Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

PART IV: CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

What has happened during the process of LA21 in general? Historically, many ways lead toward what became a document for the 21st century on how to solve the environmental challenges on this planet. In the preliminary chapters of the thesis it was showed how historical events and a growing interest in environmental issues from many angles have carved the way for an LA21-process. The implementation and further development toward a sustainable future was and is still giving the participants problems and challenges.

What has happened during the process of LA21 in the research municipalities? What the research shows is for the first that thing takes time. The municipalities are in an early phase of the LA21-process. This thesis shows also that one cannot expect major changes rapidly. The municipalities have to start somewhere and it seems natural that they start with more easy actions and advance later. The more controversial issues, which have been absent until now, will probably be put on the agenda soon. The four municipalities were in the beginning of transition period toward sustainability.

The understanding of what LA21 is and signifies is different from municipality to municipality. How to organise the work, how to mobilise and involve different participants, what kind of projects that will be carried through varies of this reason. The municipalities had different ways of organising the work with LA21. In all the municipalities, the environmental adviser had the full administrative responsibility for LA21. However, Fredrikstad has a mixed forum, which steers the process, and an internal forum is appointed as well. In some places LA21 related issues follows the normal procedure. In Hurum a political LA21-committee was established in the last phase of the SLC-project and this committee will continue its work. The mixed executive committee they had during the SLC-project is closed down. Hole has a pure political LA21-committee. Nittedal have established a political LA21-committee with one external member, the manager of the Agency of Volunteers.

According to the environmental adviser in Hole, it is a principal question of how heavy the municipality administration shall be involved in the LA21-process. Participation mechanisms have been discussed in the political LA21-committee of Hole. The committee concluded that the different actors in the LA21-process should choose mechanism themselves. Instead, the political LA21-committee would concentrate the work on which actors could be relevant and methods inside the municipality organisation. In Fredrikstad on the other hand, they believed in the partnership model. They have clearly learnt from the amalgamation process they have been through. During this process they had to redefine roles and working methods, and this can have been the opportunity for LA21 which is also a new way of thinking and acting. Fredrikstad also shows that the municipalities participating in projects or programmes, as the SLC-project gets a positive effect on the process from participating. Such projects must be heavily supported and worked with in the municipality organisation. In this way it will be done efforts towards involving social actors and groups outside the municipality organisation. By participating in such projects, they got monetary support, help from external consultants, time to work with LA21 and thereby a good start. This is probably the reason why both Fredrikstad and Hurum are some steps ahead of Hole and Nittedal.

Chapter six is investigating how the municipalities try to implement LA21 perspectives in the existing system of plans, and due to that how to assess the process, and how the work with LA21 is co-ordinated and organised in the municipalities. The municipality advisers in the four municipalities considered implementation of LA21 in the existing system of plans as a crucial point. At the moment of the research all the four municipalities worked to co-ordinate the perspectives of LA21 with existing plans and documents. Some of the informants were still not satisfied with the environmental aspects of the municipality plans.

Lafferty and Eckerberg (1997) points out in their survey that only a few municipalities in Norway have made own LA21 plans, but that the majority have followed the intentions from Rio: to bake environmental perspectives into the political and administrative structure, adopting environmental objectives and implement appropriate policy measures. Lafferty and Eckerberg claim that emphasises on conservation and environmental protection are still dominating and the holistic and long-term perspectives are missing. A reason for this, according to Lafferty and Eckerberg is the MIK-programme. This can mainly be supported from this research, but as the part about hindrances showed not only MIK was in the way. The most serious and difficult hindrances to overcome are maybe the mismatch between national and local policy, limited autonomy and authority at the local level and lack interest in environmental issues in general and thereby the problem of normalisation of environmental involvement.

Has the process of LA21 contributed to changes in the social and technological spheres and if so, how and what kind of changes? What can be regarded, as changes as a consequence of LA21 and what has its roots in other things can be difficult to distinguish. Some kind of changes happens fast, others take more time. The four municipalities are all in the process of LA21. The process, as already shown, is different from place to place. The changes are hence different and some are underway and some small ones have occurred.

Since society and technology are intertwined, technological changes will go hand in hand with social changes. In the process of LA21 so far, the technological changes are not so tremendous in the municipalities, neither are the social changes. Change in attitude and behaviour, to more environmental consciousness, is considered as very important in the setting of LA21. How to change or influence the social actors or groups' attitude and behaviour? Have the municipalities' competence to do this, are people given a reason for the change? There is for example strong belief in the municipalities that courses and seminars are a good way. That is why a lot of effort has been done to arrange courses for the municipality organisation, to write in the newspaper, send out brochures and invitations to meetings and projects. One could trace changes in attitude and habits e.g. within the municipality organisation of Hurum. They have changed their attitude and realised that it is important to acknowledge that environmental concern is a part of all positions within the municipality organisation.

The process of LA21 has contributed to some changes. These are mainly changes in attitude or consciousness because of focus on LA21 in different settings as seminars, brochures, meetings, projects etc. On the basis of this, technological changes could occur, for example the solution with the noisy cement filter. Other projects again, like the electricity projects were stopped and no changes occurred.

In Fredrikstad the municipality has been very open to what LA21 is and can be. There is a broad representation in Fredrikstad Environmental Forum from private enterprises, business organisations, environmental organisations, the state church and the municipality. Environmental concerns and the LA21-process in itself became a boundary object within the forum. The stake on Fredrikstad Environmental Forum has created a socio-political change, since the forum has responsibility for the LA21 process in Fredrikstad.

It seems that "ordinary" participation is the norm amongst the research municipalities. However, the quality of the LA21-process seems to be higher with a partnership model because all relevant actors are included at the implementation stage and through the whole process. This is also showed by the problematic of the experts and lay-people in Hole. With the use of a partnership model and earlier inclusion of the lay-people, it is possible that more changes and positive effects could be revealed. But it is to be blind to think that partnership is the only key and always leads to successful projects and actions. The two energy projects are an example of that.

It is not achieved really radical results for sustainable development through LA21 yet because the municipalities are still at an early stage. A slowly move towards a more sustainable society can be traced with the fact that almost all relevant social groups in one way or another know something about LA21. From the point of view of the informants, the change in attitude and habits was considered the determinant for other kind of changes. This assumption seems to be generally accepted, as it is written in "Rein velstand...": "Sustainable development is maybe 10% new techniques - and 90% new attitudes, actions and ways of organising matters" (1997:74). If it is possible to say that the development in general is more sustainable is uncertain...

 


 

Bibliography

Books:

Aall, C., Lafferty, W. and Bjørnæs, T. (1999) Kartlegging av hindringer i prosjekt. Bærekraftig lokalsamfunn. Hovedrapport. SFT, Oslo.

Andersen, H. W. and Sørensen, K, H. (1994) Frankensteins dilemma. Ad Notam Gyldendal, Norway.

Beder, S (1993) The Nature of Sustainable Development. Scribe Publications, Australia.

Bijker, B. (1996) "Democratization of Technology. Who are the Experts?" University of Limburg, Technology and Society Studies. Workpaper for ESST 2nd. Semester.

Bijker, B. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Edquist, C. (ed. 1997) Chapter 1 "Introduction" in Systems of Innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations. Pinter Publishers, London. From compendium II part 2, ESST 1st semester, University of Oslo.

Eyben, R. and Landbury, S. (1995) Chapter 17 "Popular Participation in Aid-assisted Projects" in Power and
Participatiory Development. Theory and Practice ed. by

Nelson and Wright. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Fiorino, D. J. (1990) "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms" in Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.226-243.

Fujimura, J. H. (1992) Chapter 6 "Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and "Translation" in Science as Practice and Culture ed. by Pickering. The University of Chicago Press.

Grubb et al. (1993) The Earth Summit Agreements. A Guide and Assessment. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London.

Harvey, F. and Chrisman, N. (1998) "Boundary objects and the social constructions of GIS technology" in

Environment and Planning, vol. 30, pp. 1683-1694.

Hille, J. (1997) Rein velstand - om bærekraftig produskjon og forbruk i Lokal Agenda 21.

Idèhefte nr. 2. Stiftelsen Idèbanken, Oslo.

Lafferty, W. and Eckerberg, K. (1997) From Earth Summit to Local Forum. Studies of Local Agenda 21 in Europe.

ProSus, Oslo.

Lafferty, W. et al (1997 red.) Rio+5: Norges oppfølging av FN-konferansen om miljø og utvikling. Tano Achehoug, Norway.

Liard, F. N. (1993) "Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making" in

Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol 18 No. 3, pp. 341-361.

Lundvall, B-Å (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learing. Pinter Publishers. From compendium II, ESST 1st semester. University of Oslo.

Nelkin, D. and Pollak, M. (1979) "Public Participation in Technological Decisions: Reality or Grand Illusion?" in

Technoloigy Review August/September, pp. 55-63.

Sachs, W. (ed. 1995) Global Ecology. A New Arena of Political Conflict. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989) "Institutional Ecology, "Translations," and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Musem of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39." In Social Studies of Science 19, pp. 387-420.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)

Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.

Thompson, R. (ed. 1993) Learning and Technological Change. The Macmillan Press Ltd, London.

Wynne, B. (1998) Chapter 2 "May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide" in Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology ed. by Lash, Szerszynski and Wynne. SAGE Publications, London.

 

Reports, Referrals and Plans :

"Annual report 1998," Hurum.

"Handlingsplan for biologisk mangfold i Hole kommune" by Løset, 1996.

"Kommuneplan 2000-11 (2030) - der storby og marka møtes. Høringsutkast," Nittedal, 1999.

"Kommuneplan 2000-11 (2030) - der storby og marka møtes. Høringsutkast. Appendix," Nittedal, 1999.

"LA21 i Hurum. Dette har vi gjort så langt..." Hurum, 1999.

"LA21 i Nittedal kommune. Status og tilråding om videre arbeid," Nittedal 1999.09.06

"MiljĒbyprogrammet," Fredrikstad, 1996.

"Miljømelding," Hurum, 1996.

"Møtebok: Fylkesdelplan for miljøvern - Regional Agenda 21 for Akershus - Høring" 1996. "Møtebok: LA21 i Nittedal," Nittedal, 1997.

"Nittedal Agenda 21," Nittedal, 1997.

"Referral from a political LA21-meeting" in Hurum 21.04.99.

"Referral from a political LA21-meeting" in Nittedal 20.05.99.

"Rådmannens utkast til handlingsplan 1999/2002. Del 1 budsjettkommentarer," Nittedal.

"Saksutredning," Hole 1998.

"Sluttrapport. Prosjektet Bærekraftige lokalsamfunn 1996-99," by Staubo and Løfsgaard, Hurum, 1999.

"Strategisk handlingsplan 1997-2000 for miljøbyprosjektet," Fredrikstad.

"Temaplan miljø." Plan og miljøseksjonen, Fredrikstad, 1997.

"The Fredrikstad Declaration." 1998.

 

Brochures and Booklets:

"Aksjon Steinsfjorden. LA21 for Steinsfjorden. Felles innsatsl," Hole.

"Aksjon Steinsfjorden. LA21 for Steinsfjorden. Praktisk veiledning," Hole.

"Aksjon Steinsfjorden. Pøl eller perle?" Hole.

"Aksjon Steinsfjorden. LA21 for Steinsfjorden. Steinsfjordens økologi," Hole.

"A sustainable town at the mouth of the river," ed. by Eriksen et al, Fredrikstad, 1998.

"Grønne tider. Nyhetsavis for prosjekt bærekraftig lokalsamfunn." The Norwegian

Pollution Control Authority, 11/1997 and 1/1999.

"Hurum i dag." Hurum, 4/1996.

"LA21 Dugnad for framtida." The Norwegian Association for Local and Regional Authorities.

"LA21 i Hole." Hole.

"LA21" in MiK Info 1996. The Norwegian Association for Local and Regional Authorities and the Ministry of Environment.

"LA21 Miljøbyvisjonen og hverdagen." Tidsskrift for lokalt miljøvern og bærekraftig

utvikling, 1/97. The Norwegian Association for Local and Regional Authorities and the Ministry of Environment.

"LA21 Nye arenaer for medvirkning." Tidsskrift for lokalt miljøvern og bærekraftig utvikling, 2/98. The Norwegian Association for Local and Regional Authorities and the Ministry of Environment.

"På sporet av framtida. Idéhåndbok om Lokal Agenda 21." The Norwegian Assosiation of Local and Regional Authorities, 1998.

"Velkommen til Nittedal." Nittedal.

"Vi er igang! LA21 i Fredrikstad." Plan-og miljøseksjonen, Fredrikstad 1998.

 

Web-pages:

Kommunenes informasjonstjenester, 12.08.99: http://www.ki.kommorg.no/komnok

Local Agenda in Norway, March 1999: http://www.Agenda.21.no

Municipality of Hole, April 1999 and 23.07.99: http://www.hole.kommune.no/html/agenda_21

Municipality of Nittedal, April 1999: http://www.nittedalsnettet.no/kommunen/la211f.htm

ProSus, March 1999: http://www.prosus.nfr.no

The Ideas Bank, March 1999: http://www.idebanken.no

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, March 1999: http://www.iclei.org

The Norwegian Government, June 1999: http://www.odin.dep.no

The United Nations, 05.03.99: http://www.unhabitat.org/agenda, http://www.un.org, http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/agenda21/ch-28.html,

The Human Development Report, 13.07.99: http://www.undp.org/hdro/report.html, http://www.undp.org/hdro/Chapter1.pdf

The Norwegian Labour Party, 20.07.99: http://www.dna.no

The Norwegian Legislation, 23.06.99: http://www.lovdata.no

The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, 13.06.99: http://www.ks.kommorg.no

 

 

 

Appendix 1: Letters to the municipalities

 

 

Stine Pernille Hauge Kjos

Avenue de Rhodanie 64 (624)

1007 Lausanne

SWITZERLAND

E-mail: stinepernille@yahoo.com

Sørum municipality

Odd Hellum og Inger Antonsen

P.b. 113

1920 Sørumsand

NORWAY Lausanne 29.03.99

 

 

Indicators for Sustainable Development

I am a Norwegian master degree student in Lausanne, Switzerland. During my stay here I am going to write a thesis about Local Agenda 21 in relationship to technological change. In the brochures "On the track of the future. Book of ideas about Local Agenda 21" and "Pure prosperity - about sustainable production and consumption in Local Agenda 21", I read about Sørum municipality and what you have done in connection with Local Agenda 21. On this background and in my opinion Sørum municipality is very interesting and I would like to use "the story about the municipality of Sørum " as material for my analysis. If you were positive to this, it would be very nice to receive information from you (information as specified below) and if possible to pay you a visit and carry out interviews with some of the participants in the process. If it is not possible with a visit, since I am quite far from Norway at the moment, we can arrange a telephone interview.

What are of special interest for me are the indicators you have developed for the activities of the municipality and for the local community. If I am not mistaken, the indicators have been used for one year and you might have evaluated and revised the use of indicators for 1998. If it were possible, I would like to have your set of indicators and also information about the process toward the readymade indicator set and the evaluation of them. It would also be nice to know how you imagine the way further, if you have made an action plan for Local Agenda 21 and if there are ongoing projects (especially which involves technical change).

I thank you in advance for any information you may give me!

 

With compliments,

Stine Pernille Hauge Kjos

 

 

 

 

Stine Pernille Hauge Kjos

Avenue de Rhodanie 64 (624)

1007 Lausanne

SWITZERLAND

E-mail: stinepernille@yahoo.com

 

Hurum municipality

Wenche Løfsgaard and Inger Staubo

3490 Klokkarstua

NORWAY Lausanne 29.03.99

 

 

Hurum municipality and Local Agenda 21

I am a Norwegian master degree student in Lausanne, Switzerland. During my stay here I am going to write a thesis about Local Agenda 21 in relationship to technological change. In the brochures "On the track of the future. Book of ideas about Local Agenda 21" and "Pure prosperity - about sustainable production and consumption in Local Agenda 21", I read about Hurum municipality and what you have done in connection with Local Agenda 21. On this background and in my opinion Hurum municipality is very interesting and I would like to use "the story about the municipality of Hurum" as material for my analysis. If you were positive to this, it would be very nice to receive information from you (information as specified below) and if it were possible, pay you a visit and carry out interviews with some of the participants in the process. If it is not possible with a visit, since I am quite far from Norway at the moment, we can arrange a telephone interview.

What are of special interest for me are the indicators you have developed for the "Environmental audit". If I am not mistaken, the presentation of the indicators have been evaluated and changed since the first audit. If it were possible, I would like to have your set of indicators and also information about the process toward the readymade indicator set and the evaluation of them (why and how the presentation was simplified). It would also be nice to know how you imagine the way further, if you have made an action plan for Local Agenda 21 and if you there are ongoing projects (which involve technical change). I also wonder how your experience with "enterprise circle" is and what the co-operation involved of e.g. technological change.

I thank you in advance for any information you may give me!

 

With compliments,

Stine Pernille Hauge Kjos  

 

 

Appendix 2: Table of the interviews

 

Date

Where

Who and position

Duration

11.05.99

Fredrikstad

a) Rolf Petter Heidenstrøm,

Environmental adviser.

b) Torill Frydenlund,

Leader of Fredrikstad Environmental Forum.

1 hour and 45 min.

 

20 min.

12.05.99

Hurum

c) Wenche Løfsgaard,

Leader of the Sustainable Local Communities-project.

d) Bengt Carlsson,

Owner of Buskerud Betongvarefabrikk A/S.

1 hour and 30 min.

 

 

1 hour and 30 min.

18.05.99

Hole

e) Frode Løset,

Environmental adviser.

f) Alf Næstvedt,

Initiator to an LA21-project.

1 hour and 15 min.

 

Questionnaire

19.05.99

Nittedal

g) Annica Øygard,

Manager of the Agency of Volunteers.

h) Guro Haug,

Environmental adviser.

i) Lars Strøm Prestvik,

Politician.

1 hour and 15 min.

 

1 hour and 45 min.

 

1 hour and 30 min.

Table 1. These interviews were carried out in the research municipalities. The letters a), b) etc refers to the specific interview in the text.

 

Appendix 3: An example of an interview guideline

Questions for interviews in Fredrikstad:

To officials and politicians:

Participation

  1. What is participation?
  2. How far have you come in the LA21-process (action-plan)?
  3. How do you work to implement it?
  4. What kind of contact is established with e.g. schools, NGOs etc?
  5. What kind of information is given and in what way?
  6. Who are involved in the process of La21, and how?

Sociotechnical change

  1. What incentives have been given to companies and/or private people to change to a more sustainable technology? If I have understood you right, one of your priority areas is cleaner technology in the industry. How is this priority area integrated in the work with LA21? What have happened so far; engagement form the industry, hindrances, changes etc.
  2. What kind of projects or activities is realised?
  3. What kind of changes has occurred after the process of LA21 ("environmental city programme") was started?
  4. What problems have you faced during the process?
  5. What consequences have this process within the municipality administration and organisation?
  6. Do you use more environmental friendly technology now than before (in the municipality organisation)?
  7. What kind of hindrances have you faced during the process?

Indicators

  1. How were the indicators developed, and who developed them?
  2. How do you use the indicators?

 

To citizens, NGOs and business people:

Participation

  1. How can you participate in the process of LA21?
  2. Why do you participate, and why do you think others do not participate?
  3. What is your role in the process?
  4. What kind of influence do you have in the decision-making (equality with the experts, agency staff)?
  5. How is LA21 organised and who took the initiative to start the process?
  6. What kind of information is given about LA21, and in what way?

Sociotechnical change

  1. What problems have you faced during the process?
  2. Did you receive any incentives to change behaviour or technology, if so of what kind?
  3. What kind of changes has occurred after the process of LA21 was started?
  4. Do you use more sustainable technology than before (what kind of technology and why)?
  5. What kind of hindrances have you faced during the process?

Indicators

  1. How were the indicators developed, and who developed them?
  2. What do they say?

 

 


[ First page ] [ ESST Lausanne 99 ]