Greening governmentinto the policy process which gradually trickle down to sub-national govern-
ment. Some, notably the Swedish National Committee for Agenda 21, have
engaged in extensive consultation and education throughout civil society.
Although there is evidence that in some of the more enthusiastic coun-
tries, such as Sweden and Norway, these reforms have exerted a creeping
impact on the way government thinks about environmental issues, overall
theyhave brought only limited improvements in intersectoral integration of
environmental policy, as departments still display only minimal engagement
with the sustainable development agenda (Lafferty and Meadowcroft2000b).
Perhaps this is not surprising, as the wider history of administrative reform
indicates that the perennial quest for better horizontal co-ordination in gov-
ernment has repeatedly encountered insurmountable barriers (Peters1998b).
Indeed, Rhodes ( 1997 )argues that the increasing complexity of policymak-
ing and the ‘hollowing out’ of the modern state now make co-ordination
of all policies – not just environmental ones – even more difficult. Nev-
ertheless, the prospects for better environmental integration have not been
helped by government initiatives that frequently appear timid in design and
half-hearted in execution. In particular, it seems that the rhetoric of sus-
tainability has not yet penetrated the hearts and minds of policymakers in
economic sectors where the traditional paradigm still generally holds sway.
Critical question 1
Should the environment ministry be responsible for co-ordinating
sustainable strategies across government?
◗ Integration through administrative techniques
Another means by which governments might improve integration is through
the use ofadministrative techniques that bring environmental issues into
thedecision-making process in a ‘rational’ way, so that decisions are based
on full scientific and technical knowledge, and expertise rather than short-
term political motivations. The three techniques discussed in this section –
environmental impact assessment (EIA), risk assessment and cost–benefit
analysis (CBA) – offer the promise of bringing environmental considerations
routinely into decision-making in individual policy sectors. All are used quite
widely, if sporadically and inconsistently, in policy sectors where actions
frequently have significant environmental implications.
Environmental impact assessment(EIA) is the only one of the three techniques
that was designed specifically to identify potential environmental problems
in order to pre-empt them. It provides a systematic process for the evaluation
of the anticipated environmental impact, incorporating social, political and
cultural factors, of a proposed development such as a dam, power-station or
out-of-town shopping complex.^2 An environmental impact statement (EIS) is
anon-technical report based on extensive consultation with a wide range of