Implementation

Regardless of policy makers’ intentions and policy aims, their implementation 'on the ground' can often have unintended or unanticipated effects (Leach et al., 2010). Achieving implementation of any kind can also be fraught with difficulty. The ‘global’ policies and declarations of the UN are a set of overarching

guidelines or parameters within which EU and UK policymakers are intended to work. This is dependent, however upon the relative enforcement powers of the different declarations and strategies, and compliance at the national level can be problematic. The difficulties of supranational governance are exemplified by the Kyoto protocol. As Baker (2006) has noted, despite being a binding

agreement, there seems no way to enforce compliance, reflected by the USA’s ability to withdraw from the treaty and the lack of agreement (to date) about a realistic proposition for further action beyond the original agreement. Some of this comes from the need for flexibility at the national level because of the large differences between countries’ emissions records and capacities for mitigation (Albrecht and Arts, 2005; von Stein, 2008). The Kyoto protocol has also been criticised for the relative weakness of its targets (House of Commons

Environmental Audit Committee, 2005).

From a sustainability viewpoint, Kyoto seems to have been largely ineffective – while reductions in GHG emissions have been achieved in many countries bound by the protocol, those who were not subject to emissions reduction targets have increased emissions, meaning global increases have continued (Olivier et al., 2012). Part of the problem may have been the focus of the original UNFCCC, concentrating on mitigating effects rather than looking more imaginatively at adaptation to climate change (Swart and Raes, 2007).

Additionally, in the UK, around 25% of emissions reduction to 2004 was simply due to a switch from coal to natural gas in the energy supply (Maslin et al., 2007), indicating a weak form of sustainability. This demonstrates another problem with the Kyoto Protocol's narrowly defined targets. Although achieving emissions reduction, it ignored (or allowed to be ignored) another key aspect of

sustainability: the proper management of finite fossil fuel resources, for which there is currently no binding agreement at the UN level. In terms of meeting the generally agreed limit of a global warming increase of less than two degrees Celsius, in the current policy context this is now unlikely to be achieved

(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012), and any significant climate change mitigation agreement post-2015 will be challenging to negotiate (Briner and Prag, 2013). With regard to disability-focused policy, it has already been noted that the UNCRPD is binding on those who have ratified it. Progress towards

implementation in the UK, however, has not yet been reviewed by the UNCRPD Committee. As a signatory the UK has so far produced one report on its

progress (ODI, 2011) emphasising moves towards disability equality. This includes mention of the welfare reforms which have since begun to be enacted, despite multiple warnings over human rights implications from the Joint

Committee on Human Rights (Human Rights Joint Committee, 2011) and a coalition of charities (Just Fair, 2014). The UK EHRC (2012a) has also been critical of the UK government's decision to express reservations on four articles or subsections of the UNCRPD, such as Article 24 on inclusive education. Additionally, a UN human rights Special Rapporteur on housing recently found that the impacts of government reforms to housing benefit on ‘vulnerable’ groups, including disabled people, are in contradiction to its commitments to rights to adequate housing (Rolnik, 2013). These and other criticisms of current policies suggest that there may be significant barriers to full implementation of the UNCRPD in the UK. The UN's own judgement of the UK situation is still some time away, but these issues call into question the effectiveness of UN agreements.

Even regarding the Coalition government’s own disability-focused policies and strategies, there seem to be contradictory aims and effects. Although ODI suggest that progress towards Equality 2025 is ongoing, many new disabled people's organisations have sprung up since the start of the Coalition

government to highlight how current welfare reforms are negatively impacting disabled people. These groups, such as Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), the Spartacus Network, and Hardest Hit, also aim to coordinate research, media campaigning and protests (Scott, 2014). The Fulfilling Potential report (DWP, 2013) suggests that there has been a decrease in relative poverty since 2004/5

to 2011/12, the latest data available. It attributes this to 'increases in benefit income, as a result of the uprating of benefits by more than earnings growth' (DWP, 2013, p.62). As the Welfare Benefits Uprating Act (2013) has since been passed, limiting increases to benefits to below inflation, as well as welfare reforms – such as the 'spare room subsidy' or 'bedroom tax' and the time- limiting of ESA – coming into effect, it may be expected that the trend of decreasing poverty may be halted or even reversed, contradicting stated Coalition aims.

External circumstances, such as the state of the world economy, can also influence the implementation of policy. A particular issue for EU policy is the contrast of its emphasis on economic growth with the reality of the current economic situation in Europe. GDP growth has not stabilised since the start of the economic crisis in 2008 (Eurostat, 2014) and IMF forecasts have only recently become more positive (IMF, 2014). Economic crises often overshadow less immediate or visible threats such as those from climate change (Ford, 2009). This can lead to the side-lining of environmental goals in pursuit of solutions for the economy. There is some evidence for this in terms of the inclusion of shale gas as a potential energy option in the Energy 2020

document, discussed previously. It is also important to note, however, that there has been continued progress towards the EU’s environmental goals – for

example being on track with GHG emissions reductions among other aims (European Union, 2013).

Nevertheless, household consumption in terms of electricity has been

consistently rising. Additionally, numbers in poverty or at risk of poverty have been increasing since the start of the economic crisis while health gains have slowed. Overall, there is 'a rather mixed picture' (European Union, 2013, p.8) with regard to sustainable development. Some of the progress towards environmental goals may have only occurred because of the economic situation; due to ‘low economic performance’ as opposed to ‘a thorough transformation of the EU energy sector’ (European Union, 2013, p.179). Similarly, the most recent report on Europe 2020 suggested that it is 'not

delivering on its promises' (CoR, 2013, p.9) because of issues relating to limited funding, ineffectiveness of governance and lack of recognition of different

From the analysis so far, there appear to be a number of synergies between disability equality and sustainability in policy. Both are addressed, in UK and EU policies, from a neoliberal perspective that prioritises the economy and

therefore is limited in scope. While this is less the case for UN declarations and agreements, they face significant problems regarding implementation, as do even limited EU and UK attempts to promote both aims. Similarly, the stated aims of policies and their actual effects often differ. The final section of this chapter considers the roles for citizens described in the various policies. These indicate underlying assumptions about the valued characteristics of citizens and who may qualify for citizenship in particular contexts. This is important for this thesis because an overly individualised perspective can miss broader social factors that have relevance for participation in environmental activities, and an overly universalised perspective can miss differences between individuals which are relevant to avoid unhelpful generalisations.