actors, such as Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Helsinki Commission, Nordic Council of Ministers and the Union of the Baltic Cities, whom all have their respective strategies to work for a more sustainable BSR. These pan-Baltic networks do not as such have a direct policy influence, but can provide policy recommendations. They also contribute and participate actively in the SD sphere by developing capacity and awareness and they represent a big part of the SD knowledge pool in the region. These networks also constitute facilitators of action in the region, by providing platforms for various SD stakeholders to enable SD action across the region. EU has also emerged as an essential part on the macro-regional level, and then in particular with the launch of the EU Strategy for the BSR (EUSBSR), which is viewed as the overarching paradigm in terms of governing the region. The national level, with relevant Ministries and Government Agencies, are responsible for SD policy development, SD policy setting, and steering and policy coordination within their respective countries. The national level has a central role in the coordination of SD implementation policies, even if the actual implementation occurs at sub-national levels. Sub-national stakeholders includes both state, regional, and local authorities, where municipalities have key roles, as they predominately implements SD policies in the region. The interactions among the governance levels are centred around common themes or agendas, which often cross sectors and where the traditional top-down policy development has been integrated with bottom-up approaches. It is based on networking among not only public sectors actors, but also among civil society, private and NGO actors. The cooperation is characterized by horizontal interaction (Gehring and Oberthur, 2008; Young 2002), whereas vertical interaction and coordination is largely lacking (Kern, 2011). Arrangements aim to utilize the specific knowledge of users and stakeholders, and are also essential for the legitimacy of decisions (Jentoft et al, 2007).
This report refers to the Baltic Sea region as comprising of 10 countries, and listed here in alphabetical order: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden. All riparian Baltic Sea states, with the exception of Norway and Russia are members of the European Union, and must as such adhere to, besides national policies, also to EU policies.
1
17
In many respects the Multi-Level Governance framework epitomizes the notion of SD. To achieve sustainable development we need interaction and cooperation between all layers of government, amongst public, civil society, private stakeholders and NGOs, horizontally and vertically, across all sectors in order to create an integrated and a participatory approach. Many BSR stakeholders are directly or indirectly involved in the governance of SD. Steering much of this process, however, are typically the various Ministry representatives, which develop national sustainable development strategies (NSDS) to promote and implement SD activities in their respective countries.
1.3 Outline of the report The general objective of this report is to serve as a knowledge platform by which governance capacity for SD can be further developed in the BSR. Ways to achieve this include increased institutional efficiency and coherency both on the macro-regional and national level in the BSR. Both governance levels are important. The macro regional level has many important functions which can be developed further. The national level has a key role as SD policy maker and coordinator of SD implementation. If the macro regional and national levels may have different interest for SD it will impede the overall BSR SD governance. The description and analysis of SD governance is divided in five parts, each of them being a chapter in the report. First a systematic analyse SD as a notion in the different countries in the region is given. It describes how SD is understood and used across administrative governance levels, how SD is viewed and understood on a global level, in terms of the SDGs, and on a macro-regional level. It describes similarities and divergences between the governance levels in terms of e.g. SD goals, and the impacts it may have on the implementation performance of SD related activities. The outcome is synthesised in a set of BSR SD national governance narratives. These constitute together a SD knowledge platform, important to understand both SD activities in the region and the possibilities for the region to coherently implement the SDGs. Second the BSR SD macro-regional governance narrative is described. This narrative is not as exhaustive as the national governance narrative, but still seeks to provide an overall account of engaged SD stakeholders at a macro-regional level, both in terms of their governance role, and also in relation to their respective SD strategies. Third the report includes a section on SD implementation. Though national implementation is essential, implementation activity on various governance levels, including the macro-regional level, are required in order to respond to the multifaceted SD challenges. The main focus is shared national implementation procedures, but it also includes measures to respond coherently to implementing the SDGs. Fourth the report discusses cooperation possibilities in the BSR by identifying similarities in BSR SD goals. Overlap or similarities in SD goals of the states in the region and macro-regional organisations can be a platform for the development macro-regional cooperation. The coherence between the regional goals and the UN global SDGs is viewed from a macro-regional perspective by including related EU initiatives, as the EU initiatives have a significant influence on national policy settings. EU initiatives are also of important for coherent action and responses across borders. Fifth the report summarizes the knowledge in relation to governance features, which are viewed as central for enhancing SD governance capacity. Recommendations which can be utilized to further develop the governance for SD are listed. Finally the report includes two case studies on specific sectors, i.e. energy and climate and sustainable consumption and production.
18
2. National Governance for SD in the Baltic Sea region 2.1 A framework for sustainable development strategies in the Baltic Sea region countries This chapter intends to give an overview of how SD is viewed and understood in the countries in the BSR. National governments are the focal interest and thus subject to the categorization since they develop and implement the national SD strategies (NSDS). They are typically made up of Ministry representatives. The respective Ministries function as national architects of SD activities, they set the tone of how SD is viewed as a notion, and they design and set up the SD governance structures. NSDSs2 are the main source for categorization SD, as they reflect the view of SD and how they have outlined governance for SD, in terms of stakeholder constellations, implementation models, and monitoring procedures for SD related activities. A general framework has been created (Table 2.1) to enable a systematic categorization of NSDSs in the BSR. It includes a general understanding of SD, national SD goals and action, stakeholders engaged in SD, implementation structures and national monitoring tools. Based on this general framework, a national SD governance narrative has been created for each Baltic Sea state. In this review important issues include: Is SD seen holistically, crossing over sectors and governance levels, or is SD viewed in a more specific manner? Are there SD goals that are pursued in all states? Which are the key areas of focus relevant for the Baltic Sea region states, and which are the most common mechanisms for achieving these goals? What types of stakeholder constellations characterize nationally induced SD activity? Are there any common features with regard to the national structures for implementing SD activities? Are SD activities implemented in an integrated manner, across sectors, both horizontally and vertically, with the help of various stakeholders in a participatory approach? Are there common national monitoring procedures for SD related activities and the frequency of these procedures being applied? Synthesizing national SD governance narratives into a BSR SD governance national narrative will eventually be done by identifying similar general features in the different national NSDS. When synthesizing national SD governance narrative into a common BSR SD national governance narrative, it is important to underline that the BSR comprises of a plurality of societies, which differ significantly from each other in terms of societal preferences. For this reason a ‘SD goal’ does not necessarily imply there is a shared understanding in the BSR of that particular goals, nor does it mean that there is a shared way of dealing with issues and challenges that the goal entails.
The categorization will utilize as a source the latest available English version of a National Sustainable Development Strategy. If there is newer version of a NSDS available, but not in English, the categorization will utilize other sources of information that could provide some information in English of the latest NSDS.
2
19
Table 2.1. Framework for categorizing sustainable development Understanding Concrete Stakeholders Implementation of sustainable goals, targets, engaged in structures development and actions sustainable development The objective is to establish how national stakeholders frame the notion of SD How are the economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects aligned? Is SD viewed holistically, crossing over both sectors and government levels, or is SD viewed in a more specific manner, focusing on some specific areas?
The objective is to describe and list the general SD goals of national stakeholders, both long –term and short – term goals Objective is also to describe the various types of goals or focal areas, and to describe, if possible, their rationale of setting up these specific goals/areas, as well as to list the mechanisms for achieving these goals
The objective is to list the most general stakeholders that are involved in SD related activities The objective is also to map out various types of stakeholders that are engaged in SD related activities; e.g. besides the various tiers and sectors of the public sector, also the civil society, NGOs, and the private sector
The objective is to outline the implementation structure used for carrying out SD, to list the main actors responsible for implementation To describe how SD is implemented; horizontally and vertically across sectors To establish based on the mentioned if SD is implemented in an integrated and participatory way, in accordance with the normative view.
Monitoring tools The objective is to describe how and how often national stakeholders monitor SD related activities Objective is also to describe how the NSDS addresses the monitoring aspect, i.e. the emphasis shown towards monitoring, if possible
20
2.2 National SD Governance Strategies Below follows a summary of SD strategies and narratives for each of the ten countries in the report. For each of them data has been gathered from the English languages homepages and summarised in tables, one for each country. The accompanying text summarises and discusses the findings for each of the countries. A weak point is that many of the strategies have more updated versions in national languages, which, we regret, are not included in the discussion.
21
2.2.1 DENMARK Denmark has a set of rather general but ambitious objectives for SD related activities. Denmark wants to develop a welfare society, in which economic growth is decoupled from environmental impacts, and in which all actors become committed and motivated to take responsibility for the long-term global consequences. The objective is ‘to commit and motivate all actors to take responsibility for a sustainable development, develop innovative and environmentally friendly solutions, and take-long-term global consequences into account”3. The primary focus is to enable the creation of a society where economic progress can be achieved simultaneously as the state of the environment is improved. The emphasis is consequently on economic growth, but not by neglecting the social and environmental aspects, but rather growth with respect to the environment and people’s health. Growth could be achieved e.g. via developing innovative and environmentally friendly solutions. Denmark also emphasis that SD is a shared responsibility in which various actors representing the Danish society should commit and take ownership of this process. Denmark also accentuates that global cooperation is an imperative part of work towards SD. Denmark recognizes that SD goals should be of cross-cutting nature, and that the actions needed to address these goals should be reached by interaction among affiliated actors, and across various sectors. Denmark lists a number of cross-cutting goals. Thus climate change is combatted through mitigation actions, e.g. within the sectors of transport, forestry, agriculture, energy production and via reduction of industrial greenhouse gases (GHG). Biodiversity is ensured by protecting areas with a high nature quality, environmental monitoring and by engaging and enhancing local participation. Environment and health is promoted via actions within the sectors of food, chemical, physical indoor conditions and health and safety. The cross cutting goals of resources and resource efficiency is endorsed via productoriented environmental initiatives, green products, reducing resource consumption and waste and via a sustainable use of raw materials. Denmark’s international activities are also listed as a cross-cutting goal. The mentioned goals should be addressed while the environment is taken into account in multilateral contexts, via e.g. development assistance and admitting candidate countries to become part of the EU. The Arctic region is especially mentioned as a vulnerable area where the environment needs protection. There is, however, no reference to the Baltic Sea region. There is a multitude of stakeholders engaged in sustainable development related activities. The Ministry of Environment has the main national SD coordination responsibility, along with the Danish Government. Other Ministries have also been active within the Danish SD sphere, for example by being involved in the preparations of updating the NSDS, such as, the Ministries of Transportation, Health, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Food and Consumption and Science. Regional and local authorities are also to some extent active, mainly as tools for implementing SD related activities. Municipalities are required by the Planning Act to elaborate their own SD strategies and renew them every four years, but these strategies do not have direct linkages to the NSDS. Partnerships between national and subnational levels are established, although no strategic mechanisms for involving sub-national levels in the implementation of the NSDS are mentioned in the Danish SD strategy. There is no SD national council which would represent various stakeholder groups from various tiers of governance and who could have the overall coordination and implementation responsibility. In 2007, in conjunction with a renewal process of the NSDS, a draft proposition was published by the Government. This draft proposition was the result of a participatory process, engaging a total of 230 stakeholders, with representation from various spheres of society, including subnational authorities, the business sector, the industry, NGOs as well as the financial sector. The Danish Government is in charge of monitoring SD related activities. The basis of monitoring is a set of SD indicators, developed and frequently updated by an affiliated Governmental entity. The 3http://eng.mst.dk/topics/sustainability/sustainable-development-in-denmark/
22
indicator assessments are in turn the basis of various monitoring and progress reports, which are used to facilitate and update SD policies and relevant SD action programs.
Table 2.2. Governance for sustainable development – Denmark4 Understanding of sustainable development
Concrete goals, targets, and actions
Stakeholders engaged in sustainable development
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
The long term objective is to develop a welfare society in which economic growth is decoupled from environmental impacts, and in which all actors become committed and motivated to take responsibility on longterm global consequences. Environmental concerns must be taken into account in all sectors, and global cooperation is needed for a SD. Environmentally friendly solutions should be promoted, together with a socially balanced economic development, which provides greater individual freedom of action, displays respects for the limits of nature and the environment and has no negative impacts on people’s health.
The strategy presents objectives related to cross-cutting activities, addressing the interconnections between different topics and sectors. Climate change, biodiversity, environment and health, and resource efficiency are listed as crosscutting objectives Denmark’s international activities are also listed as a cross-cutting objective, where environmental considerations should be taken into account in multilateral contexts; the Arctic Region is mentioned as a vulnerable environment which needs protection. Furthermore, the strategy presents an analysis of sectors and reports goals and targets that need to be reached within each sector.
The Ministry of the Environment and the Government in general has responsibility of achieving SD Regional and local authorities are to some extent involved in SD related activities In 2007 based on the principles of a participatory process, 230 stakeholders were involved in the strategy revision process. Subnational authorities, business and industry, NGOs as well as the financial sector participated in this process. Various ministries are involved in the revisions and in the updating procedures of the NSDS
Horizontal action: The Ministry of the Environment and the Government in general has the responsibility of implementing SD related activities. Other affiliated Ministries are involved, e.g. in areas that require cross-sectorial coordination. A range of different action plans has been developed in conjunction with the focal areas. Vertical action: Top down: The national level evaluates local SD strategies, which municipalities are required by law (Planning act) to elaborate, but these strategies do not have direct links to the NSDS. But, there are some partnerships in place between the central government and local authorities Bottom up: No strategic mechanism has been proposed for involving sub-national levels in the implementation phase
Monitoring: The Government has the overall responsibility. Affiliated Governmental entities develop and also update indicators on a regular basis. Based on indicator assessments, monitoring reports are produced Monitoring reports, along with other affiliated international documents are often the basis on which e.g. NSDS is updated
The Danish sustainable development strategy has been compiled for the first time in 2002, and a revision has been published in 2009. However, the 2009 version is available only in Danish. A new NSDS has been launched in 2014, but also in Danish. In this study, the 2002 version has been examined, whilst information concerning the 2009 version has been gathered from other sources, namely the European Sustainable Development Network and affiliated websites by Danish Ministries. 4
23
2.2.2 ESTONIA The departure point for the Estonian NSDS is to develop the Estonian society within a global competitive setting; this development should however adhere to the principles of SD and preserve the traditional values of Estonia5. The NSDS’s main function is hence to pursue the answer to the ‘question of what should be done to ensure successful functioning of the Estonian society and state also in the longer term.’6 The NSDS departs in its pursuit of SD by adhering to SD principles by viewing SD as ‘a development programme covering all of societal life, not a strategy focusing on ecological issues only’7. In view of this, the SD principles are applied in Estonia with strong societal connotations. Still, this does not imply that the environment is neglected, as the development of the society should be in balance with nature. Estonia aspires that its NSDS, along with other policy documents, will enable the country to accomplish its long-term vision of becoming a knowledge society, in order to adapt to the global competitive setting. Vital for this vision8 is to introduce the principles of knowledge-based management into state governance, and to change the creation and use of intellectual resources, conforming humannature relations with the principles of knowledge society. Estonia has identified four long-term general goals that the NSDS focuses on. They are: viability of the Estonian cultural space, e.g. via national-language education and emphasizing the functionality of Estonian culture; growth of welfare, in terms of economic growth and the level of security and diversity of opportunities; a coherent society, by emphasizing social inclusion, regional balance and a strong civil society; an ecological balance by utilizing natural recourses in a sustainable way, reducing pollution and preserving the biodiversity. The goals are interdependent and interconnected and should not be viewed as contradictory. As stated before, the NSDS as a policy document is part of the road towards Estonia’s long term vision, and the NSDS has in particular an important role and serves as a tool for reconciling the interest of Estonian stakeholders, so that the dialogue between different parties are not a competition of interest, but rather the comparison and reconciliation of integrated ideas and visions. Various Estonian stakeholders are engaged in SD related activities. When the NSDS was prepared and developed under the leadership of the Ministry of Environment, other national governmental representatives and spheres of society were involved, e.g. local authorities, local self-government unions and the general public. The first steps towards SD stakeholder engagement were taken in 1996 when a Commission for SD was created to serve as a forum for stakeholder involvement. The Commission was under the leadership of the Prime Minister and co-chaired by the Ministers of Economy and Environment. Within the Commission, various institutions are represented: the government, the parliament, academia, the business sectors and NGOs. In 2009, the functions of the Commission were reformed, it became an independent body of the Government and its composition was changed to include non-governmental stakeholders and its main task was to prepare analytic reports on different SD issues. An Inter-ministerial Working Group of various ministries and the Estonian Statistical Office, has been established in order to coordinate SD issues and implementation of the NSDS. The Working Group also coordinates the Estonian monitoring activities, and coordinates the production of national SD progress reports. The Governmental Office of Statistics Estonia is in charge of producing progress reports, which are produced on a frequent basis. The Inter-ministerial Working Group is under the leadership of the Government Office to ensure better horizontal integration when implementing the NSDS. In Estonia, improved horizontal integration of policies is a target that is not only applied within the SD sphere, but also in a larger context. With this in mind, a National Development Network (NDN) has been established. The NDN is a politically independent body of strategic development planning, with the aim of developing long-term programmes and harmonise
5Estonian
National Strategy on Sustainable Development Sustainable Estonia 21, 2005, p. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p.59 et sg. 6
24
strategies of different sectors, including monitoring their implementation. The development units of ministries and local governments participate in the NDN network.
Table 2.3. Governance for sustainable development – Estonia9 Understanding of sustainable development
Concrete goals, targets, and actions
Stakeholders engaged in sustainable development
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
SD is perceived through the lens of developing the Estonian society within a global competitive setting; whilst adhering to the principles of SD and preserving the traditional values of Estonia. Estonia is perceived sustainable when its cultural space is preserved, people’s welfare is growing, and coherence of the society and balance with nature are ensured in the long term In order to reach a SD society inclusive decision-making process should be promoted Ideas and visions linked to SD should be a result of reconciling dialogues between different parties
Estonia has four general inter-connected and interdependent SD goals: Viability of the Estonian cultural space; e.g. via efforts related to promoting the national identity along with enhancing the development of an European identity The growth of welfare; growing the economic base in order to reach an development that is in line with European and Nordic counterparts A coherent society; via efforts related to promoting social inclusion, regional balance and civil society Ecological balance; via efforts that promote the application of a knowledge-based management of the environment
In 1996, a commission for SD was created, with a main duty to serve as a forum for stakeholder involvement Over 50 experts, representing different spheres of society were involved in the preparation of the strategy in 2005 In 2009, the functions of the SD Commission were reformed, it became an independent body of the Government and its composition was changed to comprise of NGO stakeholders and its main task is to prepare analytical reports on different SD issues An Inter-ministerial Working Group, comprising representatives of various ministries and the Estonian Statistical Office, has been established in order to coordinate SD issues, including implementation and producing national progress reports. The working group is chaired by the strategy director of the Government Office.
Horizontal action: The Inter-ministerial Working Group is in charge of implementation. The WG is under the leadership of the Government Office in order to ensure better horizontal integration whilst implementing the NSDS Vertical action: Top down: No institution directly responsible for vertical implementation, The NSDS accentuate that the different spheres of society is to be engaged in the implementation processes Local initiatives are managed via local development strategies Bottom up: Mostly based on subnational initiatives, e.g. in the forms of various programs, or projects
Monitoring: The Inter-ministerial Working Group coordinates the overall monitoring The development of indicators and subsequent indicator reporting is the responsibility of Statistics Estonia Indicator reports have been produced on various occasions, often with two to three year time intervals
There is a long-term timescale for the reaching the aforementioned general SD goals
9
Estonian National Strategy on Sustainable Development Sustainable Estonia 21 was published in 2005.
25
2.2.3 FINLAND Finland has set its sight on achieving a strong societal commitment in its pursuit of sustainable development. Finland’s emphasis is on ‘soft values’ related to SD. Finland perceives development as a mean to safeguard citizen’s wellbeing, and simultaneously, promote the uptake of individual and social responsibilities towards the environment. SD is viewed as an ‘ongoing and structured process where society undergoes change with the aim of securing desirable living conditions for the current and future generations’10 SD is interpreted as a humanity-wide learning process, which seeks to bring about a cultural change towards a sustainable future society and world. Finland emphasises also its global responsibility in terms of SD activities, and underlines that its policies are aligned to international policies, such as those of UN, EU, the Arctic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Finland recognizes that it is pivotal for reaching the SD goals to understand that SD is an on-going process, which embraces cooperation between affiliated stakeholders and cross-generational thinking, and respects the planetary boundaries. Knowledge should be used creatively and SD related policies should be characterized by coherence. The Finnish NSDS highlights four main SD goals; the well-being of citizens, a balance between the use and protection of natural resources, sustainable communities in a sustainable regional structure and Finland’s’ role as global actor and bearer of responsibility. In order to work towards each goal, all thematic areas consist of a set of priorities deemed necessary to work within in order to achieve progress. For example with regard to the well-being of citizens, the emphasis is on promotion of healthy lifestyles, quality of working life and the balance of individual and social responsibility, while within the area of the use and protection of natural resources, the emphasis is on promoting sustainable production and the cultural significance of natural resources. Sustainable communities are promoted via the transport system and the information society service as a precondition for a functional society and interaction. Finally Finland’s role as global actor and bearer of responsibility is reflected in adopting its operational principles in international cooperation. With regard to stakeholder engagement in the field of SD, Finland has a rather long tradition of attempting to involve multiple stakeholder groups. In 1993, Finland created a National Commission on Sustainable Development (NCSD), chaired by the Prime Minister, with the view to function as a centre for both preparation processes of updating the NSDS as well as participating in the implementation phase of SD related activities. The NCSD includes besides national level representatives, e.g. the Prime Minister’s Office, also representatives of local authorities, business life, civil society, educational institutions and media. The NCSD work is facilitated and prepared by an inter-ministerial secretariat, which convenes eight to ten times per year. The secretariat is situated at the Ministry of Environment and has 20 members from different ministries. NCSD is viewed to have a central role in the implementation stages, especially concerning the vertical implementation, as it holds representatives of various tiers of governance and spheres of society. The Ministry of Environment is central for the national horizontal implementation, given its role as NSDS coordinator. It has developed an Action Plan, and has a cooperation and information network with other affiliated national actors. The basis of vertical implementation activities is also focused around cooperation and information networks, connecting among other national and local level stakeholders. The NCSD is also engaged in monitoring SD related activities in Finland. In Finland SD related activities are monitored on a frequent basis, and the foundation of the monitoring is the set of national indicator-based assessments. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Office and Statistics Finland to update regularly the SD indicator sets. The indicator assessments are in turn the basis for creating progress reports, which are linked to specific goals. The progress reports constitute one of the cornerstones on which NSDS is revised and updated. The NSDS has also been the subject of an
10http://www.ym.fi/en-US/The_environment/Sustainable_development
26
external revision, with an objective of evaluating the implementation processes of the NSDS, and the impacts of SD as a notion in national policies. Table 2.4. Governance for sustainable development – Finland11 Understanding of sustainable development
Concrete goals, targets, and actions
Stakeholders engaged in sustainable development
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
SD is viewed in a manner that enables Finland to become a sustainable society, where the carrying capacity of nature is not exceeded and natural resources are used in a sustainable manner. Citizens’ wellbeing must be safeguarded, and at the same time, promote the uptake of individual and social responsibilities towards the environment SD is an on-going societal commitment, a structured process, which should serve as a long term framework and instrument of policy coherence for administrative sectors SD is to be achieved through cooperation between various stakeholders The principles underlying SD are global responsibility, cross-generational thinking, limited carrying capacity of nature, cooperation, creative use of knowledge and expertise.
The strategy lists four general targets; The well-being of citizens, e.g. via cohesion between different generations, promoting civil activity, prevention of social exclusion and poverty A balance between the use and protection of natural resources, e.g. via adapting to climate change, limiting GHG, ensuring biodiversity, increase energy efficiency, changing consumption habits, improving the state of the Baltic Sea Sustainable communities in a sustainable regional structure, e.g. via ensuring vital rural regions, ensuring the availability of services, functionally diverse and structurally sound communities, good living environment Finland as a global actor and bearer of responsibility, via e.g. development of neighboring regions, international cooperation, influencing EU policy
The basis of stakeholder engagement is the National Commission on SD, chaired by the Prime Minister The SD Commission consists of members of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Government, different Ministry representatives, various administrative sectors, local authorities, media and industry representatives, civil society, the church, trade unions, NGOs and academia The SD Commission is central in relation to the preparation of a new strategy and in the implementation stages of a strategy For example in the 2013 NSDS revision, companies, organizations, educational institutions and local authorities played an active part
Horizontal action: The SD Commission and its Secretariat coordinates horizontal activity Ministry of Environment has also a central and key role, given its function as NSDS coordinator Horizontal activity transpires via networking cooperation and programs between various national branches of administration Vertical action: Cooperation networks between central and municipal levels, networks also include different levels of administration, other societal spheres
Monitoring: The basis of SD monitoring are national indicator based assessments First SD indicator set developed in 2000, and the most recent updated set originates from 2014 Development of indicators under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Office and Statistic Finland These indicator assessments are reported as progress reports, linked to specific goals. In addition, the NSDS has also been subject to an external review, with the objective of evaluating the implementation processes of the NSDS, and impacts of SD in national policies
11
The latest NSDS originates from 2009. However a revision of that strategy, titled “The Finland we want by 2050 Society’s Commitment to Sustainability” was officially launched in 2013, but this revision is more of an update in terms of a vision, and only seven pages long. Therefore the NDSD from 2009 is used as the main source.
27
2.2.4 GERMANY The German SD strategy, named “Perspectives for Germany”12 was adopted in 2002. The German SD approach is closely interlinked with the normative perception of SD. The German general perception of SD relates to an ‘economic prosperity, which goes hand in hand with social cohesion and the protection of natural resources, and is committed to intergenerational equity and a peaceful coexistence of people13. For Germany”sustainability requires responsible action – today and for future generations, both nationally and internationally. This is the aim of the national Sustainable Development Strategy”14. The overall ambition with SD related efforts is to become by 2050 a low-carbon economy, by means of structural change, restructuring energy supplies, and becoming one of the most resource-efficient economies in the world. Germany wants to become the first industrialized nation to succeed in converting to a highly efficient energy system based on renewable energy sources. This can be achieved through innovation, cost-efficient measures and with market-oriented policies, which at the same time are environmentally sound and climate compatible15. In the pursuit of the overall long-term SD ambition, a holistic and integrated approach is emphasised. This approach must account for diversity and interdependence, which combines environmental protection, economic performance and social responsibility, trying not to lose sight of the ‘whole picture’16. The responsibility of achieving the SD ambition is not only one that holds the Government responsible, but what is required is societal interaction and commitment. SD must become a benchmark for the decisions to be made in business and society, and SD should be increasingly integrated in all areas of life17. It is emphasized that the SD approach ‘does not identify a single correct path which should be followed, but it is rather a method of problem solving. It requires an ability to think in a number of different dimensions’18, and achieving political decisions in all areas. The German strategy is based on four guidelines – intergenerational equity, quality of life, social cohesion and international responsibility.19 Germany lists three priorities in order to reach tangible progress with regard to the predefined long-term SD goal. One priority area covers activities related to the economic sphere. Key words describing this area are cross-cutting activities both within the public and the private sector. Of particular interest is corporate social responsibility, CSR, considering aspects such as employment, demographic changes and environmental considerations including resource efficiency, environmental technology and sustainable use of raw materials. Another priority area is climate and energy, with its outlined targets, and defined concepts, such as the Government’s Energy Concept, accentuating energy-efficiency and eco-friendly economics. The third priority area addresses activities related to water, with a particular focus on the intergenerational responsibility commitments, by emphasising activities that consider e.g. dangers of natural hazards, the quality of the drinking water, agricultural and industrial activities. These interconnected priority areas are underpinned by a number of affiliated policies, which influence the SD activities of the various tiers of public sector authorities which make up the German Federal State. Examples of affiliated policy areas include financial policy, mobility, consumption and production, health, social inclusion, education, research and global challenges in respect of poverty. In Germany, the pivot in stakeholder engagement processes with regard to general SD activity is the State Secretaries’ Committee on SD. The Committee is chaired by the Head of Federal Chancellery and includes representatives from all federal ministries. The Committee is in charge of developing the http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/DE/Themen/Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie/1-die-nationalenachhaltigkeitsstrategie/nachhaltigkeitsstrategie/_node.html;jsessionid=4C472CA00F4B96884CF1B994BA982025.s4t2 13 National Sustainable Development Strategy, 2012 Progress Report, p. 14, 19) 14 2012 Progress Report, p 12. (German version), p. 1 of the English short version 15 German Sustainable Development Strategy – 2012 Progress Report, p. 19 16 Ibid., p.24 17 Ibid., p. 21 18 Ibid., p. 23 19 2012 Progress Report, p.2 of the English short version 12
28
content of the NSDS and of the processes of implementing it, albeit the overall control and responsibility of NSDS implementation lies with the Federal Chancellery. The Committee also constitutes a platform for inter-ministerial work and information exchange with regard to their SD activities. The Committee’s work is facilitated by a number of other affiliated bodies, each serving a different task, e.g. by the Federal Statistical Office, the German SD Council, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on SD, the Länder, and the Municipal Umbrella Organizations. Whilst the German SD Council created 2001 advises the Federal Government on SD matters and is at the same time an important stakeholder in the public dialogue. The Federal Statistical Office is responsible for the technical analysis of indicators and their development and the Parliamentary Advisory Council on SD makes recommendations and supports the NSDS and its European counterpart in the Parliament. The Parliamentary Advisory Council has been strengthened, e.g. through an addition to the common rules of procedure including the introduction of a sustainability assessment. Also, other affiliated stakeholders are engaged in SD related matters, though not with the regularity of federal actors. Citizens, for example are involved in establishing priorities and objectives for policies, and play a role in promoting and achieving SD. In addition, businesses are engaged in SD related activities, realising the economic potential SD related activities may provide. The State Secretaries’ Committee on SD has the overall responsibility for horizontal as well as vertical implementation of SD related efforts and activities. The State Secretaries’ Committee on SD work on implementation is facilitated by a number of other affiliated SD stakeholders. For example, all Federal Ministries are supposed to take SD as a principle into account and inform the Committee on SD of any SD related issues, although no interdepartmental coordination is required within the Ministries. Within certain policy areas, such as economy, residential development, water management, climate change and municipal sustainability20, implementation efforts are required to be dealt with through cross-cutting activities. Central to the notion of SD is that related activities should be implemented in a manner that cross-cuts sectors and policies. Tangible SD efforts should be implemented in a holistic and interdisciplinary manner, which includes a broad spectrum of actors in both the public and the private sphere, and which also includes the society in general. As a result, the German NSDS pays particular attention to that SD stakeholders which are included in implementation activities. Fundamental for SD implementation procedures are therefore the involvement of Länder and municipal organizations, as well as citizens, businesses, labour unions, churches and various associations. For example, the Länder are responsible to translate the guiding principle of sustainability – from the abstract level into the reality of people’s lives21, whereas the civil society has been engaged via a citizens’ dialogue, which encourages citizens to join the debate on sustainability issues, for example related to areas such as climate and energy, mobility, sustainability, education and consumption. In Germany SD related activities and efforts are monitored regularly using a set of goals and indicators. The Federal Statistical Office monitors these goals and indicators and publishes the results in its biennial “indicator report”. Furthermore, the German NSDS is regularly reviewed every four years through the so-called “progress reports”. The technical monitoring and its improvement is a responsibility of the Interdepartmental Sustainability Indicators Working Group, which is chaired by the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. In addition to the numerous progress reports, the NSDS has also been the subject of peer review on two occasions, one in 2009 and the second in 2013.
20 21
Ibid., p. 231 Ibid., p. 223
29
Table 2.5. Governance for sustainable development – Germany22 Understanding of sustainable development The German view of SD is closely interlinked with the normative perception of the notion; to achieve economic prosperity that considers and values social cohesion, and preserves natural resources, as well as recognizing the commitment to intergenerational equity and international responsibility The overall ambition with SD related efforts in Germany is to achieve a low-carbon economy by 2050, by means of structural change, to restructure energy supplies, to become one of the most resourceefficient economies in the world.
The four guidelines which form the framework of the strategy are intergenerational equity, quality of life, social cohesion and international responsibility SD activities requires a holistic, integrated approach, and the principles of SD needs to constitute a benchmark for societal decisions The SD related activities are not pursued through a previously pre-set single path, but rather via a method of pragmatic problem solving approach
22Germany
Concrete goals, targets, and actions The strategy comprises 38 goals and indicators. Germany lists three priorities in order to reach tangible progress with regard to the predefined long-term SD goal. They are: sustainable economic activity, climate and energy and sustainable water policy These interconnected fields are under-pinned by a number of federal policies: Sustainable and stable financial policy Sustainable mobility Sustainable consumption and sustainable production. Preserving and managing natural resources Health, Social inclusion, demography and migration. Global challenges in respect of poverty and SD. Education, training and research and development
Stakeholders engaged in sustainable development
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
The pivot in stakeholder engagement processes with regard to general SD activity in Germany is the State Secretaries’ Committee on SD.
Horizontal action: State Secretaries’ Committee on SD is in charge for co-ordinating horizontal and vertical implementation, albeit the overall control and responsibility of NSDS implementation lies with the Federal Chancellery The Committees work is facilitated by other Federal Ministries, who are to consider SD in their policies.
Monitoring: SD related activities and efforts are monitored on a regular basis.
Vertical action: A number of initiatives are in place to connect the Federal Government, the Länder and the Municipal Umbrella Organizations.
The 2002 strategy has been reviewed in 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2012
Its task is to be in charge of developing the content of the NSDS and processes of implementing it, albeit the overall control and responsibility of NSDS implementation lies with the Federal Chancellery The Committee’s work is facilitated by a number of other actors, the Federal Statistical Office, the German SD Council, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on SD, the Länder and the Municipal Umbrella Organizations The German SD Council in particular constitutes an important actor with regard to its role as facilitating public dialogue Also, citizens are involved in establishing priorities and objectives for policies, and play a role in promoting SD Businesses are increasingly understanding that commitment to SD entails also economic returns
Central for implementing SD is the notion of holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which promotes cross-cutting activities. SD efforts should be implemented in a manner, which includes a broad spectrum of actors in both the public and the private sphere, and which also includes the society in general.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council on SD has the overall responsibility of monitoring the NSDS. The basis of the Federal Statistical Office’s monitoring is a set of indicators.
The NSDS has also been the subject of peer review on two occasions, one in 2009 and the second in 2013 Monitoring reports are utilized by e.g. the German SD Council, which has also the task to develop the NSDS in critical dialogue with the Government and leading social institutions.
created its NSDS in 2002. The strategy has been reviewed every four years; the last version originates from 2012.
30
2.2.5 LATVIA Sustainable development has a strong sociocultural connotation in Latvia. The first SD priority is ‘the development of culture space of Latvia because the identity of a strong and creative nation lies in our unique, inherited and newly created material and spiritual values’.23 This development is seen in a long-term perspective, with goals to be reached by 2030. The guiding principles for reaching these future goals are established in the NSDS, while the guiding principle of the NSDS is the ‘capital approach’. ‘Capital’ in the Latvian context is understood in its widest terms, with a particular emphasis on the ‘social and natural capital’. ‘Social capital’ refers to the interaction among people, their cultural heritage and creativity, and ‘Natural capital’ the environment and natural space of Latvia, which is seen as necessary for social wellbeing. In order to apply the ‘capital approach’, some underlying attributes and principles in the society are vital: creative activity, tolerance, cooperation and participation. The overriding SD principles in Latvia builds on a circle framework, which sets out particular goals and targets. These goals are dependent upon each other and need to be applied in mutual interaction. The goals reflect the priorities listed. Human capital is promoted via providing equal opportunities, by forming a middle class in society, and by providing base values via accentuating e.g. employment programmes, quality of health and reduction of population risks. A prerequisite for human capital is the development of the cultural space and changing the paradigm in education by offering a qualitative and lifelong education. Also, the economy is accentuated. The basis of the economic development is ecoefficiency and innovation. Eco-efficiency is especially emphasised in the Latvian context, in particular through the key themes of renewable energy and energy safety and interdependence. There is a need to increase the energy independence, and a better integration in European energy networks is prioritized. In order to achieve this, the BSR is recognized as an area where more energy interconnections should be developed. Innovation on the other hand is promoted e.g. via enhancing the practice of open and user-driven innovation. The goal to preserve the environment or the ‘natural capital’ is an important precondition for safety, culture, health and personal freedom, and thus the environment can be perceived as being closely linked with the social wellbeing in the country. On the other hand, the economy is also related to environmental considerations, e.g. via the capitalization of natural assets. There is a variety of actors involved in the planning, implementation and supervision of the NSDS. These actors represent different tiers of governance, including the Cabinet, various Ministries, regions and local authorities. Local authorities in particular are expected to cooperate with social partners and representatives of the organized society. Public participation is envisaged to underpin the development, implementation and supervision of the NSDS. As an example of public participation, during the renewal of the NSDS, more than 800 proposals were made by various affiliated and interested stakeholders of how the NSDS was supposed to be renewed. As a result of this wide interest, many national and regional forums were established to discuss SD related matters. The Latvian model for SD stakeholder engagement and SD implementation is closely intertwined with the governance of the Latvian National Development Plan (NDP). The rationale behind this interconnection is that both policy areas are interlinked and dependent upon each other. For instance, the NDP is viewed as the mid-term action plan for the implementation of the NSDS. It is important to accentuate however that NDP is rather strongly perceived and associated with economic considerations, which is as such driven by economic arguments, and may as such not fully incorporate other societal considerations. The overall responsibility for the NSDS lies since 2011 firstly with the Cross-sectorial Coordination Centre (CCC), directly subordinated to the Prime Minister24; secondly with the National Development Council, made up the mentioned actors plus the most influential NGOs, who deals with NDP, and Latvian Sustainable Development Strategy , 2010, p.11 ESDN country profile Latvia, last updated network.eu/?k=country%20profiles&s=single%20country%20profile&country=Latvia 23 24
3-10-2014:
http://www.sd-
31
which serves as a platform for cooperation and exchange of opinions; and thirdly, the SD Institute, which is an independent research institution, mainly involved in monitoring the activities of the NSDS. Besides the monitoring responsibility, the SD Institute has also the responsibility to facilitate cooperation and analytical discussions with affiliated SD stakeholders, such as public sector representatives, professional associations and academia. The mentioned bodies are expected to contribute to the horizontal implementation of the NSDS. However given the multitude of national actors involved in horizontal implementation, the CCC is in charge, to ensure cross-compliance of sectorial policies. The activities of the regional and the local authorities are expected to constitute the major part of the vertical interaction, as both are required to elaborate their own SD strategies, and in particular regional and local development planning documents must comply with state planning policies. The monitoring of the NSDS is done on a regular basis and is based on indicator reporting, which should be published every second year by the SD Institute which is in charge of implementation and progress reports. One aim of the reports is to assess the compliance of governmental fiscal policies with SD principles and adopted national development planning documents. Another aim of the reports is the development of SD capacity and awareness.
32
Table 2.6. Governance for sustainable development – Latvia25 Understanding of sustainable development
Concrete goals, targets, and actions
Stakeholders engaged in sustainable development
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
SD is applied with a strong socio-cultural connotation, while also respecting the environment. SD is to be achieved via the promotion of the Latvian ‘social and natural capital’ A circle framework is applied for promoting the social and natural capital: Development of culture space Investment in human capital Change of paradigm in education Innovative and ecoefficient economy Nature as future capital
The strategy derives its objectives and targets from the circle framework The circle framework outlines each goal together with prior-ities and long-term action directions Most goals are set within the realm of social capital: e.g. strengthening the sense of belonging to the culture space of Latvia, access to edu-cation and child care, inclusion of the aging population into the society and combating poverty There are also goals related to perspec-tives on innovative government, e.g. introducing egovernment, and embracing the notion of public participa-tion in policy processes The spatial dimen-sion is also listed as a goal; improvement of accessibility, settle-ment structure and spaces of national interest; BSR, eastern border
Stakeholder engagement is closely intertwined with the governance of the Latvian National Development Plan From 2011, the Crosssectorial Coordination Centre, subordinated to the Prime Minister, has the overall NSDS responsibility The SD Institute, an independent research organisation, has the responsibility to facilitate cooperation and analytical discussions with affiliated SD stakeholders, e.g. public sector representatives, professional associations and academia. The general public are also involved, e.g. public participation contributed to the revision of the latest NSDS
Horizontal action: With regard to NSDS implementation three entities are involved; Commission of SD, the SD Institute, and the National Development Council Due to the multitude of actors involved, the cross-sectorial coordination centre has the responsibility to en-sures crosscompliance of sectorial policies Vertical action: Top down: Regions and local governments are required to include SD strategies in their planning documents, these documents shall be developed in compliance with documents at the national levels Bottom up: The general public is envisioned to be involved in the implementation, via new forms of participation, e.g. citizen panels, platform for public innovations, innovation portals
Monitoring: The SD Institute has the general responsibility of monitoring the NSDS The monitoring of the NSDS is envisioned to take place on a regular basis The monitoring is based on indicator assessments The general intention of the monitoring reports are to assess the compliance of governmental fiscal policies with SD principles and adopted national development planning documents They are also expected to contribute to build SD capacity and awareness
Perspective of spatial development Innovative government and participation of the society Development of culture space
25
The latest NSDS originates from 2010 and is a revision of the 2002 strategy. Some references will however also be made in this text to the National Development Plan (NDP) 2014-2020, published in 2012, as the NSDS is considered a part of the implementation of the NDP.
33
2.2.6 LITHUANIA The Lithuanian vision of SD corresponds rather well with the traditional SD notion, which values and considers the environment alongside an economic development and a reliable social network. SD is viewed as ‘ensuring a healthy environment, adequate use of natural and intellectual resources, a moderate yet stable economic growth, as well as public welfare and reliable social guarantees’.26 The tangible objective of SD is to enable a societal development by 2020 which is on the level with other EU countries. Progress is planned first of all in the socioeconomic sphere, but progress should be done in a sustainable way, meaning that the consumption of resources should not be wasteful, and environmental pollution should adhere to the requirements of international conventions. The SD goal setting is a reflection of the Lithuanian understanding of SD. The specific goals, and subsequent sub-goals, including short-term goals as well as long-term goals, are listed sector wise. Within the environmental sector, the focus is on the environmental quality, and on air and climate change. The subsequent goals are mostly linked to emissions reduction. Water is also emphasized, especially in terms of a long term target of reducing the contamination in the Baltic Sea, including pollution by hazardous substances, from land sources, ships and agricultural sources. There are a variety of goals within the economic development sector. Energy is listed as one of them, and then especially to ensure reliable and safe energy supply and increase energy savings and efficiency, while aiming in the long term at creating a safe environmentally-friendly competitive energy sector. Other areas of action include the transport sector, the housing sector, industry, tourism and waste management. Within the social sector, development is pursued via the promotion of sustainable consumption, employment, education, public health, and preserving the cultural identity and by reduction of poverty and social exclusion. The SD stakeholder interaction and engagement is under the leadership of the Ministry of Environment, although the centre for SD stakeholder engagement coordination is the National Commission for SD, established in 2000. One of the SD Commission’s tasks is also to seek cooperation among public authorities, scientific institutions, NGOs, and business to resolve fundamental human health, environmental protection and social and economic problems. The Commission, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, consists of members from various Ministries and of representatives of different NGOs and the business community. Other stakeholders are invited to take part in the Commission’s work, mainly by providing their expertise. Although the National SD Commission has the overall responsibility for coordination of implementation efforts, an SD Expert Group has been created with the purpose to oversee and assess the implementation process, both horizontal and vertical level implementation activities. National indicators constitute the basis for monitoring SD related activities. The National SD Commission is the entity in charge of monitoring SD activities in Lithuania and should submit annual SD accounts to the Government. The actual entity conducting the implementation and progress assessments is the SD Expert Group. NSDS implementation reports should be published biannually.
26
Lithuanian Sustainable Development Strategy, 2011, p. 60
34
Table 2.7. Governance for sustainable development – Lithuania27 Understanding Concrete goals, Stakeholders Implementation of sustainable targets, and engaged in structures development actions sustainable development SD is viewed through the traditional lens; implying that the environment should be preserved via an adequate use of natural resources, and that economic growth should be moderate and stable, and with public welfare and reliable social guarantees The tangible objective of SD is to enable a societal development on the level with other EU countries by 2020 This societal development should adhere to environmental protection by respecting an efficient use of natural resources, combating environmental pollution and considering the impact of climate change
27
There are number of SD goals listed, both short as well as long term The goals are divided by sector and fielded within the three traditional sectors: In the environmental sector the focus is on e.g. reducing emissions, and ensuring the biodiversity and protection of the Baltic Sea Economic targets include e.g. to create an environmentally-friendly competitive energy sector, ensure reliable energy supply, and increase use of biofuels Social aspirations include e.g. promotion of sustainable consumption by developing policies and encourage of eco-labels
The stakeholder engagement is under the leadership of the Ministry of Environment A national SD Commission was established in 2000, the commission comprises of national Ministry representation and NGO and business life representatives. The commission coordinates SD activity, and advises the Government on policy and policy recommendations An SD Expert Group has been established to oversee and assess the progress of SD activity implementation
Horizontal action: SD Commission in charge of co-ordinating implementation activities in general The SD Expert Group oversees and assesses the implementation process, including horizontal and the vertical level implementation activities. Vertical action: Local authorities are involved in the implementation aspects, via e.g. awareness and knowledge workshops
Monitoring tools
Monitoring The National SD Commission is in charge of monitoring SD activities in Lithuania and has as a specified task to submit annual SD accounts to the Government. National indicators constitute the basis for monitoring SD related activities The progress reports are based on indicator reporting, which reports based on the various SD sectors SD Expert Group conducts the implementation and progress assessments NSDS implementation reports are envisioned to be drafted biannually
Lithuania has renewed its NSDS two times. The latest version dates from 2011 and contains only minor corrections to the previous strategy. Also insights from the Lithuania’s progress strategy “Lithuania 2030”, published 2012, have been included. Although it does not directly refer to sustainable development as such, it is believed to be important for understanding the national commitment to sustainability, especially from an implementation perspective.
35
2.2.7 NORWAY The Norwegian NSDS has a particular strong emphasis on international activities, especially pursuing global commitments that would enable and facilitate the work on SD. Norway has decided to play a leading role in the efforts towards achieving SD on a global scale, and stresses the importance of peace and human rights. The overriding objective of the NSDS is ‘for Norway and the international communities to make development ecologically, economically and socially sustainable28’. The basis for continued utilization of nature and natural resources must be maintained. Within these constraints Norway will promote a stable and healthy economic development leading to a society with a high quality of life. It intends to help the poor people of the world to achieve material welfare and a higher quality of life. The human dimension - human welfare - is important in the Norwegian SD sphere. Capital is viewed in a wide sense, meaning that it should be interlinked with the human dimension as educational attainment and know-how, and with the preservation of natural capital. In conjunction with Norway’s international focus, Norway pursues also SD efforts in multiple national domains. SD should be pursued as an integrated approach that considers economic, social and environmental issues across sectors and in several decision-making levels. SD should be integrated into all policy areas. The Norwegian Government views it important to link SD efforts to central and political processes and economic policy documents, where many of most important priorities are determined29. The various Norwegian SD focal areas stretch across a number of interrelated national sectors, although one area in particular is accentuated: Norway’s long term goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. SD related activities are closely anchored and intertwined with the Norwegian Climate Policy30. SD activities are promoted within the field of climate change, especially in terms of emissions reduction via energy efficiency measures and by promoting the use of renewable sources. Another SD area of interest is activities related to sustainable consumption and production, and especially the need to change patterns in the field of housing, food, and transport. SD activities are also pursued in the socioeconomic domain, e.g. by measures that promote economic growth, or address population trends, income equality, and poverty reduction. Also activities related to maintaining the natural resources are emphasized, via the precautionary principle, and by efforts that relate to green energy development and environmentally sound agriculture principles. Many of the aforementioned national focal areas and related activities are underpinned and linked to the overall Norwegian SD international ambitions and commitments. SD related activities are considered a societal affair in Norway, implying that not only the public sphere, involving the entire Government and the various tiers of public governance, need to be part of the activities, but also NGOs, schools, businesses and the general public should be engaged and participate. The Ministry of Finance has, together with the Ministry of Environment, the overall practical responsibility of the SD related activities. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Prime Minister are also explicitly involved, whereas other Ministries are implicitly involved as they are required to take note of the SD principles when updating strategies that fall within their sphere of activities. The broad public has also been engaged in SD activities via broad-based public consultations, when the NSDS has been reviewed and the accompanied action plan has been created. Reflective of SD stakeholder engagement, implementation procedures are coordinated by a number of Ministry representatives, of which the representatives of Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Norwegian SD Action Plan 2004: http://www.rrcap.ait.asia/nsds/pub/nat_action.pdf Ibid. 30 Norwegian Climate Policy, white paper: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/aa70cfe177d2433192570893d72b117a/engb/pdfs/stm201120120021000en_pdfs.pdf 28 29
36
Environment play a central role. Horizontal efforts are interlinked across various Ministerial activities, and horizontal activities are promoted via capacity development. The vertical interactions, in terms of advancing implementation across the various tiers of governance are considered an absolute necessity. As a result there are a number of programs aiming at building SD capacity on the local level via various municipal networks. These networks cover areas, such as climate change, land use policy, sustainable production and consumption. The NSDS emphasise that decisions concerning SD activities should be made as close as possible to the actors who are affected by them. As a result, the NSDS regularly underline the role local authorities have, especially considering that local authorities have the responsibility of a number of environment related matters. The intent of the Government is to strengthen local democracy and reduce state control through detailed rules in order facilitate and promote SD activities on a local level31. The involvement of other stakeholders is also accentuated in SD implementing procedures, both in terms of pursuing the international SD ambitions, e.g. cooperating with affiliated international institutions, and in terms of national activity, e.g. by engaging with the public, the business sector and voluntary organisations. SD activities and expected SD progress are monitored on a frequent basis in Norway. Each affiliated Ministry is responsible for producing follow-up reports. The basis for these progress reports are a set of indictors. The indicators, which are developed by Statistics Norway, are subject to updates biannually. Progress reports constitute the basis for the revision the NSDS along with SD related policies. The NSDS has also been the subject of a peer reviewed process.
31
Norway’s Action Plan for Sustainable Development, 2004, p. 42
37
Table 2.8. Governance for sustainable development – Norway32 Understanding Concrete goals, Stakeholders Implementation of sustainable targets, and engaged in structures development actions sustainable development The Norwegian view of SD has a particular strong international scope, with an emphasis on pursuing SD in a global setting, especially in the fields of peace and human rights SD should in general be pursued by underlying the necessity for an integrated approach, which considers economic, social and environmental issues across sectors and decision-making levels SD should be integrated into all policy areas. SD efforts should be linked to central and political processes and economic policy documents, where many of most important priorities are determined Equitable distribution in pursuing economic growth and increase human welfare Embrace social responsibility, precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle
32The
Norway pursues SD efforts in multiple domains, effective both in an international and a national setting Reflective of this, key SD focal areas are international cooperation that promote SD in general and combats poverty Another key focal area is climate change and emissions policy, with a particular focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, longrange air pollution Area of interest include also sustainable economic and social development Maintaining natural resources via the precautionary principle is also of interest, as is activities that take the biodiversity and cultural heritage into account
The Ministry of Finance has together with the Ministry of Environment the overall practical responsibility of the SD related activities The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Develop-ment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Prime Minister are also involved Other Ministries are implicitly involved as they required to take note of the SD principles when updating strategies that fall within their sphere of activities The broad public has also been engaged in SD activities via broadbased public consultations, when the NSDS has been reviewed and the accompanied action plan has been created The public consultation processes included participation by ordinary citizens, various experts, NGOs, and the business sector
Horizontal actions: Implementation procedures are coordinated by a number of Ministries, of which the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environ-ment play a central role. Horizontal efforts are interlinked across various Ministerial activities, and horizontal activities are promoted via capacity development Vertical actions: Top down: Number of programs aiming at building SD capacity on the local level via various municipal networks. Bottom-up Local authorities role is underlined in terms of SD related activities given their mandatory functions in a number of environment related matters Other stakeholders are also accentuated in implementing procedures, e.g. cooperating with international institutions, and engaging with the public and the business sector
Monitoring tools
Monitoring: Frequent monitoring based on indicator assessments Indicators measure progress towards goals and are basis for predicting future development Annual reports on SD, and strategy reviews every 4 years Ministries have a responsibility to produce follow up papers The NSDS has been the subject of a peer review process
NSDS was first published in 2002 has been reviewed in 2008 and in 2011. The latest version of the strategy is not available in English. Also, considering that the 2008 Norway’s Strategy for Sustainable Development has been unavailable to access online, the information amassed for this study comprise of information collected from the 2008 strategy, when it has been accessible, and additional information has been taken from the 2004 Norway’s Action Plan for Sustainable Development.
38
2.2.8 POLAND As been noted throughout this document, the NSDSs produced by the various Baltic Sea states have been developed in different years, and most have been regularly updated during the years. Poland is atypical in this sense. Poland adopted its NSDS in 2000. This strategy has now expired. Instead, the notion of SD and SD related policies in Poland constitute currently a part of the National Development Strategy (NDS), which is the guiding policy document for defining the direction of the future development of the country. As a result, the notion of SD is not understood as an independent notion in Poland, with its dedicated institutional frameworks, but rather is perceived as an integrated part of the national general development policies and plans. The vision of the NDS is to ensure a stable and sustainable development, with a general goal of a high level of quality of life, a strong and competitive economy, and an improvement of social cohesion as well as a reduction of territorial inequality. Poland has built a comprehensive system of management with regard to its long-term national development, and has adopted a total of nine integrated strategies. Each strategy is coordinated by relevant Ministries and includes for example the focal areas of human and social capital development, transport development, energy safety and environment, regional development and sustainable development of rural areas. The Government pursues sustainable development policy in the NDS through the integration of activities in the economic, social and environmental spheres in the interests of future generations33. SD has been accepted as a Constitutional Principle of the Republic of Poland and has been defined in the Law on Environmental Protection as ‘such socio-economic development, in which the process of integrating political, economic and social actions occurs, taking into account preservation of the equilibrium of nature and stability of basic natural processes, to guarantee the possibility of fulfilling basic needs of societies or citizens not only of the present generation, but for future generations as well’.34 The Polish general SD goals are pursued in multiple interlinked domains. The main ambition of the SD goals is that they are expected to underpin the national development. There is no institutional SD framework per se for pursing these goals, with regard to general coordination and implementation efforts. Within the NDS economic sector, SD goals are set out e.g. in the areas of employment and transport, whilst within the NDS social sector e.g. in the educational, public and health safety areas, in social integration, the promotion of sustainable consumption patterns and in the NDS environmental sector, e.g. in areas linked to waste management, climate change, energy, air protection, land use and biodiversity. SD is also pursued in the institutional and political sphere, in terms of promoting citizen activeness via transparency and participation, and working towards policy coherence and general effectiveness. Although there are no a general systematic institutional SD frameworks in place, the lead entities in terms of SD related activities are the Council of Ministers, and the regional and local governments35. Reflective of the absence of an instructional SD framework there are no explicit general and coordinated implementation plans. Instead, the mechanisms of horizontal SD interaction are interlinked with the general NDP, and this process is facilitated by an advisory body to the Prime Minister – the Coordination Committee for Development Policy, headed by the minister responsible for regional development. The Minister of Environment has established the National Council of Environmental Protection, with the task of providing suggestions in terms of SD, e.g. dealing with environmental protection. The Ministry of the Environment is active with regard to climate change mitigation and waste treatment. However, in terms of SD vertical implementation interaction, there is no systematic system in place, but there is coordination between the national and sub-national levels, based in the provisions set out
Central Statistical Office, Statistical office in Katowice, Sustainable Development Indicators for Poland, 2011, p. 12 Ibid., p. 4 35 Ibid. 33 34
39
in law. The regions need to consider national environmental policy when developing environmental plans, outlining their goals and principles. Currently the monitoring of SD related activities in Poland transpires through the procedures in place for monitoring NDS activities. Since the NDS documents define the aims and directions for SD, these documents also sets the basis for choosing relevant monitoring indicators. The latest monitoring report originates from 2011, based on a range of indicators, covering the national development domains where SD as a principle is mentioned. There is no one strategic document which would set institutional/legal/monitoring framework for sustainable development. However, the notion of SD underpins the national development policy. The Act on principles of development policy defines development policy as a set of interrelated activities undertaken and implemented in order to ensure the sustainable development of the country, socioeconomic, regional and spatial cohesion, improvement of the economy competitiveness and creation of new jobs on a national, regional or local level. In recent years the Polish government launched a series of initiatives covering strategic programming and the creation of a comprehensive management development plan. The frame of the new order constitutes the Long-Term National Development Strategy (until 2030.) and the National Spatial Development Concept (also until 2030). This is complemented by the Medium-term National Development Strategy (2020) and the nine horizontal strategies (until 2020.). The nine strategies contribute to the achievement of the development goals set in NDS 2020. They are as follows: Strategy for Innovation and Efficiency of the Economy, Human Capital Development Strategy, Transport Development Strategy, Strategy for Energy Security and the Environment, Efficient State Strategy, Social Capital Development Strategy, National Strategy of Regional Development 20102020. Regions, cities, rural areas, Strategy for Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, Agriculture and Fisheries, Strategy for Development of the National Security System. In general, the development policy is led by the Council of Ministers and regional and local governments. In order to ensure effective coordination of development polices the Coordination Committee for Development Policy was established. Each Minster is responsible for implementation of development polices in the scope of their competences. Moreover, the strategic documents aim at involving in development processes not only public entities but also civil society and the economic sector.
40
Table 2.9. Governance for sustainable development – Poland36 Understanding Concrete goals, Stakeholders Implementation of sustainable targets, and engaged in structures development actions sustainable development Sustainable development is viewed as a part of the National Development Strategy The general long-term aim of this Strategy is a quality of life, measured by increase in GDP per capita, improvement of social cohesion and reduction of territorial inequality as well as strong and competitive economy. Within the NDS, SD is defined as a principle in a traditional format, interlinking the economic, social and environmental sectors The notion of SD emerges as a principle in many strategic NDS documents, encompassing the aforementioned sectors as well as linking into the political and institutional areas
SD goals are pursued in four different but interdependent national development domains: Within the social domain: goals are e.g. listed as pursuing sustainable consumption patterns, dealing with demographic changes and access to the labour market In the economic domain: generating effective economic development, e.g. in areas of transport and employment In the environmental domain: to protect and rationally shape the natural environment, and protect sea ecosystems and fresh water resources SD is also pursued in the matters involving institutional and political challenges, e.g. promoting transparency and good governance
SD engagement transpires as a part of the national development narrative
Although there is not as such an actual institutional SD framework, the lead entities in terms of SD related activities are the Council of Ministers, and the regional and local governments. In order to coordinate development polices an advisory body to the Prime Minister – the Coordination Committee for Development Policy was established.
Horizontal action There are no explicit coordinated SD implementation plans in place. Implementation activities are closely intertwined with the general national development strategy. The Ministry of the Environment has established a National Council of Environmental Protection, with the task of providing suggestions in terms of SD, e.g. environmental protection.
Monitoring tools
Monitoring SD monitoring transpires as a part of the NDS related activities Monitoring based on indicator assessments Several national development strategic documents define the aims and directions for SD, these documents are also the basis for choosing relevant monitoring indicators
The Ministry of the Environment is also active with regard to climate change mitigation and waste treatment. Vertical action Regional and local governments must develop environmental plans coherent with the national environmental policy.
36The NSDS was adopted in 2000 (only available in Polish), but no new strategy has been produced. In this study, the report Sustainable Development Indicators for Poland published in 2011 has been taken into account. This report presents and describes indicators, but also offers a picture of SD in Poland.
41
2.2.9 RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Russian Federation has never had a NSDS in place. Nonetheless, Russia has demonstrated an interest in systematic SD related activities. Russian SD interest appears predominately to derive from Russia being part of the United Nations, which requires its members to consider the principles of SD in national policies. In 2008, Russia adopted the concept of the Long-Term Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020. This document is considered a major policy document in reflecting how SD is generally viewed and conceptualized in Russia37. The document outlines that SD is perceived as ‘sustainable well-being of Russian citizens, national security, dynamic development of the economy, and strengthening the position of Russia in the world community’38. In Russia, the SD principles are not applied as an independent notion, guiding other policies across a number of societally important fields. Instead, the SD principles are affiliated and applied as a part of the general national development discourse, which often has a rather strong emphasis on pursuing economic growth. In Russia’s case, economic development is pursued by focusing on areas related to technological advancement and competitiveness, in order to ensuring economic modernization and innovative development. Even though the national development discourse does not accentuate environmental aspects explicitly, the national discourse acknowledges that growth should not come at any price. While the primary goal is economic growth, growth should be attained in a sustainable manner, which considers the preservation of the environment. It is the responsibility of environmental policies to seek to solve urgent problems, including quality of life assurance, long-term successful economic development, and sustainable development39. As the notion of SD is strongly interconnected with the general development policies, and do not as such have a policy sphere of their own, there are no explicit general SD targets or goals in Russia. Still, there are some areas where the SD principles are applied as a guiding notion. For example, SD principles are applied in national policies targeting climate change mitigation, which seeks to mitigate GHG and reduce disaster risks, and promote adaptation efforts related to the economy and the society. The principles of SD are also accentuated in a number of affiliated development policies. One is the national development policy on energy. Within the energy field, energy efficiency is prioritized with efforts linked to energy intensity, clean energy and diversification of energy resources. The principles of SD are also applied in efforts related to social well-being, e.g. decreasing poverty and increasing the share of people belonging to the middle class, by e.g. lowering the unemployment rate, through efforts related to health care, education and housing. Other areas include e.g. working towards achieving new patterns of consumption and production, and developing human capital. The notion of SD has been applied within the environment sphere. For example when the long-term sectorial and regional programs were drafted in Russia, considerations, especially in the environmental field, where taken to reduce harmful effects in the environment and to ensure environmental safety, e.g. by including the principles of SD in strategies related to transport, chemical use in the industry, and the energy sector.40 Reflective of the lack of a NSDS and explicit SD goals regular national SD stakeholder engagement are irregular. There is no specific political body or institution in place that has a general responsibility for neither coordinating national SD related efforts nor coordinating national implementation efforts. Nonetheless there exist some entities which have been given a responsibility to promoting SD activities in Russia. One such entity is the Institute of SD of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, which 37Report
on implementing the principles of sustainable development in the Russian Federation. Russian outlook on the new paradigm for sustainable development. Preparing for ”RIO + 20”, 2012, p. 43 38Ibid. 39 Report by the Institute of Sustainable Development of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, 2010 40Report on implementing the principles of sustainable development in the Russian Federation. Russian outlook on the new paradigm for sustainable development. Preparing for ”RIO + 20”, 2012, p. 25-26
42
is a public policy institute aimed to identify pathways in order to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. The purpose of the Institute is to develop the fundaments of natural environmental policy and related SD polices. It has a focus on consolidating the efforts of the expert community in Russia, promoting the SD principles, assisting to develop and implement Governmental SD policies, encourage civil engagement as well as establishing SD institutes on a regional level in Russia. The Institute was established in 2009 under the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation. It comprises of public and private organisations, academic institutions and Governmental departments. The Russian civil society demonstrates on the contrary a broad, multifaceted and vivid SD stakeholder engagement. There is a wealth of various SD activities by mostly NGO in the social and environmental field. The Interagency Working Group of Experts on Russia’s participation in the UN Conferences on Sustainable Development reported the existence of more than 80.000 NGOs involved in work towards SD. Whilst there are as such no systematic implementation structures for explicit SD activities, SD related activities are implemented as a part of national development policy activities. SD related implementation efforts implemented under the umbrella of the national development activities most often occur within the energy sector, e.g. in the form of regulations addressing the topic of energy savings. Many regions in Russia have adopted regional energy efficiency programs, and federal authorities have approved a number of sectorial energy efficiency programmes. There are also a number of public-private partnerships in place with a view to implement environmental programs, and promote efforts that seek to raise public awareness on the environmental policy41. Universities and secondary schools are also carrying out relevant education, with the view in contributing to raising awareness. The civil society is also engaged in implementation activities, e.g. through a Social Forum, which convenes besides NGOs representing the civil society, also business interests and the science community. They aspire amongst others to formulate and implement proposals to enhance energy efficiency, innovations on SD, and improvement of international cooperation.42 However, there is in general no monitoring procedure in place to assess SD related activities, explicitly or implicitly.
Report on implementing the principles of sustainable development in the Russian Federation. Russian outlook on the new paradigm for sustainable development. Preparing for ”RIO + 20”, 2012, p. 25 42 Report by the Institute of Sustainable Development of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, 2010, p. 68 41
43
Table 2.10. Governance for sustainable development – Russia43 Understanding Concrete goals, Stakeholders Implementation of sustainable targets, and engaged in structures development actions sustainable development The notion of SD is generally perceived as a part of the general national development discourse The national development discourse in turn views SD as a mean to ensure the well-being of Russian citizens, enhancing the national security, promoting a dynamic development of the economy, and strengthening the position of Russia in the world community The principles of SD are mostly applied as a part of the national socioeconomic development discourse The notion of SD is also considered as mean to reduce harmful effects on the environment and to ensuring environmental safety
As the principles of SD do not as such have a policy sphere of their own, there are no explicit general SD targets or goals in Russia Instead SD principles are generally interconnected with the national development policies SD principles are pursued in a number of national development policies, e.g. in the field of improving energy efficiency SD principles are also applied in national policies targeting climate change mitigation, via mitigating GHG
Reflective of the lack of a NSDS and given that the principles of SD is predominately interwoven with the national development discourse, regular national SD stakeholder engagement is irregular There are no specific political bodies in place that have a responsibility for neither coordinating national SD related efforts nor coordinating national implementation efforts However, the Institute of SD of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, works on SD initiatives on a national level, with a view to unite various stakeholder efforts A multitude of subnational SD level initiatives, mostly work by a variety of NGOs, reported that more than 80.000 NGOs participate in SD related activities, mostly in the social and environmental sphere
Horizontal action: There are no systematic implementation structures for SD activities, instead SD related activities are implemented as a part of national develop-ment activities SD related implementation efforts implemented under the umbrella of the national development activities most often occur within the energy sector, e.g. in the form of regulations addressing the topic of energy savings Vertical action: There are a number of public-private partnerships in place with the view to implement environmental programs, and promote efforts that seek to raise public awareness on the environmental policy The civil society is engaged in implementation activities, e.g. though a Social Forum, they seek e.g. to implement proposals to enhance energy efficiency
Monitoring tools
Monitoring: There are in general no monitoring procedures in place to assess SD related activities, explicitly nor implicitly. There are no SD indicator in place, on which to base monitoring activities
The Russian Federation does not have a NSDS. For the purposes of this report, two documents have been taken into account: the 2010 report by the Institute of Sustainable Development of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, and the 2012 Report on implementing the principles of sustainable development in the Russian Federation. Russian outlook on the new paradigm for sustainable development. Preparing for”RIO + 20”, prepared by the Interagency Working Group of Experts on Russia’s participation in the UN Conference on Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1043natrepeng.pdf 43
44
2.2.10 SWEDEN In Sweden SD is perceived in a classical format; SD should encompass all layers of society, and SD related activities should extend across all economic, social and environmental policy areas. Sweden promotes a long-term SD vision, which besides encompassing and crossing affiliated national policy areas, also extends to the international setting, via being proactive through EU and UN related SD matters. Sweden’s long-term general policy objective of the vision of a sustainable society is ‘solidarity and justice in every country, among countries and among generations’44. SD related efforts should be an overall objective of Governmental policy, implying that all political decisions must take into consideration the long term economic, social and environmental consequences. Sweden has set four tangible goals related to SD. The first is to build sustainable communities, by e.g. considering the local and regional differences and activities linked to the transport, communication and infrastructure sectors. The second relates to encouraging good health on equal terms, e.g. by promoting a healthy active lifestyle, and by considering the public health, both in general, but also via health measures taken at workplaces. The third goal is to meet the demographic challenge, via a multitude of policy efforts in sectors such as employment, elderly, child and youth and via the social insurance system. The final goal is to encourage sustainable growth by e.g. energy policy measures, trade and international activities, and encouraging innovation measures. Whilst the aforementioned goals are mostly of socioeconomic nature, the NSDS does emphasize a number of environmental goals, in order to meet three environmental challenges that are deemed as particular important, i.e. the adaptation of energy and transport system, the creation of non-toxic environment and efficient recycling and proper stewardship of natural resources. For example, climate change is mentioned as one of the greatest challenges of our times, as ‘no other environmental issue so thoroughly encompasses all levels of society’.45 Within the Swedish SD stakeholder engagement and interaction sphere, there have been a number of central actors during the last decade, each serving a specific purpose and with different roles. The latest NSDS was elaborated by four working groups, with participation from different Ministries and various Government authorities and including regional and municipal county councils. Also, individual citizens were invited to contribute with their views. In the midst of the preparation of the latest NSDS, in 2005, the Government established a Council for SD, chaired by the Prime Minister and vice chaired by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment, and was composed by members representing national ministries and included a representative of sub-national levels. The Council worked from 2005 to 2007, and was replaced from 2007 to 2009 by the Commission on Sustainable Development. The Commission included representatives from the business sector, NGOs and the research community. The NSDS foresees that all governmental authorities are involved in the implementation process, together with sub-national actors such as county administrative boards and local authorities, although the Ministry of Environment and Energy along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs constitutes the coordinating entities. The NSDS accentuates throughout the document in particular the importance of horizontal inter-sectorial approaches through cooperation, both when preparing the NSDS, but also when implementing SD activities. Other prerequisites for enabling successful implementation processes are that various stakeholders take ownership of the processes via demonstrating appropriate leadership, and through facilitating participatory approaches. Other tools used for facilitating implementation efforts are impact assessments, via economic instruments and tax policies, sustainable public procurement, and raising awareness via e.g. education. SD activities along with the NSDS are scheduled to be monitored on a regular basis, and these reports are expected to facilitate the discussions around progress. Monitoring transpires by the use of 44 45
Swedish Strategy for Sustainable Development 2006, p.9 Ibid., p. 17
45
indicators, developed by Statistics Sweden. Regular follow-up is forecasted in the NSDS, together with a Governmental halfway plan.
Table 2.11. Governance for sustainable development – Sweden46 Understanding of sustainable development
Concrete goals, targets, and actions
Stakeholders engaged in sustainable development
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
SD is perceived in a classical format, i.e. SD activities should encompass all layers of society, and SD related activities should extend across all economic, social and environmental policy areas In order to achieve the long-term vison of SD an inter-sectorial approach is promoted Sweden’s basic SD assumption is that members of one generation should not conduct their lives in a way that prevents their children of future generations from enjoying a decent standard of living SD is an approach that must actively inform and shape all policy areas
The strategy lists four tangible goals: Building sustainable communities, e.g. by considering local and regional differences and activities linked to the transport, communication and infrastructure sector Encouraging good health on equal terms, by promoting a healthy active lifestyle, and by considering the public health, both in general, Meeting the demographic challenge, e.g. via policy efforts in sectors such as employment, elderly, child and youth Encouraging sustainable growth, e.g. via energy policy measures, trade and international activeties, and encouraging innovation measures A set of environ-mental goals are also listed, e.g. meeting the climate change challenge
There has been a multitude of actors engaged in SD, representing all tiers of governance, and also the private and business sector, NGOs, and research community The Ministry of Environment and Energy along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs constitute currently the entities coordinating both stakeholder engagement and implementation activities Sweden has also promoted societal engagement via public participation processes
Horizontal action: A holistic and intersectorial approach is considered important The Ministry of Environment and Energy along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are pivotal in horizontal implementation, due to their role as coordinators Vertical actions: Top down The Government identifies agencies whose activities are relevant to a SD effort, clarifies SD responsibilities and guides agencies in the effort to attain policy objectives Bottom up Participatory approaches and democratic processes are considered fundamental prerequisites to work with SD, and bottom up methods and structures have been developed by local authorities
Monitoring: Monitored through indicators (developed by the Statistics Swedish), which provide basis for progress reports and discussions. Regular follow-up is forecast in the NSDS, together with a Governmental halfway plan.
The Swedish NSDS was first published in 1994 and reviewed in 2004. The last version of the strategy, Strategic Challenges – A further elaboration of the Swedish Strategy for Sustainable Development, was updated in 2006.
46
46
2.3 SD national governance narratives The BSR SD national governance narratives, reviewed in the previous sector, are intended to serve as platforms on which SD capacity can be developed on national levels in the BSR. These narratives will later be analysed below to see if a more coherent macro-regional SD activity can be seen whereby the Baltic Sea States can respond more coherently to the implementation of the SDGs. What emerges from the various national SD narratives is not a shared common understanding of the notion per se as expected by the plurality of societies. Still some common traits are visible. The social and the environmental domains constitute an imperative part of the SD notion; however these domains and related concerns are often viewed in relation to the economies of the countries. Though the social, environmental and the economic spheres comprise the SD pillars on a national level in the BSR, these three spheres are not viewed on equal terms. Instead activities in the social and environmental spheres must adhere to the limits set by economic boundaries. As a synthesis inclusive economic growth including social and environmental concerns is viewed as pivotal and what enables activities in other societal spheres.
Figure 2.1. SD domains viewed from a national perspective in the BSR.
Social sphere
Economic development
Environmenta l sphere
The national narratives include a diversity of traits of the notion of SD. This diversity can in turn be clustered broadly into three general groups, and following this the Baltic Sea States can be divided into three groups. It is important to mention, however, that the three general SD traits are often interconnected, and that the groups are put together rather loosely.
There is no common view on SD in Baltic Sea region. Instead we find three groups which between themselves share similar views of SD.
47
The Nordic countries and Germany are characterized by the view that SD principles and related activities are not only pursued within national borders, but are also driven by international or global commitments, to aid or facilitate developing countries to pursue sustainable development. SD is seen as a societal commitment, where SD engaged actors representing entire society, not only governmental or public actors, take part. SD activities are cross-sectorial and integrated. SD is seen as a normative concept and refer to a development towards intergenerational equity.
Figure 2.2. National views on SD in the BSR.
First general SD trait
Second general SD trait
Third general SD trait
SD principles are not only pursued within national borders, but they are also driven by international or global commitments
SD principles are used to pursue national capacity building, in terms of developing the socio-economic or cultural space
SD principles are not viewed as independent guiding principles on which policies related to future development are based upon
Nordic countries and Germany
Baltic countries and Poland
Russia
The three Baltic States make up a second group in which the principles of SD are rather utilized to pursue national capacity building, mostly in the socio-economic and cultural spheres. The overall goal is to strengthen social and cultural capital by developing and preserving traditional values, and enhancing the human capital by becoming a knowledge-based society. The short-term ambition is economic growth and a development on-par with other EU countries, which enables the societies to be globally competitive. Poland focuses on the development of the energy sector as a means to pursue national goals especially inclusive economic growth. Russia does not see the principles of SD as independent guiding principles for future development, and have no institutional coordinated SD framework in place. There is no anchoring of SD principles, or institutional coordinated SD framework in place. The SD principles are referred to in a few areas, and do not steer the overall national development discourses. The NSDSs seldom consider activities for the entire macro-region. If the BSR is acknowledged, it is often in relation to environmental challenges or concerns, e.g. to improve the state of the Baltic Sea. The NSDS are primarily geared to serve national interest. Some of them reflect international and global SD commitments. There are several reasons for this. One important is that the BSR level is not a
48
jurisdiction that they are obligated or expected to follow, at least not through national SD policies. Another explanation may be that they are already engaged on a BSR level with macro-regional intergovernmental networks, such as CBSS Baltic 21, or the Nordic Council of Ministries, or the Helsinki Commission. Thirdly the Baltic Sea States may also consider that the BSR macro-regional level cooperation is an area designed for the EU and that SD related activities are implemented as a part of the EU Strategy for the BSR (EUSBSR). However, matters falling within the EUSBSR field are, in contrast to national policy activities, based on voluntary principles. This does not mean that EU related matters in the field of SD are unimportant, on the contrary. EU has had a profound effects on SD related activities in the BSR, for instance through the creation of the EUSBSR and the request that EU member states develop NSDSs.
2.4 SD national goals When identifying SD goals representative of the Baltic Sea States one particular area emerges: economic development. Economic development is then not a single unrelated goal, but rather many kinds of goals linked to a variety of sectorial objectives and policy areas. It is often seen as an enabler of inclusive growth, including social and environmental development. Economical goals are generally linked to aspirations to fundamentally transform the energy sector, either via promoting the use of energy efficiency or energy savings measures across a number of societal important fields, or by developing the field of renewable energy. Innovation is often the key word and driver that is hoped to enable these measures, in particular within the energy and climate change policy sectors. Energy and climate change are thus often perceived in the BSR SD national sphere as a fundament on which a general economic development is going to happen.
National SD goals in the BSR are often connected with aspirations which seek to fundamentally transform the energy sector, either via energy efficiency or energy savings measures, or by developing the field of renewable energy.
There are a number of reasons for why energy efficiency and energy savings constitute a key area for national SD activities in the BSR. One is that most Baltic Sea States are members of EU, and need to work for the EU targets, such as the EU 2020 strategy to combat climate change and pursue a lowcarbon economy, in which energy efficiency, energy saving and the development of the renewable energy is central. These goals cut across a number of vital policy sectors in the BSR and have often serve several ambitions. One is economic benefits by costs savings; another is that energy efficiency and renewable energy related activities constitute a mean to mitigate GHG emissions. Energy related policies and climate change polices are closely interlinked in the BSR. Mitigation of GHG emissions is also recognized as a national SD goal cutting across the BSR, either as an independent focal area, or more often as a part of energy policies. Other recurring national SD goals in the BSR often fall within sectors that enable a broad societal development. Recurring societal goals are welfare growth, wellbeing of citizens, and development of human, cultural and social capital, often via education, innovation and employment efforts. Also, preserving the natural capital emerges as an occurring goal. It most often include protection of biodiversity, achieving an ecological balance, efficient use of natural resources, and reduction of pollution in air, land and water. Preserving the natural capital is also pursued by promoting sustainable consumption and production across sectors. These goals all emphasize the cross-generational responsibility that cuts across the NSDSs.
49
The goals are complex, and therefore the National SD goals are often of cross-cutting nature, dependent upon cooperation in a number of sectors by different actors, public and sometimes also private. A holistic and integrated approach is therefore often applied that attempts to account for the diversity of interest. The long-term SD ambitions vary considerably in the Baltic Sea States, albeit some recurring features emerge. As mentioned above, one is innovation, which is hoped to facilitate SD activities in e.g. advancing energy efficiency, or in the area of public and general transport. Innovation is also applied to governmental processes, e.g. to develop public participatory approaches, or to promote transparency in governmental processes, clearly with a view to strengthen the legitimacy of governmental process, which would improve the prerequisites for implementation procedures. To reach the long-term SD goals policy coherence, ensuring that policies and policy instrument are coherent across the various tiers of government, is seen as crucial.
2.5 National SD stakeholder engagement From a global perspective, SD stakeholder engagement in the BSR is vivid and exists on a multitude of governance levels, in the public sphere as well as outside it, in civil society and in business life. However, from a strictly NSDS perspective, SD stakeholder engagement is predominantly a national level exercise.
Figure 2.3. Typical national SD stakeholder constellations in the BSR. Ministry of Environment Coordinator of activities SD center or commission Facilitates and supports MoE, also enables a broader horizontal stakeholder interaction No systematic and regular interaction with SD stakeholders at other levels
On the national level the Ministry of Environment has a key role, both as a coordinator of activities, and in revising and updating the NSDS. It is in general facilitated and supported in its work via various forms of SD centres, committees, or commissions, including affiliated ministries and quite often chaired by the Prime Minister, or other representatives of the Government. These centres also consist of members from other tiers of governance, sub-national stakeholders and representatives of academia. Their role is to aid the coordinating NSDS Ministry, but they also fulfil purposes beside that, in particular to enable a broad horizontal stakeholder interaction to facilitate policy coherence and support cross-compliance of sectorial policies. A second purpose is
50
Table 2.12. BSR SD national governance narrative Understanding Concrete goals, Stakeholders of sustainable targets, and engaged in development actions sustainable development There is no common national view of SD in BSR, instead what emerges are three national traits of the SD notion The first national SD trait is characterized by the view that SD principles are viewed as a societal commit-ment, as an on-going process, where SD is envisioned to engage various actors re-presenting the society, not only governmental or public actors, but actors at large. The second national SD trait utilizes the principles of SD to pursue national capacity building Though the long-term SD ambition is to facilitate the development of the socio-cultural space, the short-term ambition is on underlying economic growth, with a view to enable a societal development that is in line with other EU countries In the third national SD trait, the views and principles of SD are not perceived as independent guiding principles. Instead the SD principles are integrated with the national general development discourse
A cross-cutting goal unifying the Baltic Sea states in terms of SD related activities is the focal area of eco-nomic development Economic develop-ment does not emerge as a single unrelated goal, but rather as intercon-nected and interde-pendent goals which are linked to a variety of sectorial goals and policy areas These goals are often viewed in BSR SD sphere as enablers of inclusive growth, which is attentive of social and environ-mental concerns The goals are often operationalized in terms of aspirations which aim to basically transform the energy sector, either via energy efficiency or by developing the field of renewable energy These goals are often pursued within the energy and climate change policy sectors Energy and climate change related policy goals are often perceived in the BSR SD national sphere as a fundament on which a general economic development is envisaged to deliver future growth
From a global perspective, SD stakeholder engagement in the BSR is vivid and transpires on the multitude of governance levels comprising the BSR multi-level governance framework, both within the public sphere as well as outside it However NSDSs in the BSR do not succeed in facilitating regular SD stake-holder engagement activities, as the outreach of NSDSs in terms of regular SD stakeholder dialogues do not generally reach beyond the national level In terms of NSDS stakeholder engagement, the Ministry of Environment oftentimes emerges as a key stakeholder, both in its role as a coordinator of actual activities, but also whilst NSDS are revised and updated. The Ministry of Environment is generally facilitated and supported either by e.g. a SD center or committee, which often is made up of representatives of other affiliated Ministries
Implementation structures
Monitoring tools
Characterizing for the national implementation structures in the BSR are that they are not designed to encompass the full complex nature of SD related activities Horizontal national level implementation activity is often coordinated by a SD committee, with the view to enable crosssectorial coordination among relevant Ministries With regard to vertical SD implementation structures in the BSR two different pathways emerge Characteristic for the first vertical implementation corridor is its top-down nature, comprising of active-ties steered by the mandatory obligations, which are based on the provisions set out in law The second vertical implementation pathway is distin-guished by its ad-hoc nature and based on bottom-up initiatives and often judged by its inability to force implementation action, instead implementation is dependent upon voluntary activities by local authorities
National SD related activities in the BSR are monitored regularly, often by utilizing indicator assessments, which in turn are used as a basis to compile various SD related progress reports The Baltic Sea states generally monitor SD activities by following the same procedures Usually SD indicators are developed by an affiliated Govern-mental entity, often the entity in charge of national statistics Affiliated EU or UN indicators are often considered whilst national SD indicators are developed or updated There are no indicators that are directly developed with a focus on the BSR per se, i.e. that would adhere to the geographical boundaries of the region However, the Nordic countries have developed within the Nordic cooperation framework a set of SD indicators, with the view to monitor long-term progress within a number of specified relevant areas
National SD Strategies in the BSR do not succeed in facilitating regular societal SD stakeholder engagement, as the outreach of NSDSs in to promote dialogue and cooperation do not generally reach beyond the national level.
to engage with the broader public by facilitating and arranging public participation processes while revising and updating the NSDS. Regular national SD vertical stakeholder interaction is scarce in the BSR, though vertical national stakeholder interaction to some extent is organised by the various SD centres. Sub-national
51
stakeholders, in particular local authorities, play an important part in implementing SD related activities. Most NSDS in the BSR recognize also this shortcoming and emphasize the need for further and better involvement of sub-national levels in NSDS, improved communication and collaboration. Despite that NSDSs constitute the guiding policy documents in terms of planned national SD policy activity and policy implementation, the NSDSs outreach in terms of regular SD stakeholder dialogue do not generally reach beyond the national level. Even on a national level, crosscutting stakeholder engagement appears to be limited to a few policy sectors, such as energy, sustainable consumption and production, employment, transport, education and partially also climate change. NSDSs in the BSR do generally emphasise the need of improved cooperation and involvement of different types of stakeholders, representing different tiers of national governance, but also international stakeholders. The improved stakeholder engagement is not restricted to only include the public sphere, but includes also NGOs and civil society across the region, especially with a view to build SD capacity.
2.6 SD implementation structures In general the national SD implementation structures in the BSR do not cover the full complex nature of SD related activities. These require interaction and cooperation across governance levels and fields and interaction on a both horizontal level and vertical levels. Instead what emerge are national horizontal structures bound by sectorial and planning principles, and though the vertical implementation structures, characterized by the provisions set out in law, provides effective implementation structures, do not cover the full spectrum of needed SD activities. The vertical implementation pathway complements to some extent this shortfall, although it is anything but rigorous and resolute, as it is based on voluntary commitment and implementation by various stakeholders. Despite the very different character of the states in the BSR some common SD implementation national structures exist both on horizontal and vertical levels. One of these is that many Baltic Sea States have established a SD centre, a committee, or a commission to assist the Ministry of charge of implementation, as a response to the systems nature of SD. In these centres a systematic dialogue can take place, and cooperation between various Ministries and affiliated government agencies can be established. Many horizontal national SD implementation efforts are parts of sectorial planning. Some actions are carried out in cooperation between networking programs, partnerships or projects and actors, different policy sectors and authorities and also civil society or business. Their overall purpose is often to launch activities which facilitate policy development. Although pro-active and effective, the drawback is that these programs most often are temporary and not institutionally anchored. Two vertical SD implementation structures emerge. The first is top-down, steered by national obligations set out in law carried out by government with affiliated ministries and agencies and regional or local authorities. Regional or local authorities are in these actions bound by a range of mandatory duties generally prescribed in detail, mostly related to land use planning, e.g. long-term planning of building or general infrastructure. The second vertical pathway is mostly based on ad hoc activities and bottom-up initiatives in cooperation between stakeholders in certain policy areas, such as the environment. These action do not necessarily include national level participation, although the national level does often fulfil a role, e.g. by providing financing. Local authorities, often play a role as implementing bodies, and macro-level stakeholders often enable local authority interest. Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC) and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) are active stakeholders in this field. For financing EU emerges as the most influential. The EU has a range funding schemes addressed to especially implement SD related activities. Because SD efforts are implemented by ad-hoc
52
features, the knowledge pool created by these activities is not often in the public sphere, but rather in external stakeholder organizations, which not always reach the national levels in charge of updating and revising NSDSs.
Figure 2.4. BSR SD implementation structures.
Coordinators of horizontal national implementation: Ministry of Environment & Center for SD
Top-down steered vertical implementation
Bottom-up steered vertical implementation
Steered by the mandatory duties prescribed by law, actors are public stakeholders
Steered by voluntary ad-hoc engagements by governance actors at macro-regional level and local level
The national SD implementation structures in the BSR are not designed to successfully encompass the full complex nature of SD related activities
2.7 National SD monitoring The Baltic Sea States generally monitor national SD related activities by following the same overall procedures. The basis of the monitoring is a set of indicators. Usually the indicators are developed by a Governmental authority, often the national statistics office. Normally the acquisition and updating of data for the national statistics is coordinated with collecting data for the EU or the UN. In this way to indicators become coherent and suitable to assess whether countries adhere to agreed international SD targets. While there are no indicators that are directly developed with a focus on the BSR per se, the Nordic countries have as part of the Nordic cooperation developed a set of SD indicators to monitor long-term progress in specified areas.
National SD related activities in the BSR are monitored regularly, often by utilizing indicator assessments, which in turn are used as a basis to compile various SD related progress reports
53
The national indicators often consists of a small number of headline indicators and a larger number of indicators that are designed to measure progress in specific areas. The number of indicators applied in the monitoring of national SD related activities varies in the BSR. The long-term trend appears to be a reduction of the overall number to improve the visibility of progress, or to limit indicator based work. The various sets of national SD indicators are used for national SD-related progress reports, which appear regularly. Their content vary. Most focus on implementation, but many are used to update and revise the NSDSs on a fairly regular basis. Some NSDS in the BSR has also been the subject of peer reviews, for example when the NSDS of one state is reviewed by another state. The frequency of which some NSDS are updated in the BSR is encouraging, especially considering that the EU SD Strategy has not been the subject of revised since 2009.
54
3. The Baltic Sea region SD macro-regional governance narrative and the BSR civil society organisations 3.1 Macro-regional governance and relevant SD stakeholders The challenges the BSR is facing, whether it concerns the state of the Baltic Sea, or land based activities, are shared macro-regional challenges, which require macro-regional responses. Overall the macro-regional level and organisations active on this governance level, based on their particular mandates, work for a better Baltic Sea region. The macro-regional entities or pan-Baltic networks do not per se participate in policy processes in the BSR, though some of them provide policy recommendations to relevant national authorities. These, however, are not by law requested to follow these recommendations. Still, the macro-regional level constitutes a vital governance level in the region. Pan-Baltic networks contribute actively in developing capacity and awareness in the region and they represent a big part of the knowledge pool in the region, and often provide platforms for various stakeholders to develop actions across the region. The pan-Baltic networks often have a rather specific SD focus based on their special SD mandate. In table 3.1 five relevant macro-regional SD bodies and their key SD features are listed. The list includes three inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), and the European Union (EU), the Helsinki Commission, which is a governing body of a Convention, and the Union of the Baltic Cities, which is a voluntary network of more than 100 local authorities in the wider BSR. The EU is here seen as a macro-regional entity. EU has emerged as an essential part of the BSR in particular in connection with the launch of the Strategy for the BSR, the EUSBSR. The EUSBSR is made to provide a platform for enabling coherent activities across the region, to reinforce cooperation in the region to face common challenges by working together and promoting a more balanced development in the BSR.
55
Table 3.1. Relevant macro-regional SD stakeholders (in alphabetical order). Macroregional entity
Short background
SD relevance
SD focus
Methods for SD implementation
CBSS (Council of the Baltic Sea States )
Political forum for regional inter-governmental cooperation. Members of the Council are the 11 states of the Baltic Sea region and the European Commission. An Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, Baltic 21, was established in 1996 by the Prime Ministers of the BSR countries and the European Commission with the aim to support implementation the Rio Declaration and the global Agenda 21, adopted in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development, UNCED. Politic–economic union of the 28 member states in Europe
Contribute towards advancing SD in the BSR by coordinating goals and activities, and by serving as a forum for cooperation across borders and between stakeholder groups. This includes enhanced capacity building for SD
Climate change, Sustainable urban and rural development, Sustainable consumption and production, Innovation and education for SD. The CBSS Baltic 21 responsible for CBSS SD activity, is also Horizontal Action leader for ‘Climate’ for the EUSBSR
CBSS Expert Group on Sustainable Development – Baltic 21 is coordinating he SD activities. Knowledge exchange by sharing sustainable practices. Providing policy recommendations. Provide a platform for stake-holders to seek out new partnerships, while strengthen those already in existence.
Developed an overarching strategy for the region, the EUSBSR. The strategy aim at reinforcing cooperation in BSR in order to face common challenges by working together and promoting a more balanced development in the area. To protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation.
Save the sea, Connect the region, Increase prosperity
Different stakeholders participate in the implementation of the EUSBSR. The activities of the focal point are implemented by policy area coordinators and horizontal action coordinators. Implementation transpires e.g. via flagship projects
A healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities. Focus on areas in which the Nordic countries have common interests and challenges. These areas include; the Nordic welfare model, viable ecosystems, changing climate, sustainable use of the earth’s resources, and education, research and innovation Focus on processes that raise SD awareness and commitment, enhances local SD management, including managing natural and energy resources, and promoting quality of live and equity
Developing common environmental objectives and actions, and recommendations. Providing information about the state of and trends in the marine environment
EU (European Union)
HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Helsinki Commission) NCM (Nordic Council of Ministries)
UBC (Union of the Baltic Cities)
Governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. The Contracting parties are Denmark, Estonia, EU, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden The NCM is the forum for Nordic inter-governmental cooperation
A voluntary cooperation network on a local level between local governments surrounding or close to the Baltic Sea
To develop common solutions for common challenges. Solutions that offers good potential for promoting SD, generates added value, and promotes greater knowledge and more efficient use of resources. To find efficient solutions for the SD challenges which local governments in the BSR are facing
Provides funding for project activity aligned with the NCM SD interests. Capacity and knowledge developer by the means of the various Nordic institutions and initiatives provides
Local governments participate in various projects that align with the general UBC SD focal points. Exchange of good practices and provide possibilities for exchange of personnel, organize training workshops and conferences and increase policy liaison
56
3.2 Macro-regional SD goals Each macro-regional stakeholder lists their SD goals in relation to their specific SD mandate. The focus of the EUSBSR is three interconnecting areas: (i) ‘Save the sea’, focusing on concerns related to the Baltic Sea’s vulnerability to eutrophication, pollution and over-fishing, aiming to attain ‘clear water in the sea’, ‘rich and healthy wildlife’ and ‘clean and safe shipping’; (ii) ‘Connect the region’, which aims to utilize the region’s potential in terms of competitiveness and quality of life by seeking to enable good transport conditions, reliable energy markets, connecting people in the region and better cooperation in fighting cross-border crime; and (iii) ‘Increase prosperity’, by improving the Baltic Sea States competitiveness through more cooperation on e.g. research and development, such as in IT, environmental technologies, health, and the wood and forest products industry (EUSBSR, 2015). The current Action Plan of the EUSBSR is linked to the EU 2020 Strategy and does not as such outline a specific SD mandate. The activities of the focal points are divided into specific sectors and each sector is coordinated by specifically appointed Policy Area (PA) coordinators, and Horizontal Action (HA) coordinators. The EUSBSR Action Plan (September 2015) lists a total of 13 Policy Areas and 4 Horizontal Action Areas (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). Often macro-regional entity units, or branches or divisions, function as designated PA and HA coordinators, in order to utilize the macro-regional entities networking and knowledge abilities. One such example is the CBSS Baltic 21 Unit, responsible for CBSS SD activities, which is the HA Climate coordinator. The CBSS SD Strategy 2010-2015 emphasis four areas, i.e. ‘Climate Change’, ‘Sustainable Rural and Urban Development’, ‘Sustainable Consumption and Production’ and ‘Innovation and Education for SD’ (CBSS, 2015). The objective of ‘climate change’ is that the BSR should become a low-carbon and climate resilient region by reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). With regard to ‘sustainable rural and urban development’, the objective is to achieve a region of sustainable cities and towns, in symbiosis with a vibrant rural landscape by emphasizing quality of life in both an urban and rural areas and strengthening the urbanrural linkage. ‘Sustainable consumption and production’ is pursued by promoting sustainable lifestyles and the development of green economies in order to reduce the ecological impact by the average citizen in the BSR. To promote ’Innovation and education for SD’, the BSR should become a leading region for education for SD and eco-innovations by facilitating the integration of knowledge, skills and competencies for SD into education for lifelong learning (CBSS, 2015). HELCOM’s general objective is to achieve a healthy environment for the Baltic Sea. For this HELCOM has developed the Baltic Sea Action Plan to reach a good environmental status of the Baltic Sea. The key aims include safeguarding the sea’s natural ecosystems while allowing the sustainable use of its goods and services; improve the quality of life and prosperity in the region; and setting specific ecological objectives and measureable targets in line with the ecosystem approach. These goals should be implemented through national programs and regional actions (HELCOM, 2015). The NCM SD Strategy, entitled ‘A Good Life in a Sustainable Nordic Region’, sets overall guidelines and long-term goals for the Nordic countries in relation to SD. The Strategy has five focal areas: ‘the Nordic welfare model’, ‘viable ecosystems’, ‘changing climate’, ‘sustainable use of the earth’s resources’, and ‘education, research and innovation’ (NCM, 2015). The Nordic welfare model underpins the core values of a Nordic welfare system, and viable ecosystems refers to a sustainable management of natural resources, marine ecosystems, land-based ecosystems and air. Actions to combat a changing climate includes as greater focus on renewable energy, more efficient use of energy and reduction of GHG emissions. The sustainable use of natural recourse should include sustainable consumption and production, improved resource efficiency and waste management. Education, research and innovation include education at all levels on SD, supporting inter-disciplinary Nordic research and development of environmental technology and social innovations to support green growth and SD (NCM, 2015).
57
The UBC SD Strategy is process oriented and ‘SD awareness and commitment’, lays the foundation of their SD action (UBC, 2015). The Strategy emphasizes that the SD needs to be integrated, both as a notion and as a mean, into overall strategies and goals of its member cities. Thus all UBC member cities should have SD integrated into their overall city strategy. The Strategy emphasizes leadership and management abilities for enabling the cities’ activities to become more efficient and sustainable. Efforts such as increasing cross-sectorial work is accentuated. With regard to specific SD related goals, the management of resources is a central goal including sustainable production and consumption, and energy related issues. Cities have a major influence on energy production and consumption, and thus represent an actor which can have a significant influence in climate change mitigation, by reducing GHG, and increased use of renewable energy. The UBC lists also quality of life as a goal. This includes e.g. gender equality, health and social well-being (UBC, 2015). There are many similarities between the SD goals pursued at a macro-regional level. Three general areas and subsequent SD goals are found on a macro-regional level (Fig.3.1). These macro-regional SD goals are also pursued on a national level. Both the macro-regional and the national level pursue climate change by addressing largely the same means, especially by transforming energy production in the region from traditional fossil fuel based to alternative energy resources. Saving the Baltic Sea is on the national SD level focused on preserving the natural capital, though the Baltic Sea is not always explicitly mentioned. Also the third SD macro-regional focal point, the quality of life, is also implicitly pursued on a national level, by for example, increasing prosperity and improving the wellbeing of the citizens. The macro-regional stakeholders generally aim to advance SD in the region by reinforcing the cooperation patterns. This is especially relevant for SD capacity and knowledge development. Here the macro-regional entities serve as a forum for cooperation to develop efficient solutions for common challenges. However, the macro-regional stakeholders have different prerequisites and capabilities to work for promoting SD in the region. This is especially relevant what it comes to implementation of SD actions, where financial capabilities and available personnel play an important role, and macro-regional stakeholders have to apply for funding, often of short-term nature. Stakeholders at a macro-region level thus instead often use ‘soft’ means for implementing SD, i.e. means that are not mandatory to implement. These include knowledge exchange and policy recommendations for enhanced and more efficient implementation.
58
Figure 3.1. Macro-regional SD goals.
Climate change
Saving the Baltic Sea
Quality of life
focus on addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, often via efforts that seek to alter the energy sector in the region, or via efforts related to sustainable production and consumption. The goal is that the region becomes a lowcarbon economy, by pursuing a green economy, which at the same time is attentive of the challenges related to climate change
focus is on a healthy environment for the Baltic Sea, e.g. with the help of viable ecosystems, which can be attained by e.g. better wastewater treatment efforts, or via maritime spatial planning efforts, or more generally via a better management of natural resources in the region
refers to increasing the prosperity in the region, both from an economical point of view, e.g. via new innovations, but also in terms of sociocultural means, e.g. social inclusiveness, and health and social well-being. The goal of quality of life is also addressed via infrastructural means, in order to connect the people in the region in a better way
3.3 Macro-regional public and civil society organisations, CSOs The main active intergovernmental organisations in the BSR have been mentioned and described above, including EU, CBSS, NCM, and HELCOM. To the list should however be added a number of cooperative schemes which may, or may not, have been actively working on SD but which still constitute a resource for future work. The Baltic Sea region may be the region in the world which have the largest number of pan regional cooperation schemes. Several of these know each other well and often work together. As a collective they constitute a kind of spider web of collaboration covering an amazing width of sectors, competences and experiences. Together they form a resource for all kind of projects for implementation of SD strategies. For this reason many of them are listed below to be known and contacted for policy makers when needed. The Swedish and Polish governments formed a common planning organisation, VASAB 2010, Visions And Strategies Around the Baltic Sea, to coordinate infrastructure planning, spatial planning and development in the eleven Baltic Sea Region countries obviously with a capacity to support SD implementation. VASAB works with the Ministers of Planning. The Secretariat is located in Gdansk, Poland. For cooperation in the field of culture the Ministers of Culture created the Baltic Sea Heritage Co-operation, a cultural heritage co-operation among the Baltic Sea States. Several sub regional authorities cooperate in the region. The BSSSC, the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation, is a political network for decentralised authorities (sub-regions) in the BSR including counties in the BSR, and the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR) support sustainable development of the sea. CPMR has its secretariat in Rennes, France. Euroregion Baltic (ERB) is a political cooperation in the south-east of the Baltic Sea region, consisting of eight regions in Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. The B7 Baltic Islands Network is a cooperation between the seven largest islands in the Baltic Sea. All these are available to support SD projects on the county level.
59
Although The Union of Baltic Cities, UBC, is the most active of the associations of local authorities it is not the only one. E.g. the BaltMet, Baltic Metropoles Network, is a forum for capitals and large metropolitan cities around the Baltic Sea to promote innovation and competitiveness in the Baltic Sea Region. One also need to mention the tight network of friendship towns which many times support each other for sustainability projects. Parliamentarian cooperation in the Nordic frame was enlarged when the Cold War ended. The three Baltic States and Poland were invited to join a number of schemes already functioning between the Nordic countries. The “newcomers” thus joined the Nordic Council meetings and also the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferences to gather national parliamentarians. This Conference meets once a year. A number of civil society organisations with presence in the entire region are relevant and active in cooperation for sustainable development. At the end of the Cold War an upsurge in voluntary associations were formed by all kinds of interest groups – farmers and artists, businesses and banks, schools and universities, etc. Gunnar Lassinanti (2012) estimates that there are 200-300 networks in areas such as finance, environment, energy, communications, business, innovations, universities, research, local authorities etc. in the region. In the Academic field the Baltic University Programme, by far the largest of several university networks, formed in 1991. Its focus is on sustainable development, environmental protection, and democracy through education, research and applied projects. The secretariat is at Uppsala University, Sweden. It covers universities or other higher education institutions in all the 14 countries wholly or partly in the Baltic Sea drainage basin. Today more than 200 universities of all kinds are listed in the network. The emphasis is on education, and a total of some 350 course groups and close to 8000 students register for courses yearly. There are several schemes for common education or research. ScanBalt BioRegion is an organisation for the Baltic Sea or the Nordic-Baltic Region’s Health and Bio Economy community for research institutions and biotech companies. Secretariat in Copenhagen, Denmark. Baltex, is a cooperative organisation to study the Baltic Sea itself, coordinated from Warnemünde in Germany. Several financial schemes support projects for SD. These include the Visby Programme from the Swedish State (Swedish Institute) which supports exchange and common projects from the undergraduate to the PhD level and the Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B Neighborhood Programme, which is a European Community initiative that funds transnational projects working together for balanced and sustainable development of the Baltic Sea Region. Several Environmental Organisations are active in the region. This includes Coalition Clean Baltic, CCB with 21 member organizations to promote the protection and improvement of the Baltic Sea environment and natural resources. It has a secretariat in Uppsala, Sweden. World Wildlife Fund, WWF has a large activity on the Baltic Sea region and especially the Baltic Sea itself. The secretariat is in Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm International Water Institute, SIWI, is a policy institute that generates knowledge and informs decision-making towards wise water policy and sustainable development. It is active in the Baltic Sea region with a Secretariat in Stockholm, Baltic Sea Project, BSP, is an UNESCO Associated Schools Project to awaken young people’s interest in environmental issues, protection and sense of responsibility. Some 200 secondary schools from Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden take part. Secretariat circulating, presently in Lithuania. Networking also exist in the field of business and related areas. The Baltic Development Forum, BDF, gathers not only politicians, but also business, academia and media to discuss strategies for the development of the Baltic Sea region, with Secretariat in Copenhagen. The Baltic Sea Chambers of Commerce Association, BCCA, unites Chambers of Commerce of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden to promote trade and business
60
relationships across the Baltic Sea Region. The Baltic Sea Tourism Commission is an international organization for market-oriented companies and tourist organizations in the Baltic Sea Region. The Baltic Sea Trade Union Network includes trade union confederations around the Baltic Sea linked to the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC. Culture and arts networks exist as well. Ars Baltica is a cultural think tank which advocates arts and culture on the political level promotes cultural life around the Baltic Sea. The Priority Area “Culture” of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region aims to support creative entrepreneurship, promote BSR culture, using the innovative force of culture for societal development, preserve and present the BSR cultural heritage and strengthen the cultural identity of the region.
61
4. Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in BSR 4.1 BSR SD governance implementation National implementation is the basis for BSR SD implementation. It is conducted by Ministries and Agencies and regional or local authorities in the countries. These are typically organised in a SD committee, established to manage activities and provide a platform for interaction. Activities are those decided on by governments mostly following the law. Macro-regional, non-governmental, stakeholders engage in the implementation processes by providing recommendations. Regional cooperation arrangements are central for SD implementation in the BSR. Vertical non-mandatory national SD implementation activities, with other non-public stakeholders at other governance levels, are however to a large extent absent. Systematic coordination of SD implementation is difficult to put in place as most horizontal and vertical implementation efforts is driven by voluntary stakeholder action. This is particularly relevant for implementation at the macroregional and sub-national levels. Table 4.1. BSR SD implementation setting. Level
Main stakeholders
Role in implementation
Means of implementation Specified strategies that calls on voluntary engagement, project activity, financier (EU), producer and disseminator of knowledge Designated NSDSs, specified mandatory tasks set out on law that involves the implementation of SD related activities, these do not however cover the full SD spectrum Specified local strategies, participant in various projects and macro-regional networks
Macro-regional
EU; CBSS; NCM; HELCOM; UBC
Facilitator of macroregional activity at various governance levels, EU for example via the EUSBSR
National
Relevant Ministries; Governmental Agencies
Policy developer, coordinator vis-à-vis the national implementation setting, supervising authority
Sub-national
Regional state agencies; local governments
Implementer of national SD policies (local governments)
Principal implementation features Enabler of voluntary collaborations, dependent on shortterm financing, interaction transpires within the boundaries set by their mandate Horizontally focused, lack of regular engagement with other tiers of governance
Outside nationally defined mandatory SD duties, SD activity is dependent on the voluntary commitment
The most common method for BSR SD implementation is project activities. Project stakeholders represents the entire SD sphere; macro-regional intergovernmental entities, academia, private actors, sub-regional entities, NGOs, local interest groups and local governments. Projects serve different interests, including capacity building and knowledge development. The uptake and the implementation of the project outcomes are voluntary for national Ministers and Governmental Agencies and for local governments. Still, successful SD activities in the BSR is to a large extent dependent upon the ability of project stakeholders to create platforms for collaboration. Macro-regional stakeholders, such as CBSS, HELCOM, NCM and UBC have prominent roles here due to their capacity to facilitate action and create collaboration platforms in the BSR. The NSDS represent the most relevant document for SD implementation in the region, but they are designed to serve the national implementation interests, and not macro-regional needs. Moreover, the NSDSs have their own shortcomings as they predominately engage only horizontal level activity.
62
EU emerges, besides the national level, as perhaps the most influential stakeholder in the BSR SD implementation agenda. Through its various funding schemes EU steers implicitly BSR SD implementation. There are also other funding bodies, most notably the NCM. The drawback of utilizing various funding schemes as the main element for implementing BSR SD activities is their short-term nature. The EUSBSR has not been equipped with its own tools and financial means, and implementation depends on utilizing existing financing possibilities. The existing situation has however serious problems. SD activities require interaction and cooperation across governance levels and fields in order to be effectively implemented, and SD implementation structures in the BSR are not designed to encompass the full complex nature of SD related activities. Barriers to effective implementation in the BSR are reviewed in figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. BSR SD implementation barriers
Lack of vertical interaction
Short-sighted SD action
Lack of coordination
• Lack of regular vertical interaction among SD stakeholders • Interaction should not be bound by stakeholders SD mandate , which does not necessarily embrace the full SD integrated spectrum
• Short-sighted SD action often epitomizes BSR SD implementation • This is a result of that implementation is based on project activities • Lack of coordination of SD implementation activities across the region • Lack of oversight, which may result in overlaps, and impeding the SD implementation coherence in the region
4.2 Methods for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and accompanied 169 targets, comprehensive and far-reaching, will guide the 2030 global SD agenda. While there is no unified or designated global scheme or strategy for the implementation of the SDGs, UN accentuates the critical importance of engaging all relevant stakeholders in implementation of the new agenda; ‘Governments and public institutions will work closely in this regard with national parliaments, local authorities, international institutions, business and the private sector, civil society, academia, philanthropic organizations, voluntary groups and others’ (UN, 2015). The implementation of the farreaching agenda that the SDGs encompass, has called for a revitalization of the global partnership for SD, to engage all relevant stakeholders in the process (UN, 2015). The renewed and strengthened global partnership is viewed as ‘facilitating an intensive global engagement in support of implementation of the goals and targets, bringing together Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system and other actors’ (UN 2015).
63
The UN stress the importance of ‘mobilization of financial resources (both public and private, domestic and international) as well as capacity-building, the transfer of environmentally sound technologies and a wide range of other supportive policies and measures. Business, the private sector and philanthropic organizations will feature prominently in relation to resource mobilization and implementation of the Agenda’ (UN, 2015). Other means of implementation are also explored, e.g. the central role of science, technology and innovation, multilateral trading system, policy coordination, and coherence. The UN also stresses national ownership and responsibility that ‘each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and that the role of national policies and development strategies cannot be overemphasized. At the same time, national development efforts need to be supported by an enabling international economic environment’ (UN, 2015). SDG17 focus on ‘Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development’ and lists a number of means of implementation (Box 4.1). Although most of them are concerned with support to developing countries the systemic issues, points 17.13 – 17.19, are relevant for the BSR countries. These include ‘policy and institutional coherence’, which emphasizes policy coordination and policy coherence as a key for the global macroeconomic stability and for sustainable development. ‘Multi-stakeholder partnerships’, refers to encouraging and promoting effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. ‘Data, monitoring and accountability’ needs a strong monitoring, accountability and review framework (UN, 2015). Within this setting, the UN emphasizes the roles various stakeholders at different levels have; besides stakeholders at a national and global level, also (macro-) regional level stakeholders are important to build useful platforms for peer review and mutual learning, encouraging countries to set ambitious targets and stimulate implementation. Work at the (macro) regional level could help to ensure progress on trans-boundary issues and on regionally shared targets. Regional reviews can draw on national-level reviews and contribute to follow-up and reviews at the global level (UN, 2015). By the UN Member States are encouraged to develop ambitious national responses to SDGs, building on existing national reporting and planning instruments, such as NSDS (UN, 2015) and regularly conduct reviews of progress, based on public as well as civil society progress. Knowledge from national experiences of implementation should be shared among affiliated national stakeholders, as well as among peers at other levels, e.g. on a global or a macro-regional level to enhance the SD implementation capacity.
64
Box 4.1 SDG 17 Strengthen the means of implementation. Finance 17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection 17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including to provide 0.7 per cent of gross national income in official development assistance to developing countries, of which 0.15 to 0.20 per cent should be provided to least developed countries 17.3 Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources 17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress 17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries Technology 17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism when agreed upon 17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed 17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology Capacity-building 17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation 21 Trade 17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda 17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020 17.12 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access Systemic issues Policy and institutional coherence 17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence 17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development 17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development Multi-stakeholder partnerships 17.16 Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries 17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships Data, monitoring and accountability 17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts 17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries
4.3 Means for implementing the SDGs in the BSR BSR implementation of SDGs provide a platforms for macro-regional learning, which should facilitate national level SDG implementation. The macro-regional perspective is in-line with the nature of sustainable development, which is not be bound by national boundaries, even though a prerequisite for effective implementation is that it agrees with national conditions and contexts. Table 4.2 serves as a basis for comparing how current BSR implementation features align with the general methods suggested for implementing the SDGs.
65
Table 4.2. SDG implementation means in the BSR implementation. Suggested means of SDG implementation BSR SD implementation characteristics Engage all relevant stakeholders; government, public institutions, national parliaments, local authorities, international institutions, business, the private sector, civil society, academia, philanthropic organizations and voluntary groups National ownership and accountability, but national efforts needs to be supported by an enabling international economic environment Mobilization of financial resources, public and private, domestic and international. Business, the private sector and philanthropic organizations should feature prominently in relation to resource mobilization and implementation
Capacity-building, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and multilateral trading systems
Policy and institutional coherence, enhance SD policy coordination and coherence
Multi-stakeholder partnerships, encouraging and promoting effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
Data, monitoring and accountability, increase the availability of highquality, timely and reliable data relevant in national contexts.
A multitude of stakeholders are involved in SD implementation, though implementation per se is confined to national and subnational levels, and in particular local governments. National implementation transpires however largely within the public sphere and seldom engages regularly with other societal SD stakeholders at other governance levels. BSR States have acknowledged the notion of SD and states have developed strategic SD planning documents for implementation. Financing SD implementation transpires largely via two pathways. The first line of financing is provided by the national level and the second avenue of financing is provided by EU and its schemes. EU financing however enables only short-term implementation efforts at the various BSR governance levels, often in the form of project activities. Private entities are to some extent involved in financing BSR SD implementation, e.g. via a philanthropic foundation set up to address a specific SD related concern. Capacity building is carried out via short-term projects, which generally seek to build SD capacity in the region. Unclear to which extent project outcome is utilized by affiliated stakeholders as a mean to build capacity. Often project outcomes are not fully utilized, as the uptake of project outcomes are voluntary for SD implementation stakeholders in the region, e.g. for local governments. BSR SD implementation is generally uncoordinated at all governance levels, with the exception of national implementation, which transpires in the national boundaries. Coordinating BSR SD implementation to ensure policy coherence at all levels is difficult, primarily because most implementation relies on voluntary engagement of stakeholders, which in turn is typified by its ad-hoc nature, resulting in that attaining an overall account of the implementation efforts are difficult to distinguish Project based activity encourage the creation of multi-stakeholder partnerships in the BSR, since project based funding often requires this. The nature of these partnerships varies considerably, depending upon the funding source, but there are public, publicprivate and civil partnerships. The partnerships are often only in place for the duration of the project, so their effectiveness is another concern, especially in terms of contribution to the long term implementation in the region. Also, there is no coordinated and regular interaction between the numerous multi-stakeholder partnerships, which operates at the various governance levels, which would ensure that partnerships builds on experience and ultimately contributes to implementation coherence. Most States in the BSR have high-quality, timely and reliable data relevant for the national contexts. Furthermore, the data is updated on a regular basis.
UN prescribes that all concerned stakeholders should participate in these implementation efforts, which also enhances the legitimacy of this process. Public entities, international bodies, business representatives, the private sector, civil society, academia, philanthropic organizations and voluntary groups are all included, implicitly or explicitly, in SD related activities. The process is impeded by lack of regular stakeholder dialogues with governmental authorities. Even if there are many stakeholders engaged in SD related activities, actual implementation is a public sphere exercise. National ownership and accountability is a precondition for implementation the SDGs.
66
SD implementation depends on two lines of financial resources. The first is national funding for actions under duties prescribed in law. The second consists of various national and international funding schemes, which often results in project activities. EU programmes constitute a main financing source here. The myriad of funding schemes in place makes it difficult to arrive to a complete and updated overview. EUs regional strategy, the EUSBSR, was designed to avoid incoherency and overlaps, but also EUSBSR is characterized by short-term funding and the coordinators need to apply for financing for their activities, mostly from EU project funding schemes, which may or may not be aligned with the EUSBSR focal points. Capacity-building, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and multilateral trading systems are listed as means for strengthening the implementing of the SDGs. These are relevant also in the BSR, especially for capacity building amongst SD stakeholders. For effective capacity building in the region it is crucial that these two constellations of stakeholders engage in dialogue, built on pre-existing platforms. However knowledge produced can be short-lived if there is no funding available for dissemination of project outcomes. Policy and institutional coherence is central. A precondition for SD policy coherence and coordination are institutions that are equipped with capacity and knowledge of the outcomes of policy envisioned action to align with other policy actions in other fields. However implementation action is largely occurring within a national policy environment that not necessarily is coherent with the integrated SD implementation model. This is mainly due to national sectorial divisions, and the constraints it has in relation to integrated implementation. Therefore, what is required are institutional action not bound by sectorial thinking, but that support coherent and integrated actions. Multi-stakeholder partnerships is a mean for strengthening SDG implementation and to encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. Multi-stakeholder SD partnerships is also encouraged as a method for enabling project activity. There is, however, no general systematic coordinated and regular interaction between the numerous multi-stakeholder partnerships in the BSR, an obvious weakness of this approach. The final prescribed mean for strengthening implementation is data, monitoring and accountability. SD monitoring is essential to determine whether national states demonstrate SD accountability. There are no designated indicators or data available for all BSR countries, nor entities responsible for doing this, although EUROSTAT provides comprehensive coverage of the region, considering that most countries in the region are EU member states. BSR national level data monitoring is context dependent, though most countries align their procedures with EUROSTAT principles and coverage areas in order to ensure reliable and valid SD monitoring.
67
Figure 4.2. BSR constraints for implementing the SDGs.
Financing of BSR SD implementation is not coherent with the long-term SD ambitions of the region, nor the envisaged SDG longterm action BSR SD implementation does not engage all relevant stakeholders and is often of uncoordinated nature
SD capacity building is often reliant on short-term financing
Sustainable Development Goals
SD policy coordination and coherence is complicated by the short-term SD financing
Most multistakeholder SD partnerships are of short-term character
68
5. The SDGs and cooperation in the BSR 5.1 Shared SD goals – inclusive growth, climate and energy, saving the Baltic Sea and quality of life Inclusive growth by transforming the energy sector is a shared SD goal at a macro-regional level in the BSR. Transforming the energy sector is expected to support the creation of jobs in the environmental sectors, via e.g. new innovations enabling the emergence of ‘green’ technologies, while simultaneously delivering direct economic benefits in terms of costs savings. Furthermore, the transformations of the energy sector is also expected to provide means to combat climate change by reducing GHG emissions, and provide secure energy supplies, offer a greater diversity in energy supplies, and emit less air pollution and to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, in particular oil and gas. The other identified macro-regional goals, ‘Saving the Baltic Sea’ and ‘Quality of Life’, are also pursued on a national level, the former by means of preserving the environment, e.g. reducing water pollution, whereas the latter is pursued by enable welfare growth by promoting the development of the human, the cultural and the social capital in the society.
Figure 5.1. Central SD goal in the BSR setting.
Enables an inclusive growth Combats climate change Transformation of the energy sector
The Baltic Sea states relative cohesion, in relation to the pursuit of transforming the energy sector is largely influenced by external determinants and derives largely from EU initiatives. The overarching EU policy initiative, the EU 2020 Growth Strategy, represents the main influence for the transformation of the energy sector in the BSR. The EU 2020 Strategy lists five targets to be reached by 2020 in the ‘Climate and Energy Package’ (CEP). These are that GHG emissions should be 20 % lower, 20 % of energy production should stem from renewable energy sources and a 20 % increase in energy efficiency (EC, 2015a). The 20-20-20 targets provides the means to pursue a low-carbon economy across the EU. The CEP provides a set of binding legislation to ensure that the EU meets its climate and energy targets for 2020 (EC, 2015b), but gives considerable freedom to EU member states on how they can
69
achieve their targets (EC, 2012). The CEP does not address however the energy efficiency target directly as this is achieved via the EU Energy Efficiency Directive. The implementation of the energy and climate goals is further treated in chapter 7, the case study on energy and climate.
5.2 Implementing the 17 SDGs Many of the UN SDGs represent shared interest among the countries in the BSR, and can thus clearly be included in a common BSR 2030 Agenda. The SDGs including the energy and climate goals discussed above are in this group. Several of the other SDGs are also of common relevance between a majority of the countries in the region but not an obvious part of the macro-regional goals described in chapter 3. Several other SDGs need to be addressed and pursued through global action by support to developing countries, e.g. in terms of enhanced cooperation development, or via mobilization of resources, or through effective official development assistance. The global dimension of Sustainable Development is part of the National strategies in the Nordic countries and in Germany, but it is not a prevailing principle in the national SD narratives in any of the other EU countries in the BSR. In the EU Council conclusion (Council of the European Union, 2015) the global dimension is central. The foundation of the Council conclusion is that a new global partnership for poverty eradication and sustainable development is required, and that this is addressed via e.g. EU MS commitment to continuing their provision of support to developing countries in strengthening their public finance management, as well as by the EU Council’s reaffirming its collective commitment to achieve the 0.7% Official Development Assistance target within the time frame of the 2030 agenda (Council of the European Union, 2015). This is a message to all EU member states. With this approach we can discuss all 17 SDGs below and attempt to identify which are the most crucial problems and areas in the BSR which need to be addressed under each goal. Some of the goals (seven are listed in. Box 5.1) are discussed in larger detail as there is a wider interest among the Baltic Sea states to facilitate common action. The SDGs could thus be pursued on a regional level or nationally. However for each of the 17 SDGs there are possibilities to find macro-regional stakeholders, interest groups, which are prepared to get involved and provide competence, capacity and take part in projects to implement the targets connected to the goals, if the member states so wish. None of the goals can be dismissed. UN says that The SDGs and related targets are ‘integrated and indivisible, global in nature and universally applicable, taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities (UN, 2015). The 169 targets that accompany the SDGs offer tangible aims to be reached within a specific area in the next 15 years. The SDG targets are ‘defined as aspirational and global, with each government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances’ (UN, 2015). SDG1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere SDG2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture SDG3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages These goals accentuates global cooperation and responsibility, and are thus not developed as easily for BSR cooperation. Wellbeing is however relevant also in the BSR and included in the NSDS in e.g. the three Baltic States.
70
SDG4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all An aspect of this goal important for the SBR countries is education for sustainable development, ESD. Again it is not part of the NSDS and is at present not pursued as a common project. It is, however, part of the CBSS Baltic 21 SD agenda. SDG5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls For this goal there are much to improve in the BSR countries. However it is not part of the NSDS, and thus not immediately addressed as a common project. SDG6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all A reoccurring national SD goal is the preservation of the natural capital in the region. In the BSR natural capital refers generally to the Baltic Sea and its ecosystem. The Baltic Sea is documented to be one of the most polluted seas in the world, and targets enlisted by the SDG6 is well in line with SD activities addressed in the region. Especially, targets to ‘improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater’ and to ‘protect and restore water-related ecosystems’. The measures to reach these targets in the BSR are addressed in particular in the Helsinki Commission Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), which is an ambitious program to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. Other organisation with which to cooperate for this goal include the CCB, and SIWI and more recently the Race for the Baltic pursued by the Zennström Foundation, as well as the urban wastewater projects pursued by the Sendzimir Foundation. SDG7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all This goal prescribes a number of targets that are already being pursued in the BSR on a national level, as accentuated previously in this chapter, in conjunction with the EU’s Climate and Energy Package and the related 20-20-20 targets. Relevant targets set by goal number seven are ‘increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix’; ‘double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency’ and ‘enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology’. These targets are also pursued by the means provided by the EUSBSR, and especially the focal pints listed under PA Energy. Partners here are CBSS Baltic 21 as well as a series of others, including BASREG, UBC and the universities. SDG8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all The SD fundament, on which many of the BSR countries are directly or indirectly based on, is to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. Economic growth is mainly pursued on the national level through growth that includes social and environmental concerns, which translates into efforts that aim to transform the national energy sector. Inclusive and sustainable growth is also aligned with efforts listed in the EUSBSR, given that one of the three overall objectives is to increase prosperity in the region, by means e.g. of innovation. However, there are also other paths that are being pursued across the region in order to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. One particular path is through efforts related to sustainable consumption and production. These efforts are envisioned to contribute to resource efficiency, thus preserving the natural capital via e.g. a reduced use of raw materials. In view of this, the SDG target: ‘Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead’ supports well the BSR activities. Important partners for this goal include the UBC. SDG9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation This goal refers to the sustainable development of infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region. Transport infrastructure includes development of train traffic to reduce car traffic. Resilient and sustainable
71
energy infrastructure includes electric grids rather than gas and oil pipelines, while also renewables such as biogas should be included. Finally information infrastructure is part of this goal, and should be pursued on a macro regional level. Possible partners in work to achieve this goal include the VASAB 2010, the UBC and several of the universities in the region. SDG10 Reduce inequality within and among countries The present market economic system leads to increasing economic equalities if unregulated. There is thus a need for a consciousness of what and how this should be carried out by the states in the region, to secure welfare for all. The most serious manipulation of the economic systems, leading to increasing inequality, is however large scale corruption present in several of the BSR countries, and measures to control this is urgent. Partners in addition to the governments include e.g. Stockholm School of economics with partner institutions in several BSR countries, as well as Stockholm Resilience Centre with the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics. SDG11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable While SD actions within cities are not as such directly pursued in a BSR SD environment, cities are at the forefront of implementing SD policies in the region. Nonetheless, some of the prescribed targets falling within goal number eleven are pursued in a BSR SD environment, e.g. supporting the economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning. Other actions pursued, especially by the voluntary macro-regional network of local governments, Union of the Baltic Cities, are improving air quality and waste management in cities, as well as facilitating the process whereby cities adopt and implement integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change and resilience to disasters. Interesting partners here include the CBSS Baltic 21, UBC, the Sendzimir Foundation with much work on sustainable urban development and several of the universities. SDG12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns This goal is interlinked with the previous listed goal number eight, but has a more comprehensive approach on sustainable consumption and production. It details besides the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, and targets including e.g. ‘sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources’, ‘halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses’, ‘achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment’ and ‘substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse’ . Measures to work for this goal thus include the development of green economy, with recycling economy as well as economy of sharing. Basic is improved waste management and recycling of resources. Important actors are again the local authorities and several of the universities, as well as CBSS Baltic 21, which have sustainable urban development as one of its themes under the EUSBSR. SDG13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact The action prescribed include e.g. ‘strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters’, ‘integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning’ and ‘improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning’. Combatting climate change is a central focal point vis-à-vis the national SD setting as demonstrated by the macro-regional institutions dealing with these issues. The strengthening of resilience and adaptive capacity is especially relevant on a macro-regional level, through the HA Climate in the EUSBSR, and also by other relevant actors. Combatting climate has become such a central focus in the BSR that the notion of climate change and SD are to some extent interchangeable notions. Albeit the focus on the SD national sphere is on combatting climate via transforming the energy sector, there are e.g. separate national mitigation and adaptation climate change policy documents for dealing with strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters. The role of
72
good forest management should not be forgotten here as the forests in the region have an important role as CO2 sinks. SDG14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Goal number fourteen accentuates targets that seeks to ‘prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution’, ‘sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans’ and ‘effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics. Many of the aforementioned targets interlink with targets set out by SDG number six. These targets coincide also with the efforts of protecting the Baltic Sea and its ecosystem. The listed targets are especially relevant for the efforts to reduce eutrophication, i.e. nutrient enrichment or nutrient pollution, of the Baltic Sea, a consequence of landbased activities, as is also the target of implementing a science-based management plan, in order to properly manage the Baltic Sea and its ecosystems. While the latter is not per se accentuated in the BSR SD cooperation, supportive efforts of introducing a science-based management plan are being undertaken, especially by BONUS, a joint Baltic Sea research and development program for years 20102017. BONUS was initiated by eight EU member states around the Baltic Sea who fund jointly with the EU’s Seventh Program for research, technological development and demonstration by a total of EUR 100 million. Russia participates through bilateral agreements (BONUS, 2015). Important macroregional partners include HELCOM, BALTEX, SIWI and WWF. SDG15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss For the BSR the focus here is on the protection of biodiversity and good management of landscapes. The areas are regulated by several EU directives and initiatives, not the least the Natura 2000 programme and the birds’ directive. Natura 2000 is implemented in all BSR countries. SDG16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels It is obvious that sustainable development is not possible in a situation of military conflicts. Thus the serious conflicts in which the states in the Baltic Sea region are involved, especially the Russian aggression against Ukraine, should be terminated as soon as possible. Several macro regional stakeholders are active in conflict resolution and constitute an important resource here. Also several of the macro regional networks active since the end of the Cold War pursue dialogue rather than conflict as a means to improve cooperation in the region. SDG17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development This goal on implementation is not applicable here but discussed in chapter 4.
73
Box 5.1. BSR SD goals and related SDGs and targets Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and increasing recycling and safe reuse by [x] per cent globally 6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through trans boundary cooperation as appropriate 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix 7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency 7.a By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all 8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons 11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries 11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage 11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and decrease by [x] per cent the economic losses relative to gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations 11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management 11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities 11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning 11.b By 2020, increase by [x] per cent the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, develop and implement, in line with the forthcoming Hyogo Framework, holistic disaster risk management at all levels Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries 12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources 12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses 12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment 12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse 12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle 12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities 12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact 13.1. Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters, 13.2. Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning 13.3. Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning’ Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development 14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution 14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans 14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics 14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information 14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation
74
6. Baltic Sea region SD capacity 6.1 The Baltic Sea region has unique opportunities The Baltic Sea region has excellent opportunities for becoming a forerunner in the transition towards a sustainable future. The region has a uniquely long history of cooperation between Eastern and Western Europe exemplified by the Helcom Convention, and a history of Nordic cooperation being much longer. The natural resource base in the region is in a global perspective rich. The share of renewable energy is the highest in the EU and in general increasing. Opportunities for cooperation in the BSR are rich. The BSR has a large number of networks for all kinds of cooperation, such as in the fields of environment, economy, social affairs, culture, research, etc. The states with the task of governing a transition towards sustainability thus have a unique support from other stakeholders in the region. Most of the SD activity in the region is an outcome of multistakeholder partnerships. The potential in terms of further enhancing SD governance are great. The regional groups often have a very large competence in their specific areas and provide opportunities for expertise, innovation and mutual learning. There are shared SD goals in the region, most importantly within the climate and energy policy, which is seen as a platform to deliver future inclusive economic growth, but also broad societal development, welfare growth, and development of human, cultural and social capital, education, innovation and employment efforts, preserving the natural capital, protecting biodiversity, an ecological balance, efficient use of raw materials, reduced pollution, sustainable production and consumption. In short our recommendations are the following: 1. Facilitate SD cooperation across the region 2. Facilitate the process for responding coherently in relation to the SDGs 3. Introduce BSR SD monitoring in selected areas 4. Establish regional platforms in the BSR for mutual learning
6.2 Multi-stakeholder partnerships are needed Independent Research Forum, in its Policy Paper in 2013, accentuates that a new approach is needed for approaching development. The former governance frameworks characterised by top-down steering and multiple discrete actions is not able to deliver what we need. To address development in an integrated way governance frameworks needs to be aligned with multi-stakeholder decision-making processes and by cross-scale coordination. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are viewed as a mean to respond to the multifaceted SD activities, required to tackle systematic barriers to progress (UN, 2015; Independent Research Forum, 2013). Multi-stakeholder partnerships should be viewed as a mobilizer, which shares knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources. Carefully constructed multistakeholder partnerships can facilitate participation and voluntary engagement and draw on the assets and strengths of different actors (UN, 2015). The roles, and in particular the collaboration of a range of stakeholders active at different levels of governance, are emphasized as a mean to both facilitate and drive action. An essential governance features for enabling the build-up of these partnerships is the cooperation among relevant stakeholders at different levels of governance. The basis for building cooperation is an equitable participatory process, characterized by transparency and accountability (Independent Research Forum, 2013).
75
Enhanced BSR SD governance is about the combined and collective actions by a variety of stakeholders, including macro-regional partnerships along with national and sub-national. A central element in enabling the development of an enhanced SD governance capacity is cross-scale coordination and subsequent interaction among governance levels, which allows the scaling up of good practices, which have been enabled by multidimensional project activity. Decision-making should be driven by knowledge-based and inclusive processes. However, structures for cross-scale coordination have been slow to develop (Independent Research Forum, 2013). If stakeholders operating at various governance levels are part of the decision-making processes, agreed actions become more effective and feasible and implementing agencies are more accountable (Independent Research Forum, 2013).
6.3 Key governance features for enabling SD capacity development Governance features that can either enable or impede SD responses across the region are listed in Figure 6.1. The opportunities and constraints are clustered into three broad, interconnecting and interdependent governance areas. Important for BSR SD governance are cooperation, activity and finance. Perhaps the most imperative is finance as it has large implications for the results. The in-built barriers against cooperation in the BSR are mostly found between peers at different governance levels, i.e. vertical integration. Governance stakeholders operating at the same level are more inclined to share similarities in terms of common interest and common agendas. Conversely, vertical interaction and cross-scale cooperation is dependent on finding common interest. Given the voluntary nature of vertical interaction, cross-scale coordination is thus too often of short-term. The BSR, however, offers excellent opportunities for fostering multi-stakeholder partnerships. Most SD activity in the region is an outcome of multi-stakeholder partnerships. These schemes oftentimes have as a requirement for funding, that project constellations should include stakeholders that represent different countries and sectors. Interaction and cooperation patterns in the BSR are thus constantly developing and stakeholders interact in new ways, involving not only macro-regional, national, subnational stakeholders, but also stakeholders representing the private sector, academia and NGOs. From a global perspective, the BSR is at the forefront with regard to cooperation that involves multistakeholder partnerships. BSR SD activity is frequently pursued across the region, by stakeholders operating at the various governance levels. The coherency of this activity is difficult to establish. Whereas EU functions as an overall coordinator in terms of SD goal setting, the prerequisites for implementing activities falling under these goals are markedly different in the region. National norms and national capacity ultimately determines the outcome of implementation efforts. The BSR SD activities are often problematic. They are typically difficult to coordinate, subject to potential overlaps and inconsistencies, and mostly short-term based on project stakeholder constellations. In addition they are often sectorial, but what is required is an integrated approach. Much of this is due to financing. Long term financing are usually confined to the national space. What generally drives BSR SD activities are the funding schemes for project activities. These only enable short-term financing, and are not necessarily aligned with the SD focal points in the BSR. There are no general and straightforward procedures to address these constraints.
76
Figure 6.1 BSR SD governance - opportunities and constraints.
BSR SD cooperation
BSR SD activity
BSR SD financing
Cooperation pattern features that provides the foundation for interaction and cooperation in the BSR Multi-Level Governance framework
Features that typify SD activity in the region, both in terms of goal setting and implementation patterns
Financing features that enables SD action and SD cooperation in the region
Opportunity Most of the SD activity in the region, with the exception of national level activity, is an outcome of multi-stakeholder partnerships
Opportunity Many of the shared BSR challenges are addressed via SD related activities SD activities are carried out across the region, by stakeholders operating at the various governance levels that comprise the region
Opportunity The features of the financing available for BSR SD activity provides opportunities for just-intime action by a variety of stakeholders
Constraint
Constraint
Operational cooperation arrangements are impeded by in-built barriers
Generally BSR SD activities are difficult to coordinate
Constraint The drawback of the financing available is, besides only enabling short-term action, that the funding schemes providing financial means are not necessarily aligned with the SD focal points in the BSR
Inclined to serve horizontal cooperation, whereas crossscale cooperation is often of short-term nature
SD goals are set to target challenges that require integrated responses, but activities are often carried out in terms of sectorial approaches
There is thus much to do to improve SD governance in the region. But the basis for effective governance already exist. Multi-stakeholder partnerships can responding rationally to the SGDs, and can also be a mean to tackle systematic barriers. Multi-stakeholder partnerships should therefore be strengthened, as the partners all have a vested interest to work for a more sustainable BSR. Their prerequisites to act needs to be improved, e.g. in terms improved financing and policy influence.
77
6.4 Three recommendations Below follows three kinds of recommendations. As emphasized earlier the listed recommendations are ambitious but attainable to implement. The recommendations seek to strengthen the BSR macroregional actors within the larger BSR in order to enable a more systematic and coherent SD cooperation in the region, and to enable mutual learning in the region for implementation of the SDGs. Organisations active in the BSR, not only the ones that are listed in this report, represents a collective strength and an opportunity that is not pursued and utilized to its full extent. The realities of the BSR SD set the scene for the first recommendation: Both in relation to SD activities in general and in relation to activities affiliated with the SDGs, the BSR SD fundament needs to be strengthened. A multitude of stakeholders are involved in BSR SD activities, and many work successfully towards SD, but to efficiently use the means available to them, there is a need to strengthen BSR SD ownership. This does not imply that one single entity needs to have the overall ownership and accountability for SD in the region, but rather that SD ownership and accountability is a shared responsibility. By working systematically together, the preconditions for future SD activity is enhanced.
Figure 6.2. Enhancing the preconditions for future BSR SD cooperation. Macro-regional entities receive a stronger position visà-vis SD governance
More horizontal interaction and communication between macroregional stakeholders
More regular interaction and communication in general
More vertical interaction and communication between the macroregional and the national level
Macro-regional entities need to be viewed as legitimate governance stakeholders, and their position should be acknowledged to a greater extent, especially by national SD stakeholders, as facilitators of SD action. National stakeholders should more fully acknowledge the added value of these stakeholders, e.g. in terms of cooperation possibilities. A starting point could be to introduce more regularity in terms of vertical communication and interaction, between macro-regional and national level stakeholders. Secondly, macro-regional stakeholders themselves should embrace the integrated SD view, interact more frequently with other peer macro-regional stakeholders to provide better prerequisites for an overall coordination of SD activities in the region, reducing possible overlapping activities, and increasing the coherency of SD activities. Figure 6.2, summarizes how future BSR SD cooperation could be enhanced by strengthened BSR SD ownership and accountability. Recommendation two concerns systematic monitoring of future implementation activities. SD monitoring has been emphasized as crucial for implementing the SDGs. The EU Council Conclusion
78
point out that indicators and data should be based on existing indicators in order to ensure robust datasets and cost effective solutions, and be built on already established systems for monitoring. The Conclusions further accentuates that monitoring at national level should also contribute to monitoring at global level including through the provision of statistics and other relevant information on the global indicators (Council of the European Union 2015). The UN accentuates that the regional level provides a useful forum for peer review and learning, and encourage countries to work at the regional level to ensure progress on trans-boundary issues and on regionally shared targets (UN, 2015). Regionally shared targets could constitute the basis for BSR SD monitoring. Regional monitoring could help to ensure progress on trans-boundary issues, and facilitate a more coherent progress in relation to shared SD goals. Beneficial for a future SD cooperation would therefore be the introduction of BSR monitoring in selected areas. The basis for monitoring would be to utilize applicable and reliable SD indicators. It is important to comprehend that using indicators is a demanding and challenging task, since indicator data that may have been collected via different channels by different methods, and perhaps collected during different timeframes may compromise the reliability and validity of the assessment. Also, long term intervals, or perhaps outdated data, can make it difficult to interpret the indicator data. Therefore, when choosing relevant and reliable indicator data, the ideal would be to use data from a single source, which have been collected in similar manner during same period in order to reduce any possible reliability and validity issues. Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, and the data aggregated by relevant Eurostat indicators could provide the base on which BSR SD monitoring could be based on. Eurostat has developed a set of Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI) which cover most Baltic Sea States, including also non EU member, like Norway. The SDIs are used to monitor the EU SD Strategy and are presented in ten themes. Each theme are headed by headline indicators, expect one theme (good governance). One of these themes is ‘climate change and energy’, which covers areas and activities that are being actively pursued by Baltic Sea States. Eurostat utilizes three headline indicators Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Share of Renewables in gross final energy consumption and Primary Energy Consumption. All three headline indicators have data for the Baltic Sea states, Russia excluded. The headline indicator of Greenhouse Gas Emissions have available data on all Baltic Sea States except Norway and Russia, as is the case also for the headline indicator of Primary Energy Consumption, whereas the headline indicator of Share of Renewables in gross final energy consumption have data for all BSS, except Russia. Eurostat has a quality profile for each indicator data set. The quality profile is only available for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Share of Renewables in gross final energy consumption. Both indicator data sets score high in terms of geographical comparability and comparability over time. Data on Greenhouse Gas Emissions have a high overall accuracy, while the data on Share of Renewables in gross final energy consumption has a medium level accuracy overall. Any BSR SD monitoring would need to be based on voluntary basis and driven by incentives to participate and be based on the rational put forward by the EU Council Conclusion, i.e. build on already established systems for monitoring. BSR SD monitoring could rely on entities that have the necessary capacity and knowledge, either at a national level, or on a macro-regional level by utilizing the information produced by Eurostat. Eurostat and its indicators will have a central role in in monitoring the progress of implementation of SDGs in Europe and is currently working on the last monitoring report of the EU SDS and will, subsequently, adopt a new reporting structure that will focus on the SDGs (ESDN 2015a). We need, however, to recognise that not all SDGs targets can be followed using Eurostat data. In these cases a work coordinated over the entire region is certainly the most rational way for the CBSS to develop the necessary new monitoring processes. A cooperation with the different organisations which have competence and capacity to collect data and is the best approach and there are in all sectors opportunities to start such processes.
79
The last, recommendation three, has a focus on the SDGs. There is no unified or designated global scheme or strategy for the implementation of the SDGs. In view of this, there is a general need for mutual learning, not only at a national level, the level implementing the SDGs, but also at other governance levels, in order to develop necessary capacity for implementation of the SDGs. Learning and capacity building can be developed on a national level, but also the global or regional levels can be a useful platforms for mutual learning. Mutual learning could help ensure progress on trans-boundary issues and on regionally shared targets. Learning platforms operating would offer a platform where affiliated stakeholders could share their implementation experiences. The UN encourages Member States to identify suitable regional fora in which to engage on useful opportunities for mutual learning (UN, 2015). Therefore this report suggest that the BSR could constitute as a suitable geographical entity within the larger EU for mutual learning on SDG implementation. The region is in comparison to EU or in a global perspective, rather unified. Regional platforms could facilitate action based on policy lessons learned, mutual exchange of experiences with national and local level implementation, best practices and challenges, regional issues, discussing and finding solutions for joint challenges and trans-boundary issues. Platforms for mutual learning could be hosted by already existing relevant SD macro-regional organisations. Setting up appropriate regional platform would need to consider firstly for which SDGs are there particularly a need for a platform for mutual learning, and secondly identify a suitable macro-regional stakeholders that can act as a host for this platform. As an example, SDG13, Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact, could involve CBSS and its Baltic21 Unit as a regional platform, to enable mutual learning. Baltic21 has responsibility for Horizontal Action (HA) Climate under the EUSBSR. HA Climate establishes a strategic dialogue between governments for supporting the development of a national low-carbon economy (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). Another central focal action is facilitating the BSR climate change dialogue platform. Hence a platform is already in place, enabling mutual learning as a mean to adapt to climate change.
Figure 6.3. Benefits of regional platforms in relation to SDG implementation. Regional platforms for mutual learning
Ensures progress on transboundary issues and on regionally shared targets
Reflects on shared challenges, shared implementation experiences
Lessons learned, best practices, solutions for joint challenges
80
6.5 Conclusions As of 2016 the SDGs are expected to be implemented across the world. Key for the transition and the adoption of the SDGs are the SD Strategies, viewed as key instruments for guiding decision-making and the implementation of SD at all scales of governance. The UN encourages Member States to develop ambitious national responses to the SDGs and targets as soon as possible (UN, 2015). National SD strategies, ownerships and accountability are thus essential for the implementation of the SDGs. Several EU MS have prepared for the introduction of the SDGs by organizing events, meetings and workshops for public servants, but also dialogues with stakeholders to exchange views and broaden participation towards the 2030 Agenda (ESDN, 2015b). The European SD Network (ESDN), an informal network of public administrators and other experts dealing with SD Strategies in Europe, have arranged meeting for stakeholders on issues related to the SDGs. These meetings have addressed e.g. peer-to-peer recommendations, for defining appropriate goals and national monitoring procedures for the SDGs. National discussions and preparations of SD indicators have been organised to align national indicators and structures of national progress with the SDGs (ESDN, 2015b). EU MSs have also started processes to incorporate results from the 2030 agenda in their National SD Strategies (ESDN, 2015b). The EU Council has underlined that EU as a policy entity, via the EU 2020 Strategy, the EU SDS, and the 7th Environment Action Program is committed to SD (Council of the European Union 2015). Processes such as the Europe 2020 review could be used to share best practices and build knowledge and awareness across EU MS in relation to the implementation of the SDGs (Council of the European Union 2015). With regard to the proposed SD Global Partnership and the need of a strong monitoring, accountability and review framework for the SDGs, EU has expressed its need for a policy unit to support capacity building, including statistics and monitoring (Council of the European Union 2015).
81
7. Climate, energy and sustainable development in the BSR – a sector study 7.1 International policy and governance for climate and energy International climate action is most evident in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): an international climate change forum that boasts one of the most universal memberships with 195 Parties. The Treaty contains binding and non-binding elements; for example, countries enter into a binding commitment to develop greenhouse gas inventories but emission goals are non-binding. In contrast, the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC is a legally binding Protocol with emission reduction targets for Annex 1 Parties, expressed as a percentage of 1990 baseline emissions. The ‘first commitment period’ ended in 2012, with amendments made to the Kyoto Protocol to implement a ‘second commitment period’ for the period 2013-2020. While emission targets are binding and penalties exist in cases where targets are not met, there are no penalties if countries choose to withdraw. In addition to the Kyoto Protocol, countries were invited to bring forward pledges to reduce their emissions in 2020 under the UNFCCC’s Cancun Agreements. In preparation for the Paris COP21 no less than 152 submissions, socalled Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), reflecting 179 countries covering around 94% of global emissions were provided (http://www.c2es.org/international/2015-agreement/indcs). In the COP21 in Paris a global legally binding agreement on climate change to reduce and control emissions of GHGs was signed. However this agreement will not be in force until 2020. International climate action is also supported by mechanisms outside of the UNFCCC. For example, the Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer covers some greenhouse gases; the International Civil Aviation Organization and International Maritime Organization addresses emissions from aviation and shipping; and the G20 and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) discuss climate action at senior levels (Climate Change Authority 2012). In 2012, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development initiated the development of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to build upon the Millennium Development Goals and guide sustainable development in the post-2015 world. As outlined in Section 1.1, the adopted document contains 17 goals, one of which relates to energy, e.g. Goal 7 ‘Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’; and another to climate mitigation and adaptation, i.e. Goal 13 ‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’. While still in the initial stages of development, it is argued that the international community ought to develop an integrated, comprehensive and inclusive framework to implement the SDGs, with associated targets and indicators (Wheeler). These targets and indicators may link to relevant international and multi-lateral agreements and conventions that deal with the same issue area and subject matter.
7.2 Climate and energy policy in the European Union and Russia The European Union’s 2020 Strategy sets out a vision of Europe's social market economy for the 21st century and seeks to deliver a strategy that will “… help us come out stronger from the crisis and turn the EU into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion” (European Commission 2010). One of the three priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy is sustainable growth – promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy. To achieve this priority, the following targets have been set: (i) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels or by 30%, if the conditions are right; (ii) increase the share of renewable energy sources in our final energy consumption to 20%; and (iii) a 20% increase in energy efficiency. These targets are also reflected as binding targets in the EU
82
Climate and Energy Policy, which pursues three objectives: (i) security of supply: to better coordinate the EU's supply of and demand for energy within an international context; (ii) competitiveness: to ensure the competitiveness of European economies and the availability of affordable energy; (iii) sustainability: to combat climate change by promoting renewable energy sources and energy efficiency (European Commission 2015). In addition, a target of increasing the share of renewable energies in transport to 10% is contained within the Climate and Energy Policy. It is recognised that to achieve these targets major developments in research and technologies will be required. The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) (the technology pillar of the European energy and climate policy) outlines long-term energy research priorities for the period 2020 to 2050. It also lays the foundations for a European policy for energy technology and establishes a framework that brings together diverse activities in the field of energy research (European Commission 2015). In 2014, the 2030 Climate and Energy framework was adopted, building on the 2020 Climate and Energy Package and setting additional targets for the year 2030, including (i) at least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels); (ii) at least 27% share for renewable energy; (iii) at least 27% improvement in energy efficiency (European Commission 2015b). The targets are also in line with the longer term perspective outlined in the Energy Roadmap 2050 for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 and the Transport White Paper. The Russian Federation, which is an important member of Baltic Sea Region, is not a member of the European Union. Export of energy resources is the main contributor to the Russian economy and therefore, the energy sector is a key focus for the Russian Federation. The Energy Strategy for Russia for period to 2030 specifies a number of goals, including: improvement of the efficiency of reproduction, extraction and processing of energy resources to meet domestic and external demand; modernization and construction of a new energy infrastructure on the basis of large-scale technological updating of the country’s energy sector; establishment of a stable institutional environment within the energy sector; improvement of the energy and environmental efficiency of the Russian economy and energy sector, including through structural changes and activation of technological energy saving; further integration of the Russian energy sector into the world energy system (Ministry of Energy 2010). Associated targets are also outlined. These targets relate to maintaining the export value derived from the energy sector, whilst also increasing energy efficiency. For example, the following targets are specified (compared to 2005 levels): the share of the fuel and energy in gross domestic product and the share of fuel and energy resources in export should decrease by no less than 1.7 fold; the share of the energy export in the gross domestic product should decrease by no less than 3 fold; the share of investments in the fuel and energy as a percentage of the gross domestic product should decrease no less than 1.4 fold, and their share in the total volume of investments by more than twice; half the energy intensity of the gross domestic product; and reduce electricity intensity by no less than 1.6 times (Ministry of Energy 2010). While renewables are not well developed in Russia, at the State level, the objective of expanding renewable energy in electricity and heat production as a means to focus energy security is specified. A focus on renewable energy is also present within the listed priorities of scientific and technological progress in the energy sector (Ministry of Energy 2010).
7.3 Climate and energy policy and programs in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) contains a strong focus on energy and climate. The strategy contains three pillars: (i) save the sea; (ii) increase prosperity; and (iii) connect the region. Energy is a priority area within ‘connect the region’, while climate is an overarching theme across the three pillars. Under the priority area of energy there are two flagship projects that seek to improve the efficiency of energy markets, increase the use of renewable energy and promote energy
83
efficiency (Box 7.1). The climate theme seeks to deliver ‘horizontal action sustainable development’ and: (i) support the transition of the Baltic Sea region into a sustainable and prosperous macro-region; (ii) communicate best practices; (iii) assist in the development of innovative practices in the implementation of the themes of the horizontal action in cooperation with relevant priority areas within the EUSBSR in line with Europe 2020 Strategy, its resource efficiency flagships, the proposed 7th Environmental Action Programme and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (Council of the Baltic Sea States). Box 7.1. Flagship projects under the Energy priority area (EUSBSR). Project descriptions Action: Towards a well-functioning energy Market. 1. Monitor the implementation of Baltic Energy Market Interconnection plan (BEMIP). Focus is especially on connecting the Baltic States to the energy networks of the regions. 2. Sharing best practices of regional cooperation of BEMIP with EU Eastern partnership countries. Focus is on transfer of know-how on regional co-operation and the legal framework for a well-functioning energy market. 3. Extend the Nordic electricity market model (NORDEL) to the three Baltic states. The flagship project is successfully ended with opening of the Latvian bidding area 3 June, 2013. 4. Investment in infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region. Considered a potential flagship project which focuses on infrastructure development in the Baltic Sea Region especially in regards to market integration and investment in infrastructure in order to improve security of supply and integration of renewable energy. Action: Increase the use of renewable energy sources and promote energy efficiency. 1. Enhanced market integration of RES and best practice sharing. Focuses on sharing best practices among national renewable energy support schemes. 2. Promotion of measures to develop the usage of sustainable biofuels. Aims at promoting production of sustainable biofuels and promoting cooperation and sharing experiences in the region. 3. Demonstration of coordinated offshore wind farm connection solutions. Kriegers Flak is a Combined Grid Solution project jointly managed by Germany and Denmark. 4. Promotion of energy efficiency measures. According to implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive introduction of national energy efficiency obligation schemes are foreseen. 5. Exploration of cooperation mechanisms. Considered a potential flagship project which focuses on the use of the cooperation mechanism in the region, especially in regard to the use of statistical transfer of renewable energy in accordance with the Renewable Energy Directive.
The Baltic Climate Project (http://www.balticclimate.org/) is an initiative that seeks to identify the impacts and opportunities that climate change affords to the Baltic Sea Region. Climate projections are applied to explore development opportunities and to provide support for local decision-makers to incorporate climate change into long-term strategies and plans. The BalticClimate Toolkit is a product of the Project that supports knowledge transfer at local and regional scales. Under the theme of energy, opportunities for renewable energy (e.g. hydropower production and wind energy production) as well as potential changes in energy needs resulting from changes in temperature (e.g. heating and cooling) are explored to initiate discussions focused on climate impacts in the energy sector. The CEP comprises four pieces of complementary legislation for the 20-20-20 targets: (I) reform of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which should cut industrial GHG emissions cost-effectively; (II) national targets for non-EU ETS emission, in which MS have taken on binding annual targets for reducing their GHG emissions from the sectors not covered by the EU ETS (e.g. housing, agriculture, waste and transport); national targets are differentiated according to MS relative wealth: they range from a 20 % emissions reduction (compared to 2005) by the richest MS to a 20 % increase by the least wealthy (though this will still require a limitation by all MS); (III) national renewable energy targets, under the
84
Renewable Energy Directive MS have taken on binding national targets for raising the share of renewable energy in their energy consumption by 2020. These targets reflect MS different starting points and potential for increasing renewable production and (IV) carbon capture and storage, a legal framework has been created for the environmentally safe use of carbon capture and storage technologies. Carbon capture and storage involves capturing the carbon dioxide emitted by industrial process and storing it underground geological formations where it does not contribute to global warming (EC, 2015b). Present trends and projections estimates that EU is making good progress towards these climate and energy targets: the EU's energy consumption decreased faster between 2005 and 2012 than required to achieve the 2020 energy efficiency target, the 2012 share of renewable energy sources (RES) was above interim target levels, and 2013 levels of GHG emissions were already very close to the 20 % reduction target, seven years ahead of the 2020 deadline (EEA, 2014). In 2014, in conjunction with agreeing upon the 2030 framework for Climate and Energy Polices new targets were set (EC 2015d). A focal point of the framework is the binding target to reduce EU domestic GHG emissions by at least 40 % below the 1990 level by 2030, and increase the share of renewable energy to at least 27 % as well as increase energy efficiency by at least 27 % (EC 2015c). The 2030 framework also proposed a new governance framework based on national plans for competitive, secure and sustainable energy as well as a set of key indicators to assess progress over time (EC 2015c). The CEP package constitutes an essential tool to pursue a low carbon economy and to combat climate change. It also constitutes a part of the attempt to mainstream SD across the EU. The EU Strategy for SD, revised in 2009, laid out the foundations for a sustainable future built on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EC, 2015d). Though the objective of SD has been mainstreamed into a range of polices, unsustainable trends persist in several areas in the EU (EC 2009). Since the EUSDS has been viewed as not having sufficient influence on EU policies (Council of the European Union 2009), the EU 2020 Strategy has been suggested as an effective tool for delivering SD in the EU (EC 2009). Besides fulfilling its main objective, i.e. to deliver a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, the EU 2020 Strategy has also the potential to provide synergies for governance, implementation and monitoring of SD in order to ensure that the EUSDS has a real influence on EU policies (Council of the European Union 2009).
85
Table 7.1. Key characteristics of relevant CEP EU Directives and Instruments Reducing Renewable energy Energy efficiency GHG emissions The EU ETS was established by the Emissions Trading Directive (ETF). Entered into force on 1 January 2005. Conceived in the context of international mitigation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol; it was aimed at helping MS reach their individual Kyoto targets. Subject to revision as part of the CEP adopted in 2009, the original Directive was revised, in order to help the EU achieve its commitment to cut its GHG emissions Marked based economic instrument, created with the intent to set up a carbon market, to trigger emission reductions where they could be achieved at least cost Key emphasis to reduce GHG emissions originating from energy and industrial sectors across the EU, focus to limit GHG emissions from more than 11.000 heavy energy-using installations and manufacturing industry, such as oil refineries, steel works, production or iron, aluminum, metals, cement etc. The EU STS operates in the 28 EU countries, plus Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway, and covers around 40% of the EU GHG emissions MS have also taken on binding annual targets for reducing their GHG emissions from the sectors not covered by the EU ETS (e.g. housing, agriculture, waste and transport), around 60% of the EU's total emissions come from sectors outside the EU ETS.
Renewable Directive from 2009 stipulates that EU MS should by 2010 develop national renewable energy Action Plans, in accordance with the binding national targets for raising the share of renewable energy in their energy consumption The Directive demands that the EU MS set up renewable energy targets especially within three different policy areas; electricity, heating and cooling and the transport sector The Directive lists a variety of means to achieve these targets, including utilizing renewable energy sources deriving from wind, solar, hydroelectric power and biomass as well as biofuel The EU Renewable Directive requires that each EU MS draw up explicit policy measures to achieve the renewable energy targets envisioned by the EU
The CEP does not address the matter of energy efficiency; this is achieved via the EU Energy Efficiency Directive from 2012 MS set their national energy efficiency targets for energy consumption. Depending on country preferences, these targets can be based on primary or final energy consumption, primary or final energy savings, or energy intensity. The Directive establishes a set of binding measures to help achieve the target, all EU countries are required to use energy more efficiency at all stages of energy chain from its production to its final consumption Some measures set by EU: energy distributors or retail energy sales companies have to achieve 1.5% energy savings per year; EU countries can opt to achieve the same level of savings through other means, such as improving the efficiency of heating systems, installing double glazed windows or insulating roofs The public sector should purchase energy efficient buildings, products and services every year, EU governments carry out energy efficient renovations on at least 3% of the buildings they own and occupy by floor area; Empower energy consumers to better manage consumption and identify ways to reduce consumption
7.4 The energy and climate targets The Climate and Energy Package (CEP) and related targets is a broad area where Baltic Sea States and macro-regional stakeholders are currently actively engaged across a multitude of sectors. As such, the field encompassing the CEP offers a variety of areas where future BSR macro-regional cooperation can be further developed and intensified. Strengthened macro-regional cooperation could provide a platform whereby the region and accompanied countries could deliver on the 20-20-20 targets, and also on the suggested 2030 targets. The countries comprising the BSR have set relative high ambitions targets vis-à-vis EU 20-20-20 targets, especially in the field of renewable energy (31%) and energy efficiency (61%) (Table 7.2). There is considerable variety among the Baltic Sea States regarding national target setting. For example in terms of the expected share of renewable energy by 2020, Norway (68%) and Sweden (49%) have set highly ambitious targets, supported by the fact that nearly all of Norway’s and more than half of Sweden’s electricity production is based on hydroelectric power. Norway and Sweden agreed in 2012 on a shared renewable energy certificate scheme, under which subsidy costs from renewable projects are shared, regardless of which side of the border they were located on (Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, 2012). The aim of this scheme is to stimulate development of new renewable power in both countries.
86
Table 7.2. Overview of national climate and energy targets in the BSR.47 Member States targets EU BSR Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Norway Poland Sweden Russia
Emission reduction targets (compared to 2005 levels) -20 percent (comp. to 1990 levels) - 6.5 percent - 20 percent 11 percent - 16 percent - 14 percent 17 percent 15 percent - 30 percent 14 percent - 17 percent - 25 percent
Renewable energy (in % of gross final energy consumption) 20 percent 31 percent 30 percent 25 percent 38 percent 18 percent 40 percent 23 percent 68 percent 15 percent 49 percent 4.5 percent
Energy efficiency 20 percent 61 percent 17.8 percent 6.5 percent 35.9 percent 276.6 percent 5.4 percent 6.5 percent N/A 96.4 percent 43.4 percent N/A
There are also vast divergences of national targets for energy efficiency in the region. Thus German (277%) and the Polish (96%) targets are highly ambitious, and also contribute to the relative high BSR average. To deliver on this target Germany follows a three-tiered approach consisting of requirements, support and information (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety 2015). With the German decision to speed up the energy transition from 2011, the Government gave a major impetus to the future structure of energy generation, particularly through the decisions to pull out of nuclear power and expand the use of renewable energies (German Energy Efficiency Action Plan, 2014). From 2022 onwards no more electricity will be generated from nuclear power. Poland intends to reach its ambitious target by implementing horizontal measures, e.g. energy efficiency certificate schemes, energy audits and metering and billings via smart implementing intelligent energy systems, and consumer information and advisory programs (Polish Energy Efficiency Action Plan, 2014). Although the EU as a whole is projected to make good progress towards the 20-20-20 climate and energy targets, achievements at national levels in the EU are mixed (EEA, 2014). This is also the case in the BSR, as only Denmark is projected to meet all three climate and energy policy objectives (EEA, 2014). All BSR countries (where projections are available) are estimated to reach their respective national target for renewable energy (Table 7.2). With regard to the other two targets, there is a larger diversity. Few BSR countries are on track to cut GHG as listed; Denmark, Estonia and Sweden are estimated to be on track, whereas Latvia and Lithuania are estimated to be partly on track. Preliminary This table has been compiled by utilizing the table that provides an overview of the Europe 2020 targets. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/targets_en.pdf
47
A BSR average and national targets for Norway and Russia has been added. Although not an EU member state, Norway has been part of the EU’s internal market since 1994 through the EEA Agreement. As a result, Norway has implemented EU climate and energy legislation. While not bound by the headline climate and energy targets for 2020, Norway has had to implement the EEA-relevant legal acts stemming from the EU’s climate and energy package (Jevnaker, 2014). Russia on the other hand is not bound by the EU targets, but Russian targets, where available, have been added in order to provide an overview of targets in the BSR. Given that Norwegian and Russian targets have been derived from other sources, they may not be entirely comparable to EU MS national targets. EU national targets are listed as set out in the National Reform Programs in April 2014. The national emissions reduction targets defined in Decision 2009/406/EC (or "Effort Sharing Decision") concern the emissions not covered by the Emissions Trading System. The emissions covered by the Emissions Trading System are reduced by 21% compared to 2005 levels. The corresponding overall emission reduction will be -20% compared to 1990 levels. Targets are defined in terms of reduction of emissions or maximum increase in emissions. The Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU sets out in article 3(1)(a) that the European Union 2020 energy consumption has to be of no more than 1474 Mtoe of primary energy or no more than 1078 Mtoe of final energy. This table only reports on primary energy consumption levels in 2020 expressed in Mtoe.
87
2013 emission estimates indicate that Germany and Poland were above their respective targets (EEA, 2014), while Finland is not (EEA 2014). Denmark, Finland and Latvia are estimated to be on track to reach their respective national energy efficiency target. These countries have reduced or limited their primary energy consumption and final energy consumption below a linear extrapolation path between 2005 levels and the 2020 targets (EEA, 2014). Lithuania and Poland are partly on track to meet their energy consumption targets, while Estonia, Germany and Sweden are not on track towards either of these targets (EEA, 2014). Estonia’s and Germany’s performance on energy efficiency has deteriorated, (EEA, 2014). The ESD is an overarching directive that seeks to promote cost-effective energy efficiency in the EU member states through various promotional, awareness and support measures and through the removal of institutional, financial and legal barriers. Unlike the 2020 energy-efficiency target, the ESD target excludes energy used by enterprises in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and also international aviation (EEA, 2014). In the midst of the positive reports there is some serious criticism. The reason for reduced emissions in the EU states is to a considerable extent that heavy, energy intensive industry, has been outsourced, mostly to Asia. The industrial production is then exported to the EU but emissions are reported from the producing, not consuming, partner. If emissions in the imported goods is included in the statistics, there is no reduction of CO2 emissions. In Sweden this is reported from the Swedish EPA, as well as from several research projects. In fact Swedish emissions are slowly increasing since several years. How this is managed when monitoring sustainable development is thus important. It may be clearly seen under SDG12, sustainable consumption and production. In a similar way the increased share of renewable energy is connected to the increased use of fossil based energy in the countries where our industrial goods are produced. The share of renewables is thus not as good as one may believe. It is just that fossils have been outsourced.
7.5 Macro-regional cooperation platforms and initiatives for energy and climate A range of macro-regional cooperation platforms and corresponding initiatives are active and engaged in the energy sector in the BSR, several in place since more than a decade. These platforms or initiatives have been established to enable activities and facilitate macro-regional dialogue through supporting flagship initiatives to identify best practices in the BSR. The EU strategy for the BSR, the EUSBSR, has a focus on Climate and on Energy in the EUSBSR Horizontal Action HA Climate. The responsibility for HA is a task designated to the CBSS, and in particular to the Baltic 21 Unit. The activities in the HA Climate is focusing on low-emissions development, through e.g. establishing a strategic dialogue between governments (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). Another focus is to support the BSR capacity to adapt to climate change, by facilitating the BSR climate change dialogue platform, to support the BSR climate adaptation strategy and its action plan (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). The HA Climate facilitates alignment of policies in the BSR countries. This includes: mainstreaming climate change mitigation and adaptation in sectorial policies; promoting strategic investments and integrated planning for low emissions project; promoting regional cooperation for the EU climate and energy policy; promoting safe energy supply and renewable energy sources; and promoting energy efficiency (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). The EUSBSR Energy Priority Area Energy (PA Energy) coordinated by Denmark and Latvia intends to improve the access to competitive, secure and sustainable energy markets (EUSBSR Action Plan, 2015). PA Energy focuses on connecting the region, to reduce the energy isolation of some countries in the region, to foster market integration, and to support energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources throughout the macro-region (EUSBSR Action Plan, 2013). The basis of macro-regional cooperation in
88
the energy sector is the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP), which has a primary objective to achieve an open and integrated regional energy market in electricity and gas between EU MS in the BSR (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). The development and integration of energy markets is therefore of key importance to improve the security of energy supply, particularly in the eastern BSR. It facilitates the diversification of energy sources and contribute to economic growth by improving the competitiveness of the region and encourage investments in clean renewable energy, and energy efficiency as well as contribute to the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutant through more efficient energy distribution, increased use of clean renewable energies, and action to reduce energy demand (EUSBSR, Action Plan, 2015). Other initiatives for facilitating energy cooperation in the BSR includes the Baltic Sea Region Energy Cooperation initiative (BASREC) (EUSBSR Action Plan, 2013). BASREC, established in 1999, active under the umbrella of CBSS, is a regional forum for dialogue on energy policy and global climate change issues with an emphasis on the promotion of energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy and other sustainable supply sources. BASREC partners include all BSR countries along with Iceland and the EU. The Nordic Council Ministers (NCM) as a macro-regional entity is also active in the field of energy, via Nordic Energy Research, a platform for cooperative energy research and policy development. Nordic Energy Research is expected to contribute towards to infrastructure that enables system solutions; transportation fuels and the utilization of biomass, energy efficiency improvements in demand sectors and de-carbonization of energy-intensive industry (Nordic Energy, 2015). The Baltic Development Forum (BDF) is a Danish initiative promoting cooperation in the business and some public sectors for economic growth. BDF initiated an energy dialogue in the BSR (BDF, 2015). This launch takes stock of the current prioritization of energy as subject on the political agenda in the BSR. In conjunction with the launch a conference was held with the overall objective to shed light on the challenges related to energy security and energy efficiency in the BSR, taking into account international commitments on SD and the challenges of low economic growth (BDF 2015). The conference was held in connection with the Danish Presidencies for the Nordic-Baltic co-operation and the NCM in 2015 (BDF, 2015). The conference made concrete suggestions on how to strengthen a regional approach to energy by e.g. enhancing regional energy cooperation, via closer cooperation and complete the internal energy market as well as extend the Nordic energy dialogue to the Baltic countries (BDF, 2015). Local authorities in the BSR, the level that ultimately implements EU and national policies, have created several cooperation platforms to develop energy projects. A key actor is the Union of Baltic Cities, UBC. It responds to the challenges of climate change, as outlined in the UBC Sustainability Action Programs (UBC, 2015). Activities outline by the EUSBSR, e.g. the implementation of flagship projects, coincide with the priorities and activities of the UBC. Some UBC members are active partners of these projects (UBC, 2015). The UBC has a Commission for Sustainable Cities, which has a focus on climate change and energy. Many UBC local governments are also members of the Covenant of Mayors (CoM), a European movement involving subnational authorities, who voluntary commit to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources on their territories. By their commitment Covenant signatories aim to meet and exceed the European CO2 reduction objective by 2020 (Covenant of Mayors, 2015). The CoM is a successful movement, launched by the EC to endorse and support the efforts deployed by local governments to implement sustainable energy policies (CoM, 2015).
7.6 Trends in the BSR - Energy consumption The strong policy foundation on climate and energy in the BSR and the European Union provides targets for sustainable development under this theme. In the following sections, trends in energy efficiency and progress towards the reported sustainable development indicators in the BSR are
89
reviewed. The findings are presented in three parts: energy consumption, energy productivity and performance, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. All base data and indicator descriptions are sourced from Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database), excluding data for the Russian Federation, which is sourced from BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP 2015a) and the International Energy Agency.
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
1990
thousand tonnes of oil equivalent
In this section we examine energy consumption across the BSR. Final energy consumption refers to energy that is supplied to the consumer for all final energy uses such as heating, cooling and lighting. It is the sum of final energy consumption in industry, transport, households, services, and agriculture. Final energy consumption was divided by total population to compare relative energy consumption across the BSR. Between 1990 and 2003, growth in relative final energy consumption was greatest in Latvia (21%), Lithuania (39%) and Estonia (40%), while there were small decreases in relative final energy consumption in Finland (5%) and Poland (5%) over the same period. Between 2003 and 2013, variation in final energy consumption was often less than +/- 15% across the region, excluding Lithuania, which experienced a 29% decrease in relative final energy consumption.
Russian Federation (IEA)
Figure 7.1. Final energy consumption per capita, BSR, 1990-2013. Note: Russian Federation consumption data sourced from IEA, 2002-2012
Energy consumption data is also available for the following sectors: industry, residential, agriculture and services (Table 7.1). Final energy consumption in industry covers the consumption in all industrial sectors with the exception of the 'Energy sector'. In the BSR, industrial energy consumption declined between 1990 and 2012, excluding Finland. Between 2002 and 2013, Lithuania (8% increase), Latvia (18% increase), Russian Federation (13% increase) and Germany (2.5% increase) experienced a relative increase in energy consumption, while the greatest reductions occurred in Denmark (28%) and Finland (15%). Final energy consumption in households covers quantities consumed by private households. There have been variable changes in energy consumption between 2003 and 2013 across the BSR, with the greatest decreases in household energy consumption in the Russian Federation (21%), Latvia (18%) and Germany (11%), while the greatest increase was in Poland (7%). Despite declines in the Russian
90
Federation, the share of the housing sector in overall energy consumption has been steadily growing from 13% in 1990 to 24% in 2012. Household energy consumption in the remaining BSR countries remained relatively consistent over the period (+/- 0 to 3%). Transport has been identified as a critical area of energy consumption, with a target of 10% of renewable energy use within transport by 2020 in the EU Climate and Energy Policy. Final energy consumption in transport covers the consumption in all types of transportation, e.g. rail, road, air transport and inland navigation. In the period 2003-2013, there was growth in energy consumption in transport across all BSR countries, excluding Germany and Denmark, with the greatest growth in consumption occurring in Poland (35%) and Lithuania (22%). Table 7.1. Relative changes in energy consumption in the BSR at the national scale.
Total Consumption
1990 - 2013
!
"
!!
2003-2013
-‐
!
Relative total consumption per head of population Transport
1990 - 2013
"
2003-2013
Industry Residential Agriculture / Forestry
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
"
!!!
!!
"
"
-‐
"
!
"
-‐
"
"
!
"
"
"
!
"
"
-‐
!
"
-‐
"
!
"
!
!
"
!
"
1990 - 2013
"
"
!
"
!
!
"
""
"
2003-2013
-‐
!
"
"
"
"
"
"
-‐
1990 - 2013
!
!
!!!
"
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
2003-2013
-‐
!
!
!
"
"
!
!
!
1990 - 2013
!
"
!
!
!
!
"
"
"
2003-2013
!
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
!
"
"
!
1990 - 2013
-‐
!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
"
!!!
"
!
"
-‐
"
"
!
!!!
1990 - 2013
Zero at 2013 Zero at 2013 "
"
"
""
!!!
!!
"
"
"
2003-2013
-‐
-‐
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
2003-2013 Services
Germany Denmark Estonia Finland
Poland Sweden Russia
!
"
" !
!
"
Key: - = change < +/-3%; 1 arrow = change < +/-25%; 2 arrows=change > +/-50%; 3 arrows = change > +/-100%. Red arrow indicates negative change, black arrow indicates positive change. Data for the Russian Federation sourced from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and covers the period 2002-2012. Data for the Russian Federation covered the period 2002-2012.
In seeking to assess performance in meeting the target reduction of 20% in final energy consumption, Eurostat provides data to monitor progress towards energy efficiency targets of the Europe 2020 strategy implemented by Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency. This includes a final energy consumption index and primary energy consumption index. The indices indicate proportional increases or decreases in final and primary energy consumption since 2005. The results indicate that the best performing countries in the BSR have reduced final energy consumption between 6% and 8 % (e.g. Sweden and Germany) (Figure 7.2). In some instances, however, there have been increases in final energy consumption; for example, a 7.5% growth in Poland and 4% growth in Latvia. Consequently, there remains significant work to achieve the 20% reduction sought under the EU Climate and Energy Policy. Primary energy consumption refers to the direct use of energy at the source, or supplying users with crude energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process. While
91
Index 2005=100
Lithuania has achieved almost a 30% reduction in primary energy consumption, the remaining countries have reduced consumption by less than 10%, or increased primary energy consumption (Figure 7.3).
120,0 115,0 110,0 105,0 100,0 95,0 90,0 85,0 80,0 75,0 70,0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Latvia
Figure 7.2. Final Energy Consumption Index, BSR countries.
120,0
Index 2005=100
110,0 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Denmark Germany Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Poland Sweden Russian Federation (source BP)
Figure 7.3. Primary Energy Consumption Index, BSR countries
7.7 Energy productivity and performance In this section energy productivity and performance is examined. The productivity of energy consumption is measured by dividing gross domestic product (GDP) (Purchasing Power Standard) by
92
the gross inland consumption of energy for a given calendar year. To explore energy performance, indicators that align to the sustainability indicators of the EU 2020 strategy and the EUSBSR are examined, including the proportion of renewable energy in total energy consumption (and for selected sectors, e.g. transport and heating and cooling) and energy dependency. In addition, growth in the energy infrastructure (e.g. biofuel production capacity and solar collectors) is examined (Table 7.2). In terms of energy productivity, the greatest proportional increase in productivity during 2003-2013 was seen in Lithuania (54%), followed by Latvia (39%) and Poland (39%). Norway and Estonia experienced the lowest increase in energy productivity over this period (27% and 26% respectively). As of 2013, Denmark has the highest productivity, while Estonia had the lowest energy productivity (Figure 7.4). In the Russian Federation, energy intensity (the amount of energy required per unit of GDP) declined by 1.8% in 2014 (from 2013), bringing the cumulative gain over the last decade to 20%. In 2014 Russia’s primary energy output declined for the first time in five years, as gains in oil, coal and nuclear were outweighed by losses in gas and hydro-electric power (BP 2015b).
10 8 6 4
Germany Finland Norway
Denmark Lithuania Poland
Figure 7.4. Energy productivity, BSR, 2003-2013.
Estonia Latvia Sweden
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
0
1996
2 1995
PPS per kg of oil equivalent
12
93
Table 7.2. Change in energy productivity and other sustainability indicators. Energy Productivity Biofuels (20002012)
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
1995-2013
"
""
""
"
""
""
""
""
""
2002-2013
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
Biogasoline
""
0
0
""
""
""
0
""
""
Biodiesals
""
""
0
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
0
""
0
0
""
0
""
""
""
0
""
0
0
0
""
""
1990 - 2012
"
!
!
!
"
!
!
"
!
2002-2012
-‐
""
!
!
"
-‐
"""
"
!
Other liquid biofuels Solar Collectors (20002013) Energy Dependence Energy Saving
Final Energy ! ! " ! -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ NA Consump-tion Index (2005-2013) Primary Energy ! ! " ! " ! -‐ -‐ NA Consumption Index (2005-2013) Key: - = change < +/-3%; 1 arrow = change < +/-25%; 2 arrows=change > +/-50%; 3 arrows = change > +/-100%. Red arrow indicates negative change, black arrow indicates positive change.
7.8 Renewable energy The proportion of energy generated from renewable sources is an indicator generated by Eurostat on the basis of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. The share of energy from renewable sources is calculated for four indicators (i) Transport (RES-T); (ii) Heating and Cooling (RES-H&C); (iii) Electricity (RES-E): and (v) Overall RES share (RES). Estonia and Sweden have surpassed their overall renewable energy target, while Germany and Poland are the furthest from their target (5.6% and 3.7% respectively). Between 2004 and 2013, Denmark and Sweden had the greatest growth in the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources (Figure 7.5). While comparable data is not available for the Russian Federation, in 2014 renewable energy made up 2.8% of total energy consumption, while oil (36%), natural gas (30%), coal (20%), nuclear energy (8%) and hydro-electric (2.6%) made up the remainder. In the Russian Federation, there has been limited progress in the renewable energy sector due in part to the low domestic price of gas. As, however, the price of domestic gas reaches international parity, markets for renewables are expected to increase. In a report exploring the potential for renewable energy production in the Russian Federation, OCED (2003) it was noted that large-scale use of biomass for energy is a cost-effective option in many Russian regions, especially in the north-western part of Russia, where the pulp and paper industry is welldeveloped. Here there is the potential to use wood to produce energy as has been achieved in Finland, which has a similar climate and resource capability as this part of Russia. The north-west, however, has one of the lowest rated potentials for wind energy and low projected potential for hydro-energy production due to low stream flows comparative to other regions. There is, however, a potential for small hydro-power stations in north-western Russia, as these are economically feasible over the medium term and have fewer environmental and social impacts than larger stations.
94
80
Percent (%)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Lithuania
Figure 7.5 Overall Renewable Energy Share, BSR, 2004-2013 (including target). Transport The share of renewable energy in fuel consumption in the transport sector is calculated based on the total amount of energy consumed in transport (only petrol, diesel, biofuels consumed in road and rail transport, and electricity are taken into account); and the amount of energy from renewable sources consumed in transport (incorporating all types of energy from renewable sources). The indicator is expressed as a percentage and indicates progress towards the 10% of renewable energy use within transport by 2020 target. As of 2013, Sweden had the highest proportion of renewable energy in fuel consumption of transport (17%), followed by Finland (9%), while Estonia (0.2%) and Norway (1.6%) had the lowest. Sweden and Finland also experienced the greatest growth in the proportion of renewable energy in transport fuel consumption between 2004 and 2013 (Figure 7.6). The results indicate that Sweden alone has surpassed the 2020 target.
18 16
Percent (%)
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
2011
2012
2013
Lithuania
Figure 7.6. Share of renewable energy in fuel consumption of transport, BRS, 2004-2013.
95
Heating and Cooling Combined heat and power generation (CHP) or cogeneration is a technology used to improve energy efficiency through the generation of heat and power simultaneously in the same unit. Heat delivered from CHP plants can be used for process or space-heating purposes in any sector including the residential sector. CHP therefore reduces the need for additional fuel combustion for the generation of heat and avoids associated environmental impacts, such as CO2 emissions. The indicator is defined as the percentage of electricity from combined heat and power (CHP) generation in total gross electricity generation, and indicates progress towards the objectives and targets of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. As of 2013, Denmark (51%), Latvia (38%), Finland (34%) and Lithuania (35%) had the highest proportion of electricity from CHP generation in total gross electricity generation, while Norway had the lowest (0.3%). Between 2000 and 2013, the greatest growth in CHP generation occurred in Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia (Figure 7.7).
70
Percent (%)
60 50 40 30 20
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2002
2000
1998
1997
1996
0
1994
10
Lithuania
Figure 7.7. Percentage of electricity from combined heat and power (CHP) generation in total gross electricity generation.
Electricity This indicator is the ratio between the electricity produced from renewable energy sources and the gross national electricity consumption for a given calendar year. It measures the contribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources to the national electricity consumption. Electricity produced from renewable energy sources comprises the electricity generation from hydro plants (excluding pumping), wind, solar, geothermal and electricity from biomass/wastes. Gross national electricity consumption comprises the total gross national electricity generation from all fuels (including autoproduction), plus electricity imports, minus exports. During 2004-2013, the ratio of electricity produced from renewable energy sources increased across the BSR. The greatest increases were in Denmark (19%) and Germany (16%), while the smallest increases were seen in Latvia (3%) and Finland (4%). More than 100% of Norway’s electricity is generated from renewable sources, followed by 62% in Sweden and 48% in Latvia (Figure 7.8).
96
120
Percent (%)
100 80 60 40 20 0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweeden
2011
2012
2013
Lithuania
Figure 7.8. Electricity generated from renewable sources, BSR, 2004-2013.
7.9 Energy dependency Energy dependency shows the extent to which an economy relies upon imports in order to meet its energy needs. The indicator is calculated as net imports divided by the sum of gross inland energy consumption plus maritime bunkers. Energy dependency may be negative in the case of net exporter countries while positive values over 100 % indicate the accumulation of stocks during the reference year. This indicator demonstrates progress towards the objectives and targets of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the European 2020 flagship initiative on Resource Efficiency. As of 2013, Lithuania had highest rating for energy dependence (78%), followed by Germany (63%) and Latvia (56%). Although Norway had by far the least energy dependence (between -470 and -800%, not shown in the graph), Norway’s energy dependence grew between 2002 and 2013 ending at minus 470% and following a similar trajectory to Denmark (Figure 7.9). While the Russian Federation is a net exporter of energy, the North-west region (within the BSR) produces less energy than it requires, and therefore has a positive energy dependence.
97
100 80 Percent (%)
60 40 20 0 -‐20
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Poland
Sweden
2013
2012
2011
2009
Germany
2010
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
1999
2000
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1992
1993
1991
-‐60
1990
-‐40
Figure 7.9. Energy dependency, BSR, 1990 – 2013.
7.10 Energy infrastructure Biofuels Data on liquid biofuels production capacities cover the following products: biogasoline, biodiesels, bio jet kerosene and other liquid biofuels. Growth in the volume of biodiesel, biogasoline and other liquid biofuels in Germany has far exceeded growth in the other BSR countries. At 2013, Germany had 737 (biogasoline), 4 308 (biodiesel), 1 975 (other liquid biofuels) thousand tonnes of each biofuel, with a growth in production capacity of 100%, 87% and 98% respectively between 2002 and 2013. Poland has the next highest volume of production for biogasoline and biofuel within the region, with 400 and 1000 thousand tonnes as of 2013 (Figure 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12). Estonia has no recorded production of biofuels, while Denmark produces biodiesel but not biogasoline.
98
450
Thousand tonnes
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Poland (e, priori 2011)
Sweden (e, prior 2012)
2012
2013
Figure7.10. Biogasoline production capacity, BRS (excluding Germany), 2002-2013.
Note: e indicates an estimate.
1200
Throusand tonnes
1000 800 600 400 200 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Denmark (e)
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway (e)
Poland (e, prior 2011)
Sweden (e, prior 2012)
2012
Figure7.11. Biodiesel production capacity, BRS (excluding Germany), 2002-2013. Note: e indicates an estimate.
2013
99
Thousand tonnes
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Denmark (e)
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Poland (e)
Sweden (e, prior 2012)
2012
2013
Figure7.12. Other liquid biofuel production capacity, BRS (excluding Germany), 2002-2013.
Note: e indicates an estimate.
Solar Collectors (heat production) Data on solar collector's surface displays information on the area of solar thermal collectors in thousand square metres. While less than half of the countries in the BSR have data on the surface of solar collectors (e.g. no values for Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia), those countries with solar collectors have seen exponential growth between 2000 and 2013, ranging from 56% in Sweden to 100% growth in Poland. Germany had 81% growth over the period and has exceedingly more solar collectors than other countries in the BSR (17 222 thousand sq. metres in 2013, not shown in Figure 13). Data on solar collectors and wind capacity is not available for the Russian Federation; however, cumulative installed geothermal power capacity is currently 82 megawatts, an increase from 11 megawatts in 1990.
1600 Thousand sq. metres
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Figure 7.13. Solar collectors surface area, BRS excluding Germany, 2000-2013.
100
7.11 GHG emissions Annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are estimated and reported under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Decision 280/2004/EC. The ‘Kyoto basket’ includes six gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). The impact of land use, land use changes and forestry (LULUCF) on the GHG inventories is excluded. International aviation is included. Emissions are weighted according to the global warming potential of each gas, and a CO2 equivalent (CO2 eq.) is calculated. Since 1990 there have been declines in the total GHG emissions across the BSR, excluding Norway which experienced a 5% growth. The greatest proportional reductions over this period were seen in Latvia (133%), Lithuania (125%) and Estonia (111%). Over the period 2002-2012, however, the greatest reductions in total GHG emissions were seen in Denmark (41%), Finland (36%) and Sweden (21%), while increased were seen in Latvia (3%), Estonia (2%), Lithuania (1%) and Russia (12%). When examining total emissions per capita, a 10 to 45% growth in emissions across the BSR occurred between 1990 and 2012 (Figure 7.14). However, in the period from 2002-2012 there were variable changes, with the greatest proportional increases in GHG emissions Denmark (32%), Finland (29%) and Sweden (21%); with greatest proportional reductions in Lithuania (15%) and Latvia (16%). Lithuania, Sweden and Latvia have the highest emissions per capita in the BSR, while Estonia and Finland have the lowest.
101
Table 7.3. Change in GHG emissions by sector and country in the Baltic Sea Region Germany Denmark Estonia Finland
Lithuania
Total GHG 1990! ! !!! ! !!! Emissions 2012 2002! ! ! -‐ -‐ 2012 Relative 1990" " " " " GHG emis- 2012 sions per 2002" " ! " ! head of 2012 popu lation Energy 1990! !! !!! " !!! Indus-tries 2012 2002!! " ! ! -‐ 2012 Manu1990!! ! !!! !! !!! facturing 2012 and 2002" ! " ! " Construc 2012 tion Tran-sport 1990! " ! !! -‐ 2012 2002! ! " ! " 2012 Indus-trial 1990! ! !! " ! Proces-ses 2012 2002! !! " ! " 2012 Agri-culture 1990! ! !!! ! !!! 2012 2002! ! " ! " 2012 Waste 1990!!! ! ! !! ! 2012 2002!! ! ! ! ! 2012 Key: - = change < +/-3%; 1 arrow = change < +/-25%; 2 arrows=change > indicates negative change, black arrow indicates positive change.
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Russia
!!!
"
!
!
!
"
!
-‐
!
"
"
"
"
"
!
"
-‐
"
!!!
""
!
-‐
!
"
-‐
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
""
-‐
"
"
"
!
"
!!
"
!
""
!
"
!
!!!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
-‐
!!
"
!!!
-‐
!
-‐
!!
+/-50%; 3 arrows = change > +/-100%. Red arrow
102
200000 150000 100000 50000 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent
250000
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Lithuania
Figure 7.14. GHG emissions in the BSR, 1990-2012.
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent
Within the BSR, the energy industry is the highest net producer of GHG emissions, followed by the transport sector (Figure 7.15). Emissions from transport have grown over the period 1990 – 2012, while other sectors have seen a decline, although variations at the national scale are evident (Table 7.4).
Energy
Manufacturing
Transport
Industry
Agriculture/Forestry
Waste
Figure 7.15. Total GHG emissions per sector in the BSR, excluding the Russian Federation, 1990-2012.
103
Table 7.4. Key trends in GHG emissions, per sector and nation in the BSR. Sector
Trend 1990-2012
Trend 2002-2012
Energy Industries
Growth in GHG emissions in Norway (50%) and Finland (7%), with reductions elsewhere. The greatest reductions were seen in Lithuania, Latvia and Russia. Manufac- Declines in every country. turing and Greatest decreases in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia Construction Transport Increase in Poland (56%) and Norway (26%) and Denmark (12%). Decreases elsewhere, with greatest decrease in Lithuania (65%). Industrial Decreases throughout excluding minor increases in Processes Finland (3% increase), Latvia (13%) and Poland (9%). Most significant decline in Norway (80%).
Greatest reductions in Denmark (64%) and Finland (46%) The only increases in GHG emissions in energy industries occurred in Estonia (125%) and Norway (13%) Increase in Estonia (36%), Lithuania (33%) and Germany 4%) Declines elsewhere, greatest in Denmark (37%), Finland 33%, and Poland 29% Greatest growth in Poland (43%), followed by Lithuania (17%) and Norway (14%). Greatest decrease in Germany (13%) followed by Sweden (8%). Variable results in the BSR, from declines in Denmark (80%) and Norway (37%) to increases in Poland and Latvia
Agriculture Decreases throughout the region, most significant in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (over 100% in each case).
Minor changes throughout, mostly small decreases with slight increases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
Waste
Decreases throughout or limited change (e.g. Poland and Latvia)
Decreases throughout (excluding Poland and Russia, 17% and 37% increase respectively), most significant declines in Germany (over 200%) and Sweden (over 100%).
Note: data for the Russian Federation is only presented for 1990-2012 and sourced from the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat Summary of GHG Emissions.
The greenhouse gas intensity (carbon content) of energy consumption is the ratio between two subindicators: energy-related greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases) and gross inland energy consumption. The indicator is measured in comparison to the values for the year 2000 (Index 2000 = 100) and indicates progress towards the objectives and targets of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Since 2000, there have been reductions in the GHG intensity of energy consumption throughout the BSR, excluding Lithuania, which has experienced a 9% increase in the ratio of intensity. The greatest reduction in the ratio of intensity occurred in Denmark (17.3%), Finland (17.4%) and Sweden (17.5%). 115 110 Percent (%) ref 2000 = 100
105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Lithuania
Figure 7.16. GHG emissions intensity of energy consumption.
104
7.12 Discussion on energy and climate in BSR Climate and energy play an important role in contributing to sustainable development in the BSR. This contribution is strongly recognised in regional policy and programs that focus on enhancing the efficiency of energy markets to ensure security of supply. Energy security is linked to the development of renewable energy as an alternate supply option, and a focus on renewables also achieves sustainable development objectives by reducing GHG emissions and meeting international commitments (e.g. commitments in accordance with the Kyoto protocol and the newly defined Sustainable Development Goals). As most of the nations in the BSR are part of the European Union, there is symmetry in climate and energy policy targets from national, to regional scales, and well-established indicators to measure progress in achieving those targets. For BSR nations which are members of the EU, three primary targets with respect to climate and energy have been set (as detailed in the EUSBSR): (i) to increase the efficiency of energy markets; (ii) to increase the use of renewable energy; and (iii) to promote energy efficiency. These targets are comparable with the objectives of the Energy Strategy for Russia and align to the EU Climate and Energy Policy and the EU2020 and 2030 Strategies. In turn, the objectives are consistent with international commitments to reduce GHG emissions (which can be achieved by improving energy efficiency and developing renewable energies) and the Sustainable Development Goals of ‘Ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’ and ‘Taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’. The nations that reside in the BSR have a varied social, environmental and political context, which influences their progress and capacity to achieve the targets in efficiency of markets, efficiency of consumption and renewable development. National progress against the specified targets is summarised in Table 7.5 and discussed below.
Increase in the efficiency of energy (including energy markets) Efficient use of energy is key to reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change. While nations in the BSR are on track to meet their GHG emission obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the benefits of continuing to increase energy efficiency extend beyond international commitments, to achieving national energy security and global sustainability benefits. Unfortunately, progress in achieving regional energy efficiency targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, implemented by Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency (e.g. a 20% reduction in the final energy consumption and primary energy consumption index), has been limited. Between 2004 and 2013, there has been an average increase of 1.5% in the primary energy consumption in the BSR and 1.3% in final energy consumption. While there are variations nationally (refer to Figures 7.2 and 7.3), significant progress is required to achieve the stated objective of a 20% reduction by 2020. As a component of developing efficient energy markets, there is a focus on reducing energy dependence and developing energy infrastructure. Russia and Norway are net exporters of energy, while all other countries in the BSR rely on energy imports. Despite Russia’s significant role in the export of energy, within country variation in access to energy resources is significant. In the north-west more energy is consumed than developed and as such the region is a net ‘importer’ of energy. In the remainder of the BSR, energy dependence has remained steady or declined since 1990, excluding Lithuania and Poland, which have seen an increase in energy dependence since 2010. Increases in fuel efficiency (e.g. increasing automobile fuel economy standards), fuel switching (e.g. renewables in place of imported oil), new production and increased storage capacity can reduce energy dependence. At the regional level, the European Energy Union has been investigating ways to reduce the EU’s dependence on gas supplies from Russia, by diversifying energy sources and establishing new partnerships with other suppliers (e.g. Turkey, Middle East and Africa). It is argued,
105
however, that the chance of succeeding in reducing EU’s dependence on Russian gas is small (due to varied political and economic interests across the EU); and that rather than seeking to diversifying supply routes focus should be on reducing the overall demand for gas through energy efficiency and alternative energy sources (Yablokova 2015).
Use of renewable energy Germany has made significant progress in the development of renewable energy, in part due to the German ‘Energiewende’ (or Energy Transition), which provided subsidies for the development of renewable energies. Yet despite these developments, and the overwhelmingly larger production of biofuels and solar collectors in Germany compared to the other BSR nations, Germany remains the furthest from its EU target of renewables in energy consumption. Poland has also not yet met its target. It has, however, seen significant growth in renewable energy infrastructure since 2010, including in biodiesel, biogasoline and solar collectors. While renewables are underdeveloped in Russia there is a significant national potential for a variety of forms of renewable energy, in particular, hydropower. In north-west Russia however, opportunities for renewables focus on wood-based energy production and small scale hydropower. Existing pulp mills could supply the biomass required for wood energy. Wood (or biomass) accounts for more than 80% of renewable-energy demand in Poland and Finland (The Economist, 2013); providing the opportunity for partnerships within the BSR to share lessons. Even in Germany, where significant subsidies have been provided to increase wind and solar power, 38% of non-fossil fuel consumption comes from the wood/biomass. A reliance on wood as a form of ‘renewable’ fuel is, however, cautioned, as if whole trees are used to produce energy, carbon emissions compared with coal are increased by 79% over 20 years and 49% over 40 years; with no carbon reduction for 100 years, when the replacement trees have grown (The Economist, 2013). Even if most trees in boreal forests are cut at a much younger age, it is still problematic from a GHG emission perspective. At the regional level, nations in the BSR (excluding Russia) are on track to meet the 2020 targets of renewables in energy consumption and renewables in electricity. The adoption of renewables in transport, however, is limited in several BSR nations, including, Russia, Estonia and Norway. As one of the sectors experiencing growth in GHG emissions in the region, it will be important to develop the adoption of renewables within the transport sector.
106
Table 7.5: Summary of energy and climate performance in the Baltic Sea Region. Specified targets GHG 2020 emissions 8% reduction relative to 1990 EU Kyoto Protocol 20% reduction (or 3% if conditions are right) EU2020 Russia – 25% reduction relative to 1990 2030 40% reduction EU2030 Energy 2020 Produc20% increase in energy efficiency tivity/ EU2020 Intensity 2030 27% improvements in energy efficiency EU2030 40% reduction in energy intensity of GDP from 2005 levels Energy Strategy for Russia & Sharmina et al. (2013) Energy No specified targets Security Energy Infrastructure
No specified targets, general objective to increase energy infrastructure to reduce energy dependence in the BSR.
Cogeneratio n of heat and power
2020 EU member states should enhance the efficiency of power stations in particular by further promoting the use of combined heat and power Renewables % of renewables in energy consumption
2020 12% average EUSDS 20% EU2020 Russia – no specified targets identified 2030 27% EU2030 % of 2020 renew21% as common but differentiated ables in target EUSDS electricity 4.5% for NW Russia State Policy for Renewable Energy % of rene- 2020 wables in 10% EU Climate and Energy Policy transport
Current Status/Trends Energy Efficiency As of 2012, all BSR countries had achieved a 20% of GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels, excluding Finland, Norway and Poland. Of those, only Norway has not yet met the 8% reduction target. The GHG emission reduction target for Russia implies growth as current levels are approximately 30% lower than 1990 (Sharmina et al. 2013)
The best performing countries in the BSR have reduced final energy consumption between 6% and 8 % (e.g. Sweden and Germany). In some instances, however, there have been increases in final energy consumption; for example, a 7.5% growth in Poland and 4% growth in Latvia. Consequently, there remains significant work to achieve the 20% reduction sought under the EU Climate and Energy Policy target. The Scientific Advisory Board that monitors the implementation of the 2009 Russian Energy Efficiency Legislation argues that delivering the 40% pledge by 2030 is very unlikely (Roketsky, 2011; cited in Sharmina et al 2013). Russia and Norway are net exporters of energy, while all other countries in the BSR rely on energy imports. Generally, this dependency has remained steady or declined since 1990, excluding in Lithuania and Poland, which have seen an increase in energy dependence since 2010. Germany has significant biofuel and solar energy production. Poland has increased its energy infrastructure significantly since 2010. There are opportunities to expand other forms of renewable energy infrastructure in Finland and Sweden, in particular hydropower and wind power, as changes in climate are projected to increase opportunities for these fuel sources (BalticClimate Toolkit). Very limited renewable energy infrastructure in Russia, but a potential bioenergy capacity of 30 GW or 75 hydropower stations (Shelest, 2010). Significant potential for additional energy infrastructure in Russia, old power stations unused and would be twice as cheap to get back up and running compared to building new infrastructure (OECD 2003). As of 2013, Denmark (51%), Latvia (38%), Finland (34%) and Lithuania (35%) had the highest proportion of electricity from CHP generation in total gross electricity generation, while Norway had the lowest (0.3%). Between 2000 and 2013, the greatest growth in CHP generation occurred in Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia. Russian data not available Estonia and Sweden have surpassed their overall renewable energy target, while Germany and Poland have the smallest proportion (excluding Russia) and are the furthest from their national target (5.6% and 3.7% respectively). Russia 2.8% in total energy consumption. Limited renewables due to the low domestic price of gas. But as the price of gas reaches international parity, markets for renewables are expected to increase (OECD 2003). Between 2004-2013, the ratio of electricity produced from renewable energy sources increased across the BSR. Poland, Estonia and Lithuania are the only countries not meeting the 21% target as of 2013. Hydro is the most extensively used renewable energy source in Russia, accounting for 18% of total electricity generation in 2000 (OCED 2003); yet opportunities for hydro in NW Russia are limited (OECD 2003). As of 2013, Sweden had the highest proportion of renewable energy in fuel consumption of transport (17%), followed by Finland (9%), while Estonia (0.2%) and Norway (1.6%) have the lowest. Sweden and Finland also experienced the greatest growth in the proportion of renewable energy in transport fuel consumption between 2004 and 2013. Data not available for Russian Federation.
107
8. Sustainable consumption and production in the Baltic Sea region – a sector study 8.1 The concept of sustainable consumption and production (SCP) The concept of sustainable consumption and production is well established on the global level. It was recognized in the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) as one of the three overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for, sustainable development (UN DESA 2015). Together with poverty eradication and the management of natural resources SCP is essential to foster economic and social development. It was recognized that fundamental changes in the way societies produce and consume are indispensable for achieving global sustainable development. Sustainable development as well as sustainable consumption rely on premises such as • • •
Wise use of resources, and minimisation of waste and pollution; Use of renewable resources within their capacity for renewal; Fuller product life-cycles;
The Rio+20 Conference reaffirmed that Sustainable Consumption and Production is a cornerstone of sustainable development. The wellbeing of humanity, the environment, and the functioning of the economy, ultimately depend upon the responsible management of the planet’s natural resources. The most promising strategy for ensuring future prosperity lies in decoupling economic growth from the rising rates of natural resource use and the environmental impacts that occur in both consumption and production stages of product life cycles (UNEP 2012). Sustainable Consumption and Production is about “the use of services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of further generations”. SCP is about doing more and better with less, and increasing resource efficiency and promoting sustainable lifestyles. It offers important contributions for poverty alleviation and the transition towards low-carbon and green economies. It requires building cooperation among different stakeholders as well as across sectors in all countries (Oslo Roundtable, 1994). The concept of sustainable consumption and production is also well studied within the academic community. It is recognized that since about 30 years the global annual use of natural resources is larger than what the planet produces each year, its carrying capacity. The footprints of all countries of the Earth add up to much more than the planet can produce. We are in a state of overshoot! The global society behaves as if we had several planets, but in fact there is only one planet Earth (Global Footprint Network 2015). The use of non-renewable resources, e.g. fossil fuels, phosphorus and rare earth metals, confronts us with the dilemma of what to do when they are used up. But already since long we have to deal with the massive accumulation of the end products of these resources when being used, such as the carbon dioxide causing climate change. Other resources are renewable, such as fisheries, forests and many ecosystem products. These are used up faster than they can be replenished. All of these resources have essential roles in our present economy and way of life, and their mismanagement put our societies in danger. The resource flows and the development of our societies was studied in some detail for the first time by a research team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the commission of the Club of Rome. The results published in 1972 was called Limits to Growth. (Meadows et al 1972). The authors
108
predicted that if the trends of increasing resource use was to continue, the world would come to an overshoot, peak, and thereafter collapse. The development they predicted for the so-called business-asusual scenario turned out to be well made and has been confirmed several times since its publication. Presently we are in overshoot and the global peak is predicted to occur in the period 2020-2030 if business as usual applies. On the local and regional scale overshoot and collapse has been illustrated several times. E.g. the Norwegian oil production reached a peak (peak oil) in 1999 and has since declined. The Baltic Sea cod reached a peak in the 1980s and has since declined. In simple natural systems it is well established, by ecologists. Box 8.1 Developing Governance for Sustainable Consumption and Production 1992 At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) the concept of sustainable consumption (SC) is established in chapter 4 of the Agenda 21. 1994 Sustainable Consumption Symposium in Oslo. Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) is about "the use of services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of further generations" (Oslo symposium, 1994). 1995 SC was requested to be incorporated by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) into the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection. 1997 A major report on SC was produced by the OECD. 1998 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) starts a SC program and SC is discussed in the Human Development Report of the UN Development Program (UNDP). 2002 A ten-year program on sustainable consumption and production (SCP) is included in the Plan of Implementation at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. 2003 The Marrakech Process is developed by coordination of a series of meetings and other multi-stakeholder processes by UNEP and UNDESA following the WSSD. The Marrakech Task Forces build North-South cooperation and implementation mechanisms for SCP, and a ten Year Framework Program 10YFP, mostly on sustainable consumption and lifestyles, is established. 2008 The European Commission announces a series of proposals to improve the environmental performance of products and to increase the demand for more sustainable goods and production technologies. The Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan identifies voluntary and required actions to influence consumer behaviour and improve the energy and environmental performance of products. 2012 The 10YFP on sustainable consumption and production patterns is adopted at the Rio+20 conference to be executed during the period 2012-2022. The goals of the 10YFP are 1) to assist countries in their efforts to green their economies; 2) to help corporations develop greener business models; 3) to encourage consumers to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. The programmes included in the 10YFP are voluntary. 2015 The first Global Meeting of the 10YFP is organised in May 2015 in the UN Headquarters in New York, USA.
109
Sustainable consumption and production requires that we decrease our flow of natural resource to sustainable levels and establish an equilibrium between nature’s capacity to provide for society and our use of resources. To achieve such a balance we need to reduce resource extraction, improve production techniques, develop sustainable consumption patterns and life styles, and finally recycle resources to a much larger extent than today. Governance for sustainable consumption and production focuses on developing policies, strategies, and tools to achieve these goals.
8.2 The European Union policy on Sustainable Consumption and Production In 2008, the European Commission announced a series of proposals to improve the environmental performance of products and to increase the demand for more sustainable goods and production technologies. The Action Plan Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan identifies voluntary and required actions to influence consumer behaviour and improve the energy and environmental performance of products (European Commission 2015). The Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan addresses EU goals for environmental sustainability, economic growth, and public welfare. By improving the overall environmental performance of products throughout their life-cycle and supporting the development of more sustainable products and production technologies, it seeks both to foster resource conservation and resource efficiency and to "decouple" economic growth from environmental degradation. Describing several important concepts provides useful context for understanding the Action Plan. "Sustainable development" was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its 1987 report Our Common Future and Sustainable Production and Consumption in the Oslo Roundtable 1994. In both cases, a central question is the degree to which improvements in environmental quality can be achieved through the substitution of more efficient and less polluting goods and services (patterns of consumption), rather than through reductions in the volumes of goods and services consumed (levels of consumption). In both cases, also, these concepts raise broader social questions related, e.g., to poverty, human rights, and global trade. The EU Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan is an important part of the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy, which affirms the United Nations’ Marrakech Process on Sustainable Consumption and Production and global 10-Year Sustainable Consumption and Production Framework. The EU SCP Action Plan includes: The EU Eco-Design Directive for Energy-Using Products: The Ecodesign Directive provides with consistent EU-wide rules for improving the environmental performance of energy related products (ERPs) through ecodesign.
•
A proposal to extend mandatory labelling requirements related to the energy performance of products, under the 1992 Energy Labelling Directive . Under the proposal, this directive, which requires labelling of household appliances to increase consumer awareness about energy and environmental performance, would be applied to a wider range of products. •
A proposal to strengthen the voluntary EU Eco-Label by widening the number of products covered (e.g., including food and beverage products) and streamlining the system. The proposal is designed to encourage manufacturers to go beyond mandatory minimum product standards The Action Plan also proposes that only products attaining a certain level of energy or environmental performance should be procured by EU Member States and institutions and
•
110
should be eligible for incentives granted by Member States to consumers for the purchase of eco-friendly products. A separate Communication on Green Public Procurement. This communication identifies priority sectors of the economy and includes a process to establish common environmental criteria and targets to guide green public procurement by Member States.
•
A proposed revision of the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) to increase the number of companies involved, including companies outside the EU, and reduce the administrative burden and costs for Small and Mediums Sized Enterprises (SMEs). EMAS is a management tool to help firms evaluate, report and improve their environmental performance.
•
The Action Plan integrates and complements a number of existing EU and Member State actions to foster resource efficiency and the use of eco-friendly products. For example, in addition to the specific policies and programs identified in the preceding section, the Action Plan builds on the EU’s Integrated Product Policy, Thematic Strategy on the Use of Natural Resources, and Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Along with the Action Plan, these initiatives provide strategic direction for the EU in achieving sustainability goals.
8.3 UNEP's Resource Efficiency Programme UNEP works to promote resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production (SCP) in both developed and developing countries. The focus is on achieving increased understanding and implementation by public and private decision makers, as well as civil society, of policies and actions for resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production. This includes the promotion of sustainable resource management in a life cycle perspective for goods and services (UNEP's Resource Efficiency Programme 2015). International scientific assessments, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the Global Environmental Outlook and the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, make it increasingly evident the world cannot achieve sustainable economic growth without significant innovation in both the supply (production) and demand (consumption) sides of the market. Decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental degradation and creating the ‘space’ for poor people to meet their basic needs will require producers to change design, production, processes and marketing activities. Consumers will also need to provide for environmental and social concerns – in addition to price, convenience and quality – in their consumption decisions. Economic growth and the development and human welfare gains it contributes to cannot be sustained with current consumption and production patterns. At the same time, a large share of the world population is still consuming too little to meet even their basic needs. Responding to this dual challenge will require a combination of new policies, redirected investment, application of environmentally sound technologies, international cooperation, and capacity building to reshape national economies as well as the global economy. UNEP is well positioned to facilitate and accelerate the shift to more resource efficient and sustainable consumption and production patterns. UNEP is building on its existing mandates, securing more synergies within the organization itself, and strengthening and extending partnerships with a broad range of public and private institutions and stakeholders. SCP aims at “doing more and better with less,” increasing net welfare gains from economic activities by reducing resource use, degradation and pollution along the whole lifecycle, while increasing quality of life. This change towards SCP involves different stakeholders, including business, consumers, policy
111
makers, researchers, scientists, retailers, media, and development cooperation agencies, among others. It requires a systemic approach and cooperation among actors operating in the supply chain, from producer to final consumer. It involves engaging consumers through awareness-raising and education on sustainable consumption and lifestyles, providing consumers with adequate information through standards and labels and engaging in sustainable public procurement, among others.
Fig. 8.1 Principles of SCP (Source: UNEP)
A key approach to UNEP’s work on resource efficiency is the life cycle perspective. By reducing the environmental impact of goods and services at every stage, from raw material extraction and transportation to manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal, we can achieve more wellbeing with less material consumption. This enhances our potential to meet human needs while respecting the ecological carrying capacity of the Earth. This is closely related to the decoupling concept used in UNEP: decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental degradation – or doing more and better with less. Reforms in government policies, changes in private sector management practices and decisions, and increased consumer awareness are needed to achieve decoupling.
8.4 Organizations working with Sustainable Consumption and Production The International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) is working with SCP since the Olso roundtable in 1994. The emphasis of sustainable production is on the supply side of the equation, focusing on improving environmental performance in key economic sectors, such as agriculture, energy, industry, tourism and transport. Sustainable consumption addresses the demand side, looking at how the goods and services required to meet basic needs and improve quality of life - such as food and health, shelter, clothing, leisure and mobility - can be delivered in ways that reduce the burden on the Earth's carrying capacity." (International Institute of Sustainable Development, iisd, 2015). The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) undertakes a number of activities, including activities related to cleaner production, waste management and environmental management tools, to further SCP goals. Since 1998, UNEP’s Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch has worked to develop comprehensive national programs or action plans on sustainable consumption and production. The
112
UN is responsible from managing the Marrakech Process and development of the 10-Year Sustainable Consumption and Production Framework through Regional Marrakech Process Consultations. The goal of the Framework is to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production (SCP), thus promoting social and economic development within the carrying capacity of ecosystems by de-linking economic growth from environmental degradation (UNEP SCP Policies and the 10YFP, 2015). The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has done extensive work on the environmental impacts of household consumption and the design of environmental policy targeted at households. One current OECD project is reviewing evidence on the effects of environmental policy on household behaviour, with respect to energy use, waste, transport, and water use. OECD has undertaken work to identify measures for sustainable manufacturing production (OECD EaP GREEN: Development of national policy frameworks, 2015). The Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP) is a non-profit limited liability. It was jointly founded by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2005 to establish an internationally visible institution for scientific research, outreach and transfer activities on sustainable consumption and production (SCP). The Centre contributes to the Plan of Implementation agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 to promote sustainable patterns of consumption and production (CSCP – UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, 2012). Following the aim of a One-Planet-Living, the key areas to accelerate the implementation of SCP are the development of national action plans on SCP, the integration of SCP into urban development planning and the mainstreaming of SCP in poverty eradication efforts. CSCP has thus decided to work on the socio-economic aspects of SCP and strategies for bringing about change by linking SCP to national and local development goals. The CSCP supports new models of economic development such as closed-loop economies, investments in long-term and cost-effective solutions, and creating public/private partnerships that can provide better access to sustainable environmental services for the poor. The CSCP conducted various projects with and for diverse actors, such as national and European ministries, the European Commission, UNEP, multinational companies, as well as SMEs, European research institutes and non-governmental and civil society organisations. The work of the CSCP can be divided into three core areas: 1) Sustainable Lifestyles, 2) Sustainable Infrastructures, Products and Services 3) Sustainable Business Models. The EU-funded Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) analyses the state of the art in SCP research, and promote cases of (radical) sustainable consumption for mobility, agro-food and energy use. SCORE! has provided important support and inputs to the Marrakech Process and development of the 10YFP. Through its series of workshops and conferences, SCORE! has established a good platform of interaction and cooperation between scientist and researches and the Marrakech process stakeholders (SCORE, 2015). The International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management was launched in November 2007 and is expected to provide the scientific impetus for decoupling economic growth and resource use from environmental degradation (UNEP:s International Resource Panel, 2015). Efficient resource use will require that our economies become more circular. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation established in 2010 has the aim to accelerate the transition to the circular economy. Since its creation the charity has emerged as a global thought leader, establishing circular economy on the agenda of decision makers across business, government and academia. The Foundation seeks to create a global teaching and learning platform built around the circular economy framework, working in both
113
formal and informal education. The Foundation works with Global Partners (Cisco, Google, H&M, Kingfisher, Philips, Renault, and Unilever) to develop circular business initiatives and to address challenges to implementing them. In 2013, the first dedicated circular economy innovation programme was created, the Circular Economy 100.
8.5 Trends observed in EU on sustainable consumption and production The trends observed in sustainable production and consumption have developed favourably in the long term. (Eurostat Statistics Explained. Sustainable development - consumption and production 2015). Since 2002, a considerable improvement is observed in resource productivity. This long-term efficiency gain occurred because GDP had been growing faster than domestic material consumption (DMC), in particular before the onset of the economic crisis. Since 2008, EU resource use has dropped sharply, putting DMC below levels observed a decade ago. Between 2004 and 2012 the amount of waste excluding major mineral wastes generated per inhabitant in the EU was reduced by about 5.8 %. The amount of hazardous waste generated among the EU-28 increased considerably between 2004 and 2012. The highest increase was in 2012, when hazardous waste generation rose by 3.6 % compared with 2010. Since 2000, waste treatment practices have improved considerably in the EU. Improvements have taken place in the area of atmospheric emissions of acidifying substances and ozone precursors. Due to almost continuous declines since 1990, man-made emissions of ammonia (NH3), sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) in 2013 were lower than in 1990. A strong reduction of emissions occurred in the shortterm period between 2008 and 2013. Electricity consumption of households has risen more or less continuously since 1990. Growth in the number of households has been a main driver of this trend. Final energy consumption in the EU has been rising since 1990. The strong contractions in final energy use in 2009 and 2011 not only brought final energy consumption in 2013 down to pre-2000 levels, but also pushed the EU ahead on its projected path to reaching the 20 % energy saving target. Production patterns have shown mixed trends in the EU over past years. Although organisations have increasingly implemented certified environmental management systems according to the EcoManagement and Audit Scheme (EMAS) since 2005, this trend has reversed in the short term. Between 2009 and 2014, the number of EMAS-registered organisations fell by 5.8 %. Farming practices have become more and more sustainable in the EU since 2005, as reflected by the increase in the share of organic farming. This dynamic development has also been reflected in growing sales of organic products on the EU food market.
8.6 Trends of sustainable consumption and production in BSR 8.6.1 General trends are positive In the following a summary description of sustainable consumption and production patterns in the Baltic Sea region is given. It is mostly based on statistics from the Eurostat database. Most data refer to the material flows as described in extraction and wasting in the BSR economies. Some data describe the properties of production, mostly in industry and agriculture, and consumption, mostly in households. The Baltic Sea region, just as the European Union in general, has a slight positive trend as more economic value is obtained for each unit of natural resources used. There is thus a tendency to
114
decouple economic growth from material flows, as resource efficiency is slowly increasing. Other positive signs include a reduction of polluting substances, especially air pollution, per economic unit. On the waste side we see a reduction of the amount of waste going to landfill, that is, the least favourable alternative of waste management, and a slow increase of recycling and composting. On the production side the number of companies which has introduced environmental management systems, especially ISO 14001, has increased, and so has the land area cultivated under ecological conditions (organic farming). The consumption still shows increased resource use. Thus energy use per household is increasing, and so are energy used for mobility. Data on sustainable consumption is however difficult to extract and the way consumers behave is not easily concluded from the available statistics. Data for the Baltic Sea region as a whole will be given only occasionally, because when based on national statistics, it is not always relevant. It is dominated by Germany with 80 million inhabitants which is 50 % of the population in the region, and secondly by Poland, with close to 40 million inhabitants. The Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden - with some 25 million inhabitants account for about 15 % of the region and the three Baltic States - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - with about 8 million accounts for 5 % of the total. In most cases national data will be given per capita to be able to compare the countries. 8.6.2 Ecological footprints Ecological footprints are available for most countries in the BSR since the 1960s and for all countries since 1991. There is a mixed picture (Fig. 8.2). Some countries have increased their footprint much, such as Germany, Latvia and Lithuania. Some have a decreased footprint, Norway and Russian Federation, while most countries remain on the same level, in spite of increased population, and a larger national economy. Total footprints are calculated as the sum of five partial footprints: Cropland Footprint, Grazing Footprint, Forest Product Footprint, Carbon Footprint, Fish Footprint, and Built up land. In most countries in the region carbon footprints, mostly caused by the use of fossil fuels, make up almost half of the total footprint (Table 8.1). Table 8.1 Ecological Footprint in 2011 (Global hectares per capita, Source Global Footprint Network). HDI
Per Capita GDP (USD)
Population (millions)
Cropland Footprint
Grazing Footprint
Forest Product Footprint
Carbon Footprint
Fish Footprint
Denmark
0,90
41 906
5,6
0,6
0,5
1,0
1,8
0,2
0,2
4,1
Estonia
0,84
23 540
1,3
1,1
0,1
1,9
2,2
0,0
0,1
5,5
Finland
0,88
40 183
5,4
Germany
0,91
41 730
82,9
1,0
0,2
0,5
2,5
0,1
0,2
4,4
Latvia
0,80
19 826
2,1
2,2
0,1
1,8
1,2
0,2
0,1
5,4
Lithuania
0,83
22 521
3,0
1,1
0,3
1,2
1,6
0,3
0,1
4,2
Norway
0,94
61 648
4,9
1,2
0,2
1,1
0,7
1,1
0,4
3,7
Poland Russian Federation
0,83
21 751
38,2
0,8
0,0
0,8
2,0
0,1
0,1
4,0
0,78
22 564
143,4
0,9
0,1
0,4
2,8
0,2
0,1
4,3
Sweden
0,90
41 615
9,5
1,4
0,3
1,4
3,0
0,1
0,3
6,4
Country/ region
Total Built up Ecological land Footprint
4,8
115
Fig. 8.2 Ecological footprints of the countries in the BSR. Red line is the footprint and green line the biocapacity, expressed in global hectars. (Source Footprintnetwork).
Footprints may be seen in the perspective of the biocapacity of the country, that is, natural resources available within the state. Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Norway and Russia have a biocapacity, which is
116
larger than the total footprint, that is keeps the footprints within the country. Germany, Denmark and Poland use much more resources than those available within the country. If instead compared to the global biocapacity, the footprint available is about 1.8 Gha/capita. Thus the Baltic Sea region with a footprints from 3.7 to 6.4 Gha/capita corresponds to the use of natural resources requiring 2 - 3.5 planets. 8.6.3 Total material flows Data for natural resource extraction reflects the total resource flows in our societies. Only a fraction of the extracted resource continues to the production stage. Left behind is the so-called ecological rucksack. This typically corresponds to close to 90 % of the resources extracted. The ecological rucksack is to a large extent reported as mining waste. Domestic material consumption, which is the total of material used in the economy, was about 25 000 tonnes annually per capita, with slightly smaller values for the less advanced economies (Fig. 8.3). A lager resource efficiency was seen in Germany and Sweden. Domestic material consumption had a small decrease, mostly explained by the reduction in Germany. Poland showed a small increase. Much of this is probably explained by an increase in the service sector, requiring less resources, in the more advanced economies. Most of the changes are explained by changes in the domestic material extraction, that is, import and export is much smaller. As a total the domestic material consumption in the BSR increased from 2.49 to 2.75 billions of tonnes yearly in the period.
117
Fig. 8.3 Domestic material consumption (Source Eurostat). a) Total domestic material consumption total (thousand tonnes) b) Domestic material consumption per capita (tonnes/capita)
118
Fig. 8.4 Domestic material consumption categories (Source Eurostat) a) Biomass b) Metal ores c) Non-metallic minerals d) Fossil energy materials The main components in the material flows are metallic materials (dominated by iron), non-metallic materials, mostly sand and gravel, biomaterials, and fossil energy materials (Fig. 8.4). The largest fraction, the non-metallic materials, and the next largest fraction, the fossil energy flows, are both decreasing. Biomass use is stable. Economic value per amount of material flow, the resource efficiency, is on the average EUR 1.52 per kg in the Baltic Sea region, with a very large variations. In 2013 Norway had the highest value with 2.63 EUR/Kg followed by Germany 2.17 and Sweden and Denmark 2.00 EUR/Kg. The three Baltic States and Poland have values between 0.4 and 0.7. There are thus large potentials for improvements for most countries in the region. The resource efficiency has in general an increasing tendency.
119
Fig. 8.5 Resource productivity (Source Eurostat).
8.6.4 Wasting For the downstream end of the material flows, the wasting phase, there is a decreasing trend (Fig. 8.6). The by far largest amount of waste in our societies is mining waste which is landfilled. Other large categories of waste is from the building and energy sectors (Table 8.2). Data for the Russian Federation were available in State reports. The categorisation of waste in Russia is however different from the EU and not all figures can be extracted. It is reported that 2 348 000 thousand tonnes was recycled or reused out of 5 008 000 that is 47% (2012 data), a surprisingly high number when compared to our experience, while 58 % is reported as “sent to burial”; interpreted as landfilled. Municipal waste is the most visible waste category. This is slowly increasing in the region, probably explained by increasing economy and was in 2013 from 300 to 700 kg/capita and year (Fig. 8.7). This indicates that it is possible to reduce municipal waste.
Fig. 8.6 Generation of waste excluding major mineral wastes (Source Eurostat).
120
Table 8.2 Waste categories, thousand tonnes. Year 2012. (Source Eurostat; Russian data from State Report On the state and protection of Environment of Russian Federation in 2013). Country
Agriculture, forestry & fishing
Mining & quarrying
Waste collection, treatment, disposal and recovery
Construction
Households
All NACE activities & households
Denmark
223 015
18 005
2 462 266
3 867 209
3 727 494
16 332 249
Germany
648 869
8 625 187
42 447 444
197 527 868
36 471 810
368 022 172
77 404
9 354 964
536 466
657 089
436 420
21 992 343
2 767
1 968
198 880
7 509
1 213 193
2 309 581
481 708
25 911
250 906
419 136
1 176 825
5 678 751
Poland
1 952 782
68 035 432
10 355 011
15 367 995
9 324 197
163 377 949
Finland
3 157 813
52 880 000
147 438
16 033 874
1 733 525
91 824 193
Sweden
273 071
129 480 919
3 718 966
7 655 935
4 193 105
156 306 504
Norway
150 002
470 295
256 057
1 880 543
2 437 776
10 720 872
26 200
4 629 300
6 967 431
268 892 681
60 373 434
243 417 158
60 714 345
836 564 614
1%
32 %
7.2 %
29 %
7.3 %
100 %
Estonia Latvia Lithuania
Russian Fed. BSR (exc. RF) % of total
14 600
5 007 900
121
Fig. 8.7 Municipal waste generation (Source Eurostat). a) Total. b) Kg/capita. The least preferred management option, landfilling, was used for up to 50 % of waste in several the countries, but with large variations and decreasing (Fig. 8.8). The lowest values - for Germany and Sweden - were about 1 %. We may conclude that landfilling can be almost entirely out-phased as a management option when waste management develops. It is, however, still very dominant in countries where the alternatives have not been developed. The next largest management option, incineration, is also around 50 % but with large variations and increasing in most countries. Incineration can be made with or without energy recovery, which is not shown in the statistics. Incineration with energy recovery is dominating in Sweden, which also imports waste from the neighbourhood countries to produce enough district heating. It is increasing in several other countries. Burnable municipal waste is thus a mostly renewable resource (although it has some plastic content) for district heating. The most preferred option is recycling of the resources. Data on recycling (Fig. 8.8) demonstrates that the percentage of waste recycled is 30-60 % in several countries.
122
Fig. 8.8 Management of municipal waste (Source Eurostat). a) Landfilling b) Incineration c) Recycling.
123
8.6.5 Production For the Production there are much fewer indicators available. Eurostat reports on organizations and sites with eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) certificates. In most countries in the Baltic Sea region the ISO 14001 environmental management scheme is more used and data on that is more relevant. The number companies with ISO 14001 certificates in the BSR has been increasing for many years (Fig. 8.10). In the entire BSR (including Federal Russia) the number of ISO 14001 certified companies increased from 2004 to 2013 by 80 %. The largest increase is seen in Germany. This increase may reflect the tendency to include a more environmentally and resource efficient production, that is, cleaner production practices. It is also reflected in a decreasing trend of air pollutants in the region, as shown by decreasing amounts of SOx, NOx and VOCs. The introduction of integrated permits for larger industries in the region since 2004, as required in the IPPC Directive, is another important factor for improving sustainability in the industrial sector. Industry remained the largest electricity consuming sector in the EU28 (36% in 2012, compared to 46% in 1990). Between 1990 and 2005, the electricity consumption in the industry sector increased by 0.9%/year; it decreased by 1.7%/year, on average, from 2005 to 2012.
Fig. 8.10 Number of ISO 14001 certificates. (Source ISO)
In the agricultural sector a similar development is shown by the areas under organic (ecological) farming (Fig. 8.11). This area is increasing especially in the Nordic countries, although also Poland demonstrates a large increase. In the entire Baltic Sea region (excluding Russian Federation and Germany for which data is lacking) the areas under organic farming increased during 2003 to 2012 from 529 371 ha to 1 631 526 ha, that is three-fold. Sweden has relatively the largest area under organic farming in the BSR which is still not more than 15 % of the total area. Organic farming requires that nutrients are recycled, that is manure is used for the fertilisation on the farm, which is well in line with sustainable production. The more efficient approach is to use manure and other agricultural residues for biogas production and thus create a new energy resource. The residue from the fermentation is then still a valuable fertiliser and thus recycling of nutrients in maintained. Biogas production on farms is strongly increasing in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, but seem to be rare in eastern and central Europe. On the whole the meat production in the region is too
124
large to be sustainable and a reduction of the meat in the diet is an important step for increasing sustainability.
Fig. 8.11 Areas under organic farming (Source Eurostat)
8.6.6 Consumption For consumption good data to follow the development is mostly lacking. The largest categories of resource use in the consumption phase is caused by the house and building sector, the transport sector, and the food sector. Statistics for energy efficient buildings (low energy buildings, or near-zero-energy buildings according to the European Commission) does not exist. Nor do we have any data for food consumption in Eurostat. The resource use in household sector is at least partly expressed by electricity consumption (Fig. 8.12). This is slowly increasing during the period studied. Resource use in households is also increasing because of the increased use of cars. During the period 2004-2011 the number of cars per 1000 inhabitants in the Baltic Sea region increased from 405 to 541 (Fig. 8.13) The number of households living in poor or very poor conditions decreased during the period (Fig. 8.14). In Eurostat statistics it is expressed as “Share of total population living in a dwelling with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames of floor”. This share decreased in the Baltic Sea region from 20.1 in 2005 to 13.9 in 2013, that is, by 31 %.
125
Fig. 8.12 Electricity consumption by households (Source Eurostat).
Fig. 8.13 Cars per 1000 inhabitants (Source Eurostat)
Fig. 8.14 Share of population living in poor conditions (Source Eurostat).
126
To get an overview of how resource efficiency is established and developed in a society we need data on how products are reused, that is, the share of cyclic economy in the countries. The European Commission is aiming towards a new, more ambitious circular economy strategy late in 2015, to transform Europe into a more competitive resource-efficient economy, addressing a range of economic sectors, including waste (Moving towards a circular economy. European Commission 2015). However still data on cyclic economy are mostly lacking. We also need data on how households manage waste, that is, fractionation of waste at the household level, and the level of recycling of waste (See Fig. 8.8c). Extended Producer Responsibility, EPR, requests producers to take responsibility of their products also for the end-of-life or wasting stage. This can be and are used for anything from beverage cans to cars. Several EU Directive requests companies to take back electric and electronic products, including batteries, from households after their use. A significant percentage of cans, bottles and other packaging in general are returned when EPR is applied, e.g. by using a deposit for all or some of these products. Another case of cyclic economy address the sharing of products, e.g. in car pools. In the Marrakech process much emphasis is of lifestyle issues. This strategy however is not reflected in any indicator, except those mentioned above. At present Sweden is responsible for implementing the Marrakesh process regarding lifestyle issues. Neither the Ministry of Environment nor the Environmental Protection Agency in Sweden has introduced any indicators to follow this.
8.7 Sustainable Consumption and Production in the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2015 includes SDG 12 “Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns”. This goal has 8 targets (Table 8.3). These are directions for policy-making but of course also the starting point for formulating indicators to follow the development towards Sustainable Consumption and Production patterns. UNEP has together with IISD published in March 2015 a guidebook on indicators for goal 12: Sustainable Consumption and Production indicators for the future SDGs. Discussion paper – March 2015 (UNEP 2015). The publication intends to “Provide information to assist Member States to identify indicators for targets proposed under SDG 12 and for some of the SCP-related targets in the other proposed SDGs; SCP is reflected as a crosscutting enabler (in the form of both targets and means of implementation) for the achievement of many of the SDGs as well as in a stand-alone goal 12 on ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns.
127
Table 8.3. Targets under SDG Goal 12 Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production patterns (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300). Target 12.1
Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries
12.2
By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.3
By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses
12.4
By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment
12.5
By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
12.6
Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.7
Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities
12.8
By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature
12.a
Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production
12.b
Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
12.c
Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities
The proposed indicators started with a very extensive set of proposals, which were filtered and prioritized to reach a more manageable set of indicators, organized into six domains which can support a shift to SCP patterns. These domains include (1) scale of resource use, (2) decoupling, (3) environmental impact, (4) technology and lifestyles, (5) financing and investing for SCP, and (6) policy support for SCP (Table 8.4).
128
Table 8.4 Proposed set of indicators for SDG 12 “Ensure Production Patterns” (UNEP 2015). Domain Indicators Scale of • Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) resource use Absolute and per capita values • Material footprint (MF) - absolute and per capita values Decoupling • National material efficiency – material economic productivity (GDP per unit of material use). activity from Production side: Material use measured through resource use Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) and Consumption side: material use measured environmental through Material footprint (MF) impact • National energy efficiency – Energy productivity (GDP per unit of energy use). Impacts • Contaminants in air, water, and soil from industrial sources, agriculture, transport and wastewater and waste treatment plants. • Number of persons killed or injured by a natural and technological disaster and economic losses in USD. • Ocean health – Ocean Health Index Technology and lifestyles Financing and investing to transform the economy to SCP
Policy support for SCP
• Sectorial material and energy efficiency • Market share of goods and services certified by independently verified sustainability labelling schemes • Amount of R&D spending on environmentally sound technologies • Amount of fossil fuel subsidies, per unit of GDP (production and consumption), and as proportion of total national expenditure on fossil fuels • Number of countries with SCP National Actions Plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority into national policies, poverty reduction strategies and sustainable development strategies. • Number of countries with inter-ministerial coordination and multi-‐stakeholder mechanisms supporting the shift to SCP.
Sustainable Consumption and Related targets in SDGs Target 12.2
Targets 8.4, 12.2
Targets 7.3, 8.4, 12.2 Targets 2.4, 3.9, 6.3, 12.4
Targets 1.5, 3.9, 11.5, 12.4 Targets 14.7, 12.b Targets 7.3, 8.4, 12.2 Targets 4.7, 12.6, 12.8 Targets 12.a (impact on 12.1, 12.2, 8.4) Target 12.c (impact on 12.2, 7.2) Targets, 12.1, 12.7, 11.b, 17.16 (impact on 2.4, 4.7, 8.4, 8.9, 9.a, 12.2, 12.3, 12.8, 12.a, 12.b)
Target 12.1, 12.4, 12.6
When comparing the indicator proposals in Table 8.6 to the data collected for the Baltic Sea region we may discuss this as divided in three areas. First resource flow. Here several of the recommended indicators have been used. Thus for the domain Scale of resource use Domestic Material Consumption (DMC), absolute and per capita values are available as well as material footprints. For the domain of Decoupling economic activity from resource use, resource productivity and energy productivity is available. For the domain of impact the very established area of
129
environmental impact data are available since long for all countries. It is noted that waste data is not included, which we believe is a mistake since waste management necessarily will be an important part of the SCP. It is also noted that decoupling may be achieved with increased recycling, that is development toward a cyclic economy, which neither is included in the proposed set of indicators. Secondly for the domain Technology and lifestyles the asked for indicators on material and energy efficiency are partly available while the data on market share of certified goods and services is not. It is noted, however, that several of the more recent EU Directives on products address exactly this issue and future reports are expected. The performance of industry and agriculture is important for sustainable production but not included in the UNEP processes, neither are the data for consumer behavior, especially in the areas of mobility, housing and food preferences, although these are the key areas to be addressed in lifestyle issues asked for in e.g. the Marrakesh process. . The Financing and investing domain is not addressed in this report and neither is the domain Policy support for SCP. These are part of the implementation work and of course relevant for governance for sustainable development.
8.8 Possible governance initiatives in the field of Sustainable Consumption and Production for the Baltic Sea region. Sustainable consumption and production requires that the resource flows in our societies is reduced and we become more resource efficient, i.e. we need “to do more with less”. Even if the tendencies are positive in the region the development is slow and countries are very different. A few directions are possible to indicate: Firstly the reduction of fossil energy use and increase of renewable energy resources will improve the situation much. Fossil energy is a main component in the resource flow in the region and makes up almost half of the footprints of most countries. Reduction of fossil energy use is also necessary for mitigation of climate change. Main tools to achieve the transition to a new energy regime includes increased energy efficiency, such as improved insulation of buildings and turn to low energy houses, as well as different patterns of mobility and transport. Reduced fossil energy needs to be replaced with an increased share of renewable energy resources. Secondly increased recycling of resources is necessary. Recycling is already well established for metals, but it is also needed for other categories of material, such as paper, organic resides, that is composting, as well as recycling of nutrients in agriculture. The greening of the economy, means not the least an increase of cyclic economy as well as the economy of sharing. This is already on its way in some of the countries in the region. All this will reduce the resource flows and still allow economic growth. For production phase improvements state support for an increased use of Cleaner Production strategies are needed. When this concept was introduced in the 1980s typical industries which started did so because of generous state guaranteed loans. Today this is supported by the introduction of management systems and more recently with Cooperate Socially Responsibility regimes, as well as sustainability reporting. For the state the long term solution includes that taxation is moved from income taxation to taxation of the resource flow, the so-called green tax shift. This will decrease unemployment and reduce the resource flow. In the consumption phase life style issues are central and it is also underlined in many of the documents on SCP. However it is difficult to measure with traditional data. Still many municipalities do have good and relevant data. This includes the use of public transport and biking rather than use of cars, the use of energy for heating and cooling houses and working places, the composition of food, especially the amount of meat in the food, important as red meat has a very high environmental impact. Finally waste
130
fractionation at the household level is essential for proper recycling, composting and in general good waste management. All this is mirrored by data at the municipal level and at least in some countries these data are collected and reported for the whole country by municipal associations.
131
References Russian Federation STATE REPORT "On the state and protection of the Environment of the Russian Federation in 2013” (2013). ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ДОКЛАД «О СОСТО ЯНИИ И ОБ ОХРАНЕ ОКРУЖАЮЩЕЙ СРЕДЫ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ в 2013 ГОДУ» http://www.mnr.gov.ru/upload/iblock/6c7/gosdokladeco.pdf UN DESA 2015. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainableconsumptionandproduction UNEP 2012. United Nations Environment Programme, SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION.
http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1515xPA-SCPforPovertyAlleviation.pdf Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. Limits to Growth (1972) Universe Books. Oslo Roundtable, 1994. http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo004.html Global Footprint Network 2015. www.footprintnetwork.org European Commission 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm UNEP's Resource Efficiency Programme 2015. http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Home/UNEPsResourceEfficiencyProgramme/tabid/55552 /Default.aspx International Institute of Sustainable Development, iisd, 2015. https://www.iisd.org/publications/sustainable-consumption-production-targets-indicators UNEP SCP Policies and the 10YFP, 2015. http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Default.aspx?tabid=55539 OECD EaP GREEN: Development of national policy frameworks, 2015. http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/eapgreen-national-policy-frameworks.htm CSCP – UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, 2012. http://www.suscon.net/default.asp?Menue=114&News=169 Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!), 2015. http://www.score-network.org/score/score_module/index.php UNEP:s International Resource Panel, 2015. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/
132
Eurostat statistics explained Sustainable development - consumption and production 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Sustainable_development__consumption_and_production Moving towards a circular economy. European Commission 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm European Commission (2010) EUROPE 2020
A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, Brussels, March 2010.
European Commission (2015a) [online] EU Climate and Energy Policy, Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/index_en.cfm?pg=policy-energy-and-climate-policy [Accessed 12 September 2015] European Commission (2015b) [online] Climate Action: 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030/index_en.htm [Accessed 12 September 2015] BP (2015a) Data workbook – Statistical Review, BP Statistical Review of World Energy 64th Edition, BP Global. BP (2015b) Russia’s Energy Market in 2014, BP Statistical Review 2015, BP Global. Available online from: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-ofworld-energy.html [Accessed 23 September 2015] Climate Change Authority (2012) International climate action. Context for the post-2020 framework [online] Australian Government. Available from: http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/internationalclimate-action-priorities-next-agreement/context-post-2020-framework [Accessed 12 September 2015] Council of the Baltic Sea States (no date) EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region - Horizontal Action Sustainable Development (and Bioeconomy), [online] Available from: http://www.cbss.org/strategies/eusbsr-hasustainable/ [Accessed 15 September 2015] Lassinanti, G (2012). Connecting Europe – Smart and Green Partnerships. Report from the Baltic Development Forum Copenhagen 2012. Osce-ngo/2012/07/gunnar-lassinanti-rapport-fran-balticdevelopment-forum-summit. Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation (2010) Energy Strategy of Russia for the Period up to 2030, Approved
by Decree 1715-r of the Government of the Russian Federation
13 November 2009, Moscow. OECD (2003) Renewables in Russia: From Opportunity to Reality, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Energy Agency, Paris, France. Roketsky L.J. (2011) Energoeffektivnost—prioritet tehno- logicheskoi modernizatsii Rossii [Energy efficiency is a key element of Russia’s technological modernisa- tion]. In ZhKH: zhurnal rukovoditelia i glavnogo buhgaltera [Housing and Public Utilities: A Journal for Managers and Chief Accountants]. Gorodskoe hoziaistvo i ZhKH [Municipal Services and Public Utilities]: National online portal; pg. 58–63. Rydén, Lars (2014) Regional Cooperation and Europe. The case of the Nordic and Baltic Sea regions. In Sweden-Serbia and Europe Periphery or not? (T. Lundén, ed) The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm.
133
Sharmina M, Anderson K, Bows-Larkin A (2013) Climate change regional review: Russia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (5):373-396. doi:10.1002/wcc.236 Shelest, K.D. 2010, BioEnergy in Russia - Towards Sustainability. St Petersburg State University The Economist (2013) The Fuel of the Future: Environmental Lunacy in Europe, The Economist, April 6th 2013, From the print edition. Available online: http://www.economist.com/node/21575771/print [Accessed 25 September 2015] Wheeler R (no date) Implementing the SDGs in an Inclusive, Comprehensive and Integrated Manner so as to Achieve Sustainable Development and Enhance the Rule of Law. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform Yablokova, A. (2015) New EU Energy Union Aims to Break Dependence, Global Risk Insights, International Policy Digest, Available online: http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/03/07/new-eu-energyunion-aims-to-break-dependence-on-russia/ [accessed 25 September 2015] BDF (2015). Baltic Development Forum. Conference report: Energy Dialogue in the Baltic Sea Region. http://www.bdforum.org/cmsystem/wpcontent/uploads/Conference_Report_Energy_Conference_6 _May_2015.pdf BONUS (2015). Baltic Sea research and development program. http://www.bonusportal.org/about_us/members CBSS (2015). Council of the Baltic Sea Secretariat. Sustainable Development Strategy. http://www.cbss.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/strategy-english.pdf Cottey, A (ed.) (1999). Sub regional Cooperation in the New Europe: Building Security, Prosperity and Solidarity from Barents to the Black Sea, London, Macmillan. Council of the European Union (2015). A New Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development after 2015 - Council conclusions. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9241-2015-INIT/en/pdf Council of the European Union (2009). 2009 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy Presidency Report. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2016818%202009%20INIT Covenant of Mayors (2015). Voluntary commitment by local authorities in Europe to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html EC (2015a). European Commission. Europe 2020 targets. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.htm EC (2015b). European Commission. EU Emissions Trading Systems http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm EC (2015c). European Commission. 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030/index_en.htm
134
EC (2015d). EU and Sustainable Development. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/ EC (2012) European Commission. Energy and Climate Package. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/docs/swd_2012_5_en.pdf EC (2009). Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0400&from=EN EEA (2014). Trends and projections in Europe 2014. Tracking progress towards Europe’s climate and energy targets for 2020. EEA Report No 6, 2014. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/trends-andprojections-in-europe-2014 ESDN (2015a). Monitoring and reviewing Sustainable Development Goals in Europe: current debates in the EU Member States and on the European level. Workshop Report. June 2015. http://www.sdnetwork.eu/pdf/doc_workshops/2015%20brussels/12th%20ESDN%20Workshop%20Report_final.p df ESDN (2015b). The European Context for monitoring and reviewing SDGs. How EU Member States and the European level are approaching the post- 2015 agenda. ESDN Quarterly Report Nr. 37. July 2015. http://www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20reports/report%20files/pdf/2015-JulyThe_European_context_for_monitoring_and_reviewing_SDGs.pdf EUSBSR (2015). European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. http://www.balticsea-regionstrategy.eu/ EUSBSR Action Plan (2015). Action plan for the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/attachments/article/590704/Action_Plan_June_2015.doc EUSBSR Action Plan (2013). Action plan for the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region http://www.cbss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Action-Plan-2013.pdf Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. General information on energy efficiency. http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/topics/climate-energy/energyefficiency/general-information/ Gehring T and Oberthur S (2008). ‘Interplay: Exploring Institutional Interaction’ in Young, O, King L and Schroeder H (eds.) (2008) Institutions and Change. Principal Findings, Applications and Research Frontiers. Cambridge/London, MIT Press. German Energy Efficiency Action Plan (2014). 3rd National Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2014 for the Federal Republic of Germany. Pursuant to Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_neeap_en_germany.pdf Gänzle, S (2011). Introduction: Transnational Governance and Policy-Making in the Baltic Sea Region, Journal of Baltic Studies, 42, pp. 1 – 7 HELCOM (2015). Helsinki Commission. http://www.helcom.fi/ Hopwood, B, Mellor, M and O’Brien G (2005) ‘Sustainable Development: Mapping different approaches’, Sustainable Development, 13, pp. 38 - 52
135
Hull, Z (2007) ’Sustainable Development: Premises, understanding and prospects’ Sustainable Development, 16, pp. 73 – 80. Independent Research Forum (2013). Post-2015: framing a new approach to sustainable development. March 2013. Policy Paper. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1690IRF%20Framework%20Paper.pdf Interact (2015). Interact Point Turku. EUSBSR Newsletter September 2015. http://www.balticsearegion-strategy.eu/communication/newsletters/book/59-september-2015/1-eusbsr-newsletters Jentoft, S, van Son, T.C. and Bjorkan M (2007) ‘Marine Protected Areas: A Governance System Analysis, Human Ecology, 35 Jevnaker, T (2014). Norway’s implementation of the EU climate and energy package: Europeanization or cherry-picking? FNI Report 7/2014. http://www.fni.no/pdf/FNI-R0714.pdf Joas, M (2008). ‘Local Governance for Sustainable Development: Local Agenda 21 in the Baltic Sea region, in Joas M, Jahn, D and Kern K (eds.) (2008) Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region. London & Sterling, Earthscan. Johansson, E (2002). ‘EU Foreign Policy and Sub-regionalization in North-Eastern Europe’, in Hubel, H. (ed.) (2002) EU Enlargement and Beyond, Berlin, Arno Spitz. Kern, K (2011). Governance for Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea Region, Journal of Baltic Studies, 42, pp. 67 – 81. NCM (2015). Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Strategy for Sustainable Development. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:701472/FULLTEXT01.pdf Nordic Energy (2015). Nordic Energy Research. Platform for cooperative energy research and policy development under the Nordic Council of Ministers. http://www.nordicenergy.org/about-us/ Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (2012). National Renewable Energy Action Plan under Directive 2009/28/EC https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/dir_2009_0028_action_plan_norway__nreap .pdf OECD (2001). Policies to Enhance Sustainable Development. Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level 2001. http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/1869800.pdf Osborn, E, Cutter, A and Ullah, F (2015). Universal Sustainable Goals. Understanding the Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries. Report of a Study by Stakeholder Forum. May 2015 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1684SF__SDG_Universality_Report_-_May_2015.pdf Pierre, J and Peters, B.G (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Houndmills, Macmillan Press. Polish Energy Efficiency Action Plan (2014). Energy Efficiency Action Plan for Poland. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/NEEAP_Poland_ENG_2014_ENER-20141003-0-0-EN-TRA-0.pdf
136
Rogers, P, Jalal, K and Boyd, J (2008). An Introduction to Sustainable Development. Glen Educational Foundation. Earthscan 2008. Rosamund, B (2010). ’New Theories of European Integration’, in Cini, M (ed.) (2010). European Union Politics 3rd, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Schimmelfennig F and Sedelmeier U (2004). ‘Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 Young, O (2002). The Institutional Dimension of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay and Scale. Cambridge and London, MIT Press. Van Zeijl-Rozema, A, Cörvers, R and Kemp R (2008). ‘Governance for Sustainable Development: A framework’, Sustainable Development, 16, pp. 410 – 421. UBC (2015). Union of the Baltic Cities. Sustainable Development Strategy. http://www.ubc.net/documentation,55,195.html United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld United Nations (2014). Economic and Social Council. Meeting Coverage and Press Release. http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ecosoc6632.doc.htm United Nations Development Group (2014). Delivering the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Opportunities at the national and the local levels. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1909UNDP-MDG-Delivering-Post2015-Report-2014.pdf United Nations (2012). The Future We Want: Outcome document adopted at Rio+20. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June %201230pm.pdf National Sustainable Development Strategies Denmark - Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Denmark http://eng.mst.dk/topics/sustainability/sustainable-development-in-denmark/ Denmark’s SD Strategy (2009, in Danish only): http://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/68622/strategiforbaeredygtigudvikling_vaekstmedomtanke.pdf Denmark’s Strategy (2014, in Danish only): http://www.fm.dk/publikationer/2014/et-baeredygtigt-danmark-udvikling-ibalance/~/media/Publikationer/Imported/2014/Et%20b%C3%A6redygtigt%20danmark/et%20b%C3%A6redygtigt%20 danmark_udvikling%20i%20balance_web_a.pdf Estonia – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Estonia https://riigikantselei.ee/en/sustainable-development Estonia’s SD Strategy (2005) https://riigikantselei.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/Failid/estonia_sds_2005.pdf Finland – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Finland http://www.ym.fi/enus/The_environment/Sustainable_development
137
Finland’s SD Strategy (2009) http://www.ym.fi/download/noname/%7B9C8F2E68-06CD-4C53-B8FC69BAAB1D59B7%7D/109067 Germany – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Germany http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/StatischeSeiten/Schwerpunkte/Nachhaltigkeit/nachhaltigkeit-2006-07-27die-nationale-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie.html Germany’s SD Strategy (2012) http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/StatischeSeiten/Schwerpunkte/Nachhaltigkeit/Anlagen/perspektives-forgermany-langfassung.pdf;jsessionid=7A51F7A94DE43D4DD18E12AC3FEA6C54.s4t2?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 Latvia – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Latvia http://www.varam.gov.lv/eng/darbibas_veidi/sustainable_development_of_latvia/ Latvia’s SD Strategy (2010) http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/B7A5865F-0D1B-42AE-A838FBA4CA31674D/0/Latvia_2010.pdf Lithuania – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Lithuania http://www.am.lt/VI/en/VI/article.php3?article_id=225 Lithuania’s SD Strategy (2009) http://www.am.lt/VI/en/VI/files/0.447936001306925826.doc Norway – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Norway https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/climate-and-environment/id925/ Norway’s SD Strategy (2002) https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kilde/ud/bro/2003/0013/ddd/pdfv/171847-nsbu.pdf Poland – Sustainable Development. Portal for National Development in Poland http://www.pozytek.gov.pl/Strategies,,programmes,and,funds,3417.html Poland: Sustainable Development Indicator Report (2011) http://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/as_Sustainable_Development_Indicators_for_Poland.pdf Russia – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Russia http://www.sustainabledevelopment.ru/eng/index.php Institute of Sustainable Development of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, report (2010) http://www.sustainabledevelopment.ru/upload/File/Reports/ISD_2010_site.pdf (English 43 - 77) Report on implementing the principles of SD in the Russian Federation. Russian outlook on the new paradigm for SD. Preparing for Rio +20 (2012) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1043natrepeng.pdf Sweden – Sustainable Development. Portal for Sustainable Development in Sweden http://www.government.se/government-policy/sustainable-development-policy/ Sweden’s SD Strategy (2006) http://www.government.se/contentassets/a321458d6c6b407388aac5590ce0fdea/strategicchallenges---a-further-elaboration-of-the-swedish-strategy-for-sustainable-development-comm.-200506126
