Analytical considerations of EPI

Different analytical approaches are presented in the literature to understand the political and institutional basis of EPI on the European level and its member states. Lafferty and

Hovden (2003), for example, base their suggestion of an analytical framework on the differentiation of vertical and horizontal integration. The first one is taking place within established sectors of one policy field and the second one relates to a central authority that has developed a cross-sectoral strategy (Lafferty and Hovden, 2003). Watson et al. (2008) argue that this approach can support analytical clarity of the concept of EPI and can help to identify key aspects of it.

Looking in more detail at vertical integration, Lafferty and Hovden (2003) state that it should cover the constant implementation of environmental objectives as the central aim in a governmental sector with the objective to form comprehensive policies. Indicators are necessary to show how the particular sector aims to integrate environmental issues in its activities. As indicators, Lafferty and Hovden (2003) suggest, for example, (1) the specification of environmental challenges, (2) the formulation of a sectoral environmental action plan, and (3) a regular Environmental Impact Assessment. However, in their definition, vertical integration does not relate to a multi-level governance system but to vertical decision making within one level. In terms of multi- level governance they relate to the concept of subsidiarity. This modality is criticised by Watson et al. (2008) as it leaves little space for a detailed institutional analysis in order to understand limitations of EPI at the European and national level. Furthermore, it would be of interest to learn about influencing factors between different policy levels, which cannot be addressed by the analytical considerations of Lafferty and Hovden.

According to Lafferty and Hovden (2003), horizontal integration includes a cross- sectoral strategy that is developed by a central authority and entails substantive coordination among sectors. Due to the various dimensions of conflicts that can arise between sectoral objectives and also between environmental objectives, they argue that there needs to be an intense negotiation process (Lafferty and Hovden, 2003). As indicators for horizontal integration, Lafferty and Hovden (2003) suggest, for example, (1) the existence of a long term sustainable development strategy, (2) the introduction of a central authority for supervision and coordination, and (3) timetables and targets for the integration process. Following this definition, horizontal integration is mainly about an integrative approach of sectoral policy making. However, the considerations of Lafferty and Hovden do not explain why these indicators would support EPI and how they differ to indicators that support sustainability.

Lenschow (2002b) indicates the importance of the consideration of vertical and horizontal dimensions and their relation. Furthermore, she states that EPI is dependent on the political commitments of sectoral policy makers and, therefore, needs to be complemented by horizontal coordination at the highest level. So, she relates mainly to the relevance of the highest policy making level without addressing the importance of the local level. Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000) argue that in general both dimensions of EPI are not operationalised at the same time. According to them, it is much harder to document examples of horizontal EPI than of vertical EPI, as vertical integration is the dimension that is actively pursued and to some extent attained. Vertical EPI generally entails less inter-departmental conflicts. However, it is debatable whether vertical integration is sufficient in itself to achieve the general ambitions of policy integration. Such efforts can possibly achieve only limited effectiveness except in cases where central governments provide an applicable national framework for EPI (Lafferty and Hovden, 2003).

Despite the structured framework, EPI does not seem to be an often used policy making paradigm. Lenschow (1997) identified historically embedded institutional structures as barriers to a successfully implemented EPI. In other studies, she reveals the complexity of the EPI process, especially with a view to conceptual and institutional frames and actor-specific issues on various different political levels (Lenschow, 2002a). Watson et al. (2008) emphasise that such analyses reveal the discrepancy between claimed changes in declaratory principles and implementation in practice. This deficient realisation was found by various researchers at various policy levels of the EU (Jordan and Lenschow, 2000, Lenschow, 2002b). Watson et al. (2008) added that EPI does not happen in a static institutional context. So, there is not a fixed institutional solution that applies to everything. Environmental objectives need to be understood and require complex policy responses and the ability to identify and challenge contradictory dynamics. The process of EPI is iterative and needs to be evaluated critically across institutional contexts and scales (Watson et al., 2008).

With EPIGOV, a research project by the Institute for International and European Environmental Policy in Berlin, EPI and modes of governance at various policy levels in Europe were investigated (von Homeyer, 2009). The researchers discovered that decision making processes in core sectors are hardly affected, although EPI measures appeared to have had effects on political strategies and discourse. An often used

approach by policy makers was communicative governance which is based on strategic management, like, for example, sustainable development strategies and sectoral strategies, and on information and learning (von Homeyer, 2009). The research identified a crucial obstacle to EPI which is a strong departmentalisation and sectionalisation of policy making. Multi-level governance and federalism were also rated as obstacles to EPI but might also provide opportunities to achieve higher levels of EPI (von Homeyer, 2009).

The literature related to analytical considerations of EPI reveals that sectoral integration is claimed regularly by researchers. However, the literature often remains at a strategic policy making level and at the highest policy making level. The literature does not clarify the reasons why the local level is not considered as the analytical framework of EPI.