Green Plans, working strategies for a sustainable future, a primer.

Chapter 3
Where are green plans in place?

A growing number of countries have taken sustainability beyond the theoretical stage, committing substantial funds and devoting their countries’ best minds to the task of preparing and implementing green plans. These nations have created working models of sustainability from which we all can learn.

The detailed summaries provided in this section offer a glimpse of green plans in action around the world. They also reveal the similarities and differences among green plans that result from politics, economics, cultural variations, and the environmental problems at hand.

Green planning requires a constant striving for innovation and a continuous improvement of the environmental management framework. As a result, no nation, state, or community in the world can serve as a complete model. Two quite different nations do, however, set significant benchmarks for others to follow: the Netherlands and New Zealand.

The Netherlands: Achieving Environmental and Economic Progress

The longest running example of a green plan in action is the National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP) of the Netherlands, adopted in 1989. With life-threatening environmental problems brought on by congestion and heavy industry, the Netherlands is a microcosm of the threats facing much of the planet. Home of the world’s busiest port (Rotterdam) and a $30+ billion per year chemical industry, all sectors of Dutch society are pulling together to achieve environmental recovery in twenty-five years’ time, or one generation.

The NEPP was designed to be a comprehensive, ecosystem-based policy that integrates all areas of environmental concern. It entailed 223 policy changes and transformed the way Dutch government, businesses, and society approached the problems of environmental degradation. In addition to the national plan, each of the twelve provinces was required to develop a plan for its jurisdiction; the provinces have primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing many government policies.

Not only does the Dutch green plan successfully integrate all environmental areas, it integrates them with human factors like public health and the economy. Under the auspices of the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO/NCW), more than 19,000 Dutch businesses (including multi-national conglomerates like Akzo Nobel, General Electric, Royal Dutch Shell, and Dow Chemical) are directly participating in the plan through performance-driven covenants with government. These legally binding agreements target reductions in emissions, improved environmental quality of products, and energy conservation.

Over the past decade, the Netherlands’ progress on environmental problems has been remarkable. More than a dozen sectoral covenants have been signed and almost every target group is on track to meet its goals for the years 2000 and 2010. Among the accomplishments: ozone-depleting substances have been phased out, industry has reduced its waste disposal by 60 percent, waste recycling has increased to 70 percent, and sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants have been reduced by 70 percent.

The few exceptions to this success story, most notably in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, are due to factors largely beyond industry’s control, such as increased population due to migration and the growing number of private automobiles in the Netherlands. The first and second NEPPs were primarily focused on industry’s role in environmental degradation; the third NEPP, published in 1997, specifically addresses such problems as overconsumption and other issues that go beyond the business arena to the community at large. The fourth NEPP weaves national land use and transportation planning into the nation’s overall environmental plan, integrating initiatives from the Dutch land use plan, along with an increased emphasis on the issues of quality of life and consumer responsibility.

Possibly the most exciting development is that the Dutch have managed to achieve what they term an “absolute decoupling” of economic growth and environmental pressure, except as related to carbon dioxide (see diagram). In other words, while the Dutch economy has been growing, pollution has been decreasing. Both the third NEPP and the Ministry of the Environment’s Policy Document on Environment and Economy are tightly focused on strategies for continuing this trend.

Policy Framework of the Netherlands’ Green Plan

Working with the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), the Dutch environment ministry spent several years developing management concepts and tools that would allow society to grasp environmental complexity and develop comprehensive solutions. The first major breakthrough came when government planners developed the concept of “themes,” or general categories under which all environmental problems could be subsumed.

• The themes the Dutch chose (and have continued to refine) were:
• Climate Change (greenhouse effect, damage to the ozone layer);
• Acidification (acid deposition on soil, surface water, and buildings);
• Eutrophication (excessive nutrient buildup in surface water);
• Dispersion (uncontrolled spread of hazardous substances);
• Waste Disposal (waste processing, prevention, reuse, and recycling);
• Local Nuisance (local disturbance caused by noise, odor, and air pollution);
• Dehydration (habitat change and instability of water supply caused by lowered water tables); and
• Squandering (unsustainable use of resources and energy).

As an additional management tool, the government defined a fivelevel model of geographic scale on which environmental problems (and their solutions) occur: local, regional, fluvial (watershed), continental, and global. (Because continental and global problems are beyond the scope of the Dutch government to solve, the NEPP promotes active international diplomacy.)

Finally, the government identified specific “target groups”–the economic sectors that contributed most to environmental problems and their solutions. The key target groups laid out in the first NEPP were:

• Agriculture
• Traffic and Transportation
• Industry and Refineries
• Energy Sector
• Building Trade
• Consumers and Retail Trade

Over the past decade, the Waste Disposal and Water Supply/Sewage Treatment industries have been added to the list of target groups.

The RIVM used the geographic scale model and the concepts of themes and target groups to quantify the objectives that each target group would need to attain (for example, how much they would have to cut particular emissions or reduce their energy usage). The NEPP specified these objectives and the time frame within which they were to be achieved. It also included various strategies and mechanisms that the government, working with stakeholders, would use to attain them.

Articulation of objectives and responsibilities was a key management principle of the NEPP, which stressed that all of society must play a role in achieving sustainability. In order to do this, environmental concerns had to be incorporated into all decision making, another important principle of the Dutch plan. Among the strategies designed to assist in this process was a focus on environmental education for all citizens and improved information flow throughout society.

Another important management principle of the NEPP is the flexible use of policy instruments. Instead of relying on one type of instrument, such as regulations, the government uses a mix of measures to achieve specified goals. This mix might include regulations, voluntary agreements, and economic instruments. Voluntary agreements, or covenants, between the government and various sectors of industry have become a hallmark of the NEPP process.

The use of nonregulatory instruments does not mean that regulations are abandoned, but, rather, regulations become the floor upon which innovative measures, such as covenants, are constructed. With a variety of means to choose from, government can carefully tailor its methods to address the specific conditions of each problem and the needs of the interests involved. Because the NEPP focuses on removing the causes of environmental problems at their source rather than ameliorating their effects, it emphasizes such environmental management priorities as integrated lifecycle management, energy conservation, and improved product quality. The government also strongly supports research and development aimed at addressing these objectives.

Finally, the NEPP was designed to be an ongoing process rather than a static plan, so it is updated every four years. Careful monitoring and feedback regarding environmental conditions and the effects of policy allow the government to respond quickly to changes and fine-tune its programs and policies. NEPP 2, published in 1993, reviewed the progress made under NEPP 1 and identified those areas in which additional measures would be required in order to meet established targets. The third NEPP, adopted in 1997, was a major step forward, integrating the knowledge gained during the first eight years of the process and reflecting an increasingly sophisticated approach to environmental management.

The latest iteration of the Dutch green plan, the NEPP 4, will be released soon. The NEPP 4 addresses those environmental problems that have resisted solution, even under the innovative management strategies of the first three NEPPs. The plan takes environmental management in the Netherlands to a new level, making quality of life concerns a core theme. Climate change, squandering of renewable natural resources, loss of biodiversity, unsustainable patterns of consumption and energy use, and threats to adequate and safe water supplies are some of the issues tackled in NEPP 4.

In addition, every year the RIVM (the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) prepares a “report card” on the NEPP process, detailing what has been accomplished, the setbacks and problems encountered, and the implications for future policy. The Ministry of the Environment also publishes its own yearly reports that provide the short-term oversight on actions that have been taken and presents its agenda for the coming year.

New Zealand: A New Political Structure Based on Sustainable Management

While the Netherlands is among the most densely populated nations in the world, New Zealand is one of the least. Not surprisingly, New Zealand’s green plan—the Resource Management Act (RMA) of 1991—is quite different from the NEPP. New Zealand’s stakeholders, however, followed a similar process of negotiation and compromise to arrive at an integrated action plan for sustainability.

In the 1970s, the worldwide energy crisis highlighted serious implementation difficulties with the myriad of environmental planning legislation in New Zealand. Then, in the mid-’80s, an economic crisis in New Zealand led the government to not only reform economic policy but also to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the country’s entire state sector. The institutional structures and legislative framework designed to deliver environmental planning and management were found to be arbitrary and ineffective. The fourth Labour government embarked on an ambitious reform of the environment sector, which resulted in dramatic change in its environmental management framework, including:

• one act—the RMA—replacing almost seventy management,
• urban planning, and environmental laws (this historic legislation was the result of the largest display of public participation in the nation’s history);
• abolition of several central government agencies, which were replaced by a policy ministry, an operationally-driven department, and an environmental ombudsman;
• reduction of 800 units of local government to fewer than 100, as a result of a local government reform process; and
• establishment of watershed-based regions for the purpose of resource management (see map, opposite).

The key purpose driving the RMA is the sustainable management of New Zealand’s resources. This is defined in the Act as “managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, while:

• sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;
• safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
• avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Any actions taken under the RMA—in effect, any decisions that may have environmental consequences—must satisfy these requirements. Of key importance is the requirement that while social, economic, and cultural objectives will play an important role in decision-making, they cannot be allowed to threaten the sustainability of ecosystems.

The RMA was designed to be comprehensive, dealing with all activities on land, air, and water, and to integrate environmental policies and actions across governmental jurisdictions and within society as a whole. The Act is also intended to decentralize most resource-related decisions to the level of government closest to the problem and to the citizens who will be affected, in order to improve efficiency and accountability. In addition, the RMA recognizes the indigenous Maori people’s rights over natural resources according to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, as well as the importance and relevance of Maori principles of stewardship to the concept of sustainable management. Under the old system of resource laws, New Zealand was heavily dependent on prescriptive planning and regulation that restricted certain types of activities; under the RMA, the emphasis is instead on the effects that activities will have on the environment. In other words, rather than tell property owners that they have to build houses here or can’t put a business there, the RMA has set up a process for determining environmental quality standards and ensuring that they will not be contravened; within that framework, people are allowed maximum freedom to make their own decisions regarding the use of their land. However, in the case of community-owned and/or -managed land and resources, such as water, the reverse is true: activities are not allowed unless specifically permitted.

This system produces a strict bottom line of environmental protection. For example, unless explicitly authorized by a plan or permit, no one is allowed to discharge a pollutant into water. Also, under the RMA every New Zealander is responsible for any adverse effects his or her activities may have on the environment, and is required to either avoid the adverse effects or remedy or mitigate them. Any individual or government agency can seek an enforcement action to stop an activity that contravenes the RMA; the public also has a right to a voice in all environmental decisions and planning.

Environment 2010 Strategy

In 1995, the New Zealand government published the Environment 2010 Strategy. The overall aim of the strategy is to improve environmental outcomes within the framework of a market economy and a cohesive society by integrating the policies, programs, and goals of every department. The strategy clearly articulates a vision for New Zealand’s environment, assesses environmental values, and establishes eleven guiding principles. Within this comprehensive framework, eleven goals are identified and an agenda for action defined. Built into this strategy is a formal review every four years, with the expectation that as the information base grows and values change over time, the goals and their relative importance will change.

Local Green Planning Initiatives in New Zealand

With only 3.5 million people spread out across a land mass the size of California, New Zealand’s approach to sustainable management is necessarily dependent on successful application at the regional (watershed) and local levels. The quality of the existing regional and local plans varies widely. Some areas, such as Canterbury Region, Auckland Region, and Waitakere City, are leading the way, developing comprehensive plans based on the principles of sustainability and utilizing a broad palette of measures beyond regulation to achieve environmental goals.

Perhaps the most visionary leadership at the local level has come from Waitakere City. Hailed as New Zealand’s first “eco-city,” Waitakere is recognized internationally as a model for other communities. Its plan addresses suburban sprawl, in part by promoting infill development and creating a network of streamways and ecological corridors, along with a pilot program for restoring urban riparian habitats. Waitakere has also taken the lead in promoting water conservation as an alternative to “end-of-pipe” engineering solutions. Waitakere’s eco-city vision has proven to be contagious: neighbors such as Auckland City have realized that the eco-city’s integrated and strategic approach to environmental management and urban planning is the wave of the future, and have begun to develop broad environmental policies, State of the Environment reports, environmental monitoring programs, and transit-oriented “smart growth” strategies.

* * *

As New Zealand approaches the ten-year anniversary of the RMA’s enactment, an important crossroads has been reached. A recent RRI evaluation of progress in New Zealand found a remarkable level of support for the RMA across all sectors. In less than a decade, New Zealand has undertaken political reform that could have taken other nations a generation. The Act is maturing as a legislative tool, with many elements of its original intent coming into force and being clarified through case law. A national monitoring framework is under development, and a national Biodiversity Strategy has been developed to protect New Zealand’s many unique flora and fauna.

Other Countries

A number of other nations have followed the Netherlands and New Zealand along the green planning path. These include Mexico, Canada, Austria, Singapore, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and other countries in the European Union. RRI has been tracking these nations’ efforts for well over a decade, and continues to research new developments around the world. The following section focuses on emerging green planning initiatives in the United States.

United States: Green Planning for a Large and Diverse Nation

As green planning takes hold in relatively small nations such as the Netherlands and New Zealand, many people wonder if it is a viable strategy for a country as large and diverse as the United States. Emerging programs throughout the U.S. demonstrate that the answer is an unqualified yes. A growing number of states recognize that the conflicting and incoherent policies currently in place can actually undermine environmental protection. In response to the problem, some of these states have begun to integrate their policies into comprehensive strategies that involve all relevant government agencies as well as business, community, and environmental leaders.

Be it under the banner of sustainability or regulatory reinvention, the federal government has for over twenty years attempted to remake and strengthen its role in the management of domestic and international environmental affairs. While no effort has been fully implemented or fully effective, some initiatives have made important strides. These include the President’s Council for Sustainable Development during the latter half of the 1990s and EPA initiatives such as Project XL and the National Environmental Performance Partnership System. Despite some flaws, these efforts did lay some of the groundwork for green planning by promoting pollution prevention, industrial innovation, and business/ government cooperation and integration.

In time it may be possible to develop a national green plan in the U.S. that sets standards and fosters consistency and continuity across state boundaries. However, individual states are not in a position to wait for federal action. Increasingly responsible for protection of the nation’s environment, states have the most urgent need for effective new policies that transcend the limitations of conventional measures and enable sustainable development to become the primary objective. Thus, more and more states—including Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon—are moving ahead with green planning initiatives of their own. Descriptions of efforts in these three states are provided in this section, followed by highlights of efforts in Chattanooga, Tennessee, one of many cities that are applying some of the principles of green planning at the community level.

Minnesota: The First U.S. Green Plan?

Minnesota took an early lead among U.S. states in developing and implementing a green plan. The first step came in 1991, when Governor Arne Carlson brought sustainability to the forefront and initiated a Minnesotaprogram called Minnesota Milestones, which was designed to develop a long-range vision for the state. Thousands of citizens participated in the project, which identified twenty broad social, economic, and environmental goals in areas ranging from health, education, and standard of living to housing, resource conservation, and participation in government. Indicators related to each goal were then selected, so that progress could be measured over time. Minnesota Milestones continues to help guide the state’s long-term planning.

The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, the core of the state’s sustainability effort, was launched in 1993. Influenced by the Dutch model, Governor Carlson appointed 105 cross-sectoral leaders to explore issues and identify goals and strategies in seven key areas of Sustainable Minnesota,” with an overall vision, decision-making principles, and recommendations for achieving the goals laid out in an earlier report, “Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future.” In 1996, the state legislature took the remarkable step of codifying the initiative’s goals into state statute.

The Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development, which grew out of the initiative, became the main forum for advancing its goals and principles. The Round Table consisted of thirty business, environmental, and community leaders appointed by the Governor. Its mission was to serve as a catalyst for sustainable development, foster public and private partnerships, and involve citizens in the process. The Round Table completed its work in July 1998 with a series of reports proposing concrete steps for helping make Minnesota business, communities, and government function more sustainably.

New Jersey: Learning from the Dutch Model

RRI has been tracking environmental progress in New Jersey for nearly a decade. After New Jersey government, business, and NGO representatives went on RRI-led trips to the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994, Governor Whitman created a cross-sector task force to determine how the Dutch model could best be applied in the state. Since that time, New Jersey has been a leader in establishing collaborative partnerships between government and business. An Office of Sustainable Business has been created to encourage sustainable business development and expansion statewide.

The State Development & Redevelopment Plan has been hailed as a national model in its adoption of “smart growth” strategies and open space preservation. More recently, New Jersey signed a landmark agreement to work with the Netherlands to address the issue of global with a cross-sector NGO, New Jersey Future, to advance sustainability objectives. This partnership resulted in the release of the Sustainable State Project Report, “Living with the Future in Mind,” in 1999. The report focuses on a range of baseline indicators and goals for achieving a sustainable future.

Oregon: Sowing the Seeds of a Green Plan

Many of the seeds of a green plan have been planted in Oregon. In the late 1980s, Oregon began experimenting with progressive, strategic policies to address environmental and economic decline. In a program called Oregon Benchmarks, the state developed indicators to measure the state’s quality of life in such areas as the environment, education, health, and employment. Oregon has also developed some innovative programs designed to encourage businesses to become more sustainable. In 1997 the state legislature approved the Green Permits program, which allows the state Environmental Quality Commission to use innovative approaches to permitting. Oregon’s Salmon Restoration Plan has also been lauded for its collaborative efforts.

In early 1999, state legislators introduced a bill to establish a greenplanning management framework for the state’s precious environment. Inspired by the Dutch green plan, the proposal was designed to:

• establish a new state goal of sustainable development;
• require each state environmental and natural resource agency to adopt an integrated set of goals, measurable objectives, and benchmarks to achieve the new state goal; and
• require each agency to institute outcome-based management and regulatory tracks to provide incentives and flexibility to the private sector and communities to achieve the goals.

Even though the bill enjoyed broad support, it has yet to be enacted. However, the Oregon Stewardship Council pressed ahead with the development of a comprehensive State of the Environment report (released in Fall 2000), and continued progress is likely. The latest example is an executive order signed by Governor John Kitzhaber that makes sustainability an overarching priority for state government operations and purchasing.

< previous chapter | index | next chapter >

Home | What Are Green Plans? | What’s in it for me? | Green Plans in action | Resources