Edward. Elgar. Environmental Policy Integration. Camilla Adelle (Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation, University of Pretoria,. South Africa) and MÃ¥ns ...
Pre-‐publication version. Please use proper citations. This text has been published as: C. Adelle and Nilsson, M. (2015) Environmental Policy Integration. In: Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Politics and Governance. Philipp Pattberg and Fariborz Zelli (eds). Edward Elgar.
Environmental Policy Integration Camilla Adelle (Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation, University of Pretoria, South Africa) and Måns Nilsson (Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden) 1. Definition(s) The principle and practice of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) aim to help reconcile economic and environmental objectives by proactively searching for opportunities, early on in the policy process of any sector, to give priority to environmental issues. EPI is motivated by the recognition that the environmental sector by itself will not be able to deliver on our environmental objectives. Rather every sector must take into account environmental policy objectives if these are to be achieved (Lafferty and Hovden 2003). EPI, therefore, goes beyond traditional ‘end-‐of pipe’ environmental policy and calls for the introduction of structures and procedures that facilitate coordination across policy sectors and governmental levels (Lenschow 2002a, p. 23). Since the 1980s, EPI has received widespread political backing at the international level and particularly in the European Union (EU) where it is enshrined in the constitutional treaties. However, its translation from rhetoric to action has proved to be complicated and politically difficult due to barriers such as, for instance,
diverging political interests, lack of knowledge, institutional norms, structures and decision making processes (Nilsson and Persson 2003). There is now a significant body of literature, both from academia and the policy world, charting efforts to institutionalize EPI in the EU and beyond. Following Jordan and Lenschow (2010), we review the key debates in three categories. First, the different interpretations or meanings of EPI are discussed; Second, EPI is examined as ‘a process of governing’ in day-‐to-‐day policy making by examining the approaches, strategies and policy instruments employed to pursue it; Third, EPI is examined as ‘a policy outcome ’ in terms of what changes it has produced. Finally, we reflect on the future direction for EPI studies.
2. Overview /Key Findings EPI: Different Interpretations EPI has been subject to a wide range of interpretations (Lafferty and Hovden 2003, p.5). A focus of substantial debate in the literature has been whether EPI is interpreted as a political aspiration or a procedural principle (Lenschow 2002b, p. 5), or if it has autonomous meaning (i.e. a standard to observe) (Nollkaemper 2002, pp. 25–29). Building on the work of Underdal (1980) and Peters (1998) on policy integration, Lafferty and Hovden (2003) argue that the critical issue in assessing EPI is the relative weighting given to sectoral and environmental objectives in policy making. They suggest that affording ‘principled priority’ to environmental objectives
vis-‐à-‐vis other policy areas, rather than merely ‘balancing’ the various objectives, is justified by ‘the increasing acceptance that we are facing potentially irreversible damage to life-‐support systems’ (Lafferty and Hovden 2003, p. 10). ‘Weaker’ interpretations certainly exist in the EPI literature in which it is suggested that either conflicts between environmental and non-‐environmental objectives can somehow be resolved through coherent policies and learning processes (Nilsson, 2005) or, if not, that trade-‐offs between environmental and other priorities (for example in conventional development activities such as road building, agriculture, and electricity generation) are explicitly considered in the policy making process (e.g. Liberatore 1997, p. 119; EEA 2005, p. 12; Hertin and Berkhout 2003, p. 40). Far weaker interpretations of EPI than those discussed in the academic literature can also be observed in practice. While the EU first enshrined EPI in the Single European Act in 1986 (i.e. Article 6), this did not lead to the legal clarity or enforceability hoped for by environmentalists (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). EPI instruments designed to implement this quasi-‐constitutional commitment failed to resolve long standing tensions between EU economic and environmental objectives which began to resurface when the prospect of hard trade-‐offs was faced (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). This was in part due to the relationship of EPI with the over arching principle of sustainable development. Linking EPI to the rhetorically powerful paradigm of sustainable development contributed to its political acceptance, but it has done less to facilitate EPI’s adoption on the operational level (Lenschow 2002b, p. 2). Sustainable development diverted attention from EPI, creating confusion about what should be integrated – environmental objectives or sustainable development
(Pallemaerts 2006). More recently, a new ‘take’ on the integration problematique has come to the fore (Jordan and Lenschow 2010, p. 149) in response to a particular perceived problem – namely, Climate Policy Integration (CPI) (or ‘climate proofing’ in EU policy circles). The concept of CPI in the emerging literature on the subject is even more ‘fuzzy’ than that of EPI. CPI is sometimes conceptualized as a component of EPI ( e.g. Nilsson and Nilsson 2005) and at other times as a related concept (e.g. Ahmad 2009; Mickwitz et al. 2009). Adelle and Russel (2013) note that CPI tends to be defined in terms of normative conceptions of EPI (e.g. by replacing the word ‘environment’ with ‘climate’). However, the more implicit interpretations of CPI adopted in the literature can be far weaker than for EPI. The principled priority of climate change objectives is often side-‐stepped in favour of discussions on synergies and co-‐benefits. At the same time in the everyday practices CPI has been characterized as narrower and more tangible than the vague and abstract concept of EPI. As a more specific form of integration, CPI can potentially be more readily grasped by policy makers (Adelle and Russel 2013). For example, the ways in which climate mitigation policies can be integrated and made compatible with growth, energy security and fiscal policy has received increasing policy and academic interest in recent years in the “green economy” discourse. Reitig (2013) takes a different approach and reminds us that CPI does not necessarily contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development more broadly: minimizing greenhouse gas emissions is not always compatible with environmental protection, as the examples of nuclear energy, hydropower and biofuels illustrate. Consequently, Reitig (2013, p. 299) argues that
CPI ‘cannot automatically be regarded as a sub-‐category of environmental policy integration but must be seen as independent approach’. EPI as a Process of Governance While EPI can be seen from a normative perspective, Hertin and Berkhout (2003) remind us that initiatives to implement EPI in day to day policy making have been mainly procedural. As a cross-‐cutting issue, the environment cannot be effectively managed through treating it as its own sector, and at the same time it does not ‘fit the ministerial boxes (eg finance, transport, energy, agriculture, social policy, trade) into which governments and policy analysts tend to place policies’ (Peters 1998, p. 296). Overcoming policy ‘silos’ is therefore a key EPI challenge which requires organizational structures and procedures capable of reconnecting the various parts of government (and increasingly beyond) (Jordan and Lenschow 2008). A significant section of the EPI literature is devoted to characterizing these organizational structures and procedures. Jordan and Schout (2006) employ a typology to examine the EU’s EPI mechanisms, including hierarchical instruments; bureaucratic rules and standard operating procedures; staff training; specification of outputs and/or tasks; horizontal instruments; and mission statements. Alternatively, the EEA (2005) has produced a checklist of essential EPI elements, including: trends in drivers and pressures; political commitments; administrative cultures and practices; assessment and consultation; use of policy instruments; and monitoring and learning. Such typologies have been used to evaluate progress towards EPI. Similarly, Nilsson
and Persson (2003) construct a framework for analysing EPI that focuses on policy-‐ making rules and assessment processes as independent variables, but also includes background factors such as problem characteristics and the international policy context. Many more studies have evaluated the effectiveness of particular EPI policy mechanisms and instruments (e.g. Impact Assessment (Wilkinson et al. 2004); Green Budgeting (Wilkinson et al. 2008); Sustainable Development Strategies (Steurer 2008)). These studies reveal that the EU has struggled to implement EPI in practice. The Cardiff Process, in particular, has been singled out for criticism (e.g. Wilkinson 2007; Hertin and Berhout 2003). This so called ‘partnership for integration’ was launched in 1998 when the European Council requested that its sectoral formations should ‘establish their own strategies for giving effect to environmental integration and sustainable development within their respective areas’ (European Council 1998, paragraph 56). Rather than a process, the resulting strategies were regarded as ad hoc policy statements by the Council formations and resulted in little follow-‐up. By 2005 and 2006 official reference to the process had ceased, and by 2008 Jordan et al. (p. 169) declared it ‘dead in the water’. Numerous comparative studies also explore EPI at the country level. In a state of the art review of the literature on EPI, Jordan and Lenschow (2010, p. 150) claim that the evidence indicates that there are very few jurisdictions in which policy integration has become ‘an everyday organizational routine (as opposed to merely a transient political objective) throughout all levels of decision making’. Similarly, in a survey of EPI instruments in 30 OECD countries Jacob et al (2008, p. 42) conclude that most countries seem to prefer to develop policy objectives and frameworks that flag the
importance of EPI, without developing the necessary operational structures and procedures. Consequently, they argue that ‘the emphasis lies on “soft” and often “symbolic’’ action’. This may work well when political attention to environmental issues is high but there is a risk that momentum is lost when issue attention wanes. Even countries which are noted as being eager to engage in internal institutional coordination, such as the UK, have struggled to implement EPI in practice. Russel and Jordan (2008) demonstrate that a favourable institutional framework is a necessary but insufficient condition for stronger EPI. There is evidence in some jurisdictions that CPI has been relatively more successful in terms of the adoption of ‘harder’ mechanisms and procedures, for example through ecological tax reform, voluntary agreements and subsidies (Wurzel 2008). However, this is generally due to ad hoc initiatives within sectors responding to a particular problem pressure (i.e. climate change) and not the result of an over-‐arching governance framework for EPI (ibid). Discussions of EPI in international governance regimes have so far been rather limited in the literature (but see Nilsson et al. 2009). However, most international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank and WTO, have undertaken at least 20 years of efforts and studies on how to carry out “mainstreaming” of environmental issues (Campling and Havice 2013; World Bank 2010). Still, questions of how EPI can be strengthened throughout the international governance system remain high on the agenda, including inquiries about environmental integration in overseas development assistance (Persson 2009), recent reform efforts in the United Nations (for UNEP and for CSD) (Biermann et al. 2009), the integration of environment and development priorities in the post 2015
sustainable development goals (Griggs et al. 2013) and the governance of new global funding mechanisms such as the green climate fund. An alternative approach to focusing on integration mechanisms is to see integration as a process of policy learning (see, e.g., Lenschow 2002a; Hertin and Berkhout 2003; Nilsson and Persson 2003). A distinction is often made between single-‐loop learning, where learning ‘feeds into existing beliefs, norms and patterns of understanding [i.e. frames], permitting the system to achieve its present objectives’, and double-‐loop learning, concerned with changes to these frames by challenging world views (Nilsson and Persson 2003, p. 340). EPI arguably has been conceived as requiring the latter, more complex, form of learning, which leads to a change in the hierarchy of the goals themselves (Lehtonen 2007; Nilsson and Nilsson 2005). However, incremental change is far more common (Nilsson and Persson 2003). Jordan and Lenschow (2010, p. 152) argue that certain policy frames, which prevail within particular political jurisdictions, e.g. technological problem solving in Germany, social responsibility in Sweden or good governance and efficiency in the UK are more conducive to EPI than others. If the issue that is to be integrated does not ‘fit’ the prevailing sectoral frame, this constitutes a cognitive barrier because a large ‘leap’ in values and beliefs is needed to change the order of priorities (Lenschow 2002c). EPI as an Outcome Mickwitz and Kivimaa (2007, p. 74) argue that ‘the basic idea of integration is not only to change bureaucracies but to actually change the real world’. Consequently,
for many environmentalists it is policy outcomes (that is, the influence of any EPI-‐ related activity on changed behavior, economic activities and environmental impacts) that really matter (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). However, measuring the effectiveness of integration processes in terms of such outcomes is extremely difficult (Mickwitz 2012) – hence the paucity of literature on EPI outcomes. Indeed, measuring the causal contribution from EPI is highly complex since environmental outcomes are affected by a myriad of factors. Many different EPI policy structures and instruments will have been applied under different background conditions, such as availability of resources, technological innovations and governance contexts (e.g. democratic styles and regulatory cultures), as well as varying levels of public support. Furthermore, much of the time, data is lacking. Consequently, rather than conceiving EPI as a measurable environmental outcome, EPI has mainly been evaluated in terms of a process (see above). By contrast, Adelle and Russel (2013) note that CPI is more commonly conceived of as an outcome. Two key authors from the CPI literature, Mickwitz and Kivimaa (2007, p. 74), argue that ‘an evaluation of policy integration should ultimately include as many stages of outcomes as possible’. Measuring CPI as an outcome (e.g. in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or level of technological development and diffusion) is arguably much easier than measuring the wider state of the environment (ibid). Evaluating CPI outcomes is therefore included more readily in CPI evaluation frameworks (e.g. Mickwitz and Kivimaa 2007, Mickwitz et al. 2009) than broader EPI frameworks. In addition, Adelle and Russel (2013) argue that compared to the EPI literature, the CPI literature at times (e.g. Brouwer et al. 2008; Mickwitz and Kivimaa
2007) tends to treat policy instruments more as end stage policy documents (i.e. policy outputs) than bureaucratic procedures (i.e. policy processes). These policy outputs are also the subject of CPI evaluation frameworks (e.g. Mickwitz and Kivimaa 2007; Mickwitz et al. 2009). One of the largest CPI evaluations, published by the PEER (Partnership for European Environmental Research) Group, evaluated CPI in a number of EU member states (Mickwitz et al. 2009). Several other studies have focused on evaluating progress on integrating climate change considerations into particular EU policy sectors. For example, Nilsson and Nilsson (2005) focus on three sectors, namely energy, transport and agriculture, while a number of other studies analyse CPI in the energy sector (Dupont and Oberthur 2012; Knudsen 2012). In particular, Dupont and Oberthür (2012) measure the extent of CPI in specific policy areas of EU energy sector against the benchmark trajectory of greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions to limit global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-‐industrial levels by 2050. In this way they develop a scale from low to high CPI for policy outputs based on the likely GhG emission reductions these initiatives are anticipated to lead to in addition to ‘business as usual’. This approach enables a quantitative and tangible evaluation of progress, which complements the almost entirely qualitative approaches used for analyzing EPI as a process. 3. Outlook: where next for EPI studies?
Although EPI has been on the agenda for several decades, in both policy making and academia, there is yet no best practice for delivering it. This is perhaps not surprising considering that it ‘requires the “penetration” of large parts of the political machinery throughout the entire policy cycle with a fundamental and yet unspecific norm’ (Jordan and Lenschow 2010, p. 156). Part of the problem has to do with the fundamental differences in the machinery of policy making (both the institutional and political economy aspects of it), which makes it difficult to learn generalizable lessons. Deeper context-‐specific studies of organization and decision making, including institutional but also even social and organizational psychology approaches, are needed to advance the opportunities for EPI. The focus on EPI is shifting both in practice and in the literature. At the international level there has been a renewed interest, both before and after Rio+20 in 2012, in the broader and more generic quest for integration of environment, economic and social policies. This can be seen for instance in the development and discourse around the global post 2015 development agenda and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDG) or in the interest of OECD and UNEP in “green growth” strategies (OECD, 2011; UNEP). At the national level, there is instead focus on more specific forms of integration. Here, not only is CPI considered to be of interest; other sectoral forms of EPI, such as biodiversity integration (Primmer, 2011), are also springing up. These may be different and more tangible challenges for policy makers. However, becoming more specific also brings to the surface challenges and trade-‐offs or synergies between
different environmental goals. In many instances, policies and strategies to address specific environmental issues can have repercussions on other environmental issues (see ALSO INSTITUTIONAL INTERLINKAGES and FRAGMENTATION). For example, a strong CPI may very well lead to policies that have impacts on air quality or biodiversity (Reitig 2013). Such interactions also become more evident when moving from assessments of generic EPI to the study of actual outcomes and impacts. As analysts and policy makers focus more on real outcomes in the study of EPI, they will to a larger degree need to grapple with questions of policy coherence and trade-‐offs (Nilsson et al. 2012). Finally, while EPI efforts at national and local levels have been documented and assessed, more work is needed to develop a knowledge base on how to advance environmental integration at the international level, where many of the critical environmental issues play out, and where institutional challenges and barriers to EPI are accentuated. 4. References Adelle, C. and D. Russel (2013), ‘Climate policy integration and environmental policy integration: a case of déjà vu?’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 23, 1–12. Ahmad I.H. (2009), ‘Climate policy integration: towards operationalization’, DESA Working Paper 73, ST/ESA/2009/DWP/73.
Biermann, F., O. Davies, and N. van der Grijp (2009), ‘Environmental policy integration and the architecture of global environmental governance’, International Environmental Agreements, 9, 351–369. Brouwer S, T. Rayner, D. Huitema (2013), ‘Mainstreaming climate policy: the case of climate adaptation and the implementation of EU water policy’, Environment and Planning C, 31, 134-‐153. Campling, L. and E. Havice (2013), ’Mainstreaming environment and development at the World Trade Organization: Fisheries subsidies, the politics of rule-‐making, and the elusive ”triple win”’, Environment and Planning A, 45 (4), 835 -‐852. Dupont, C. and S. Oberthür (2012), ‘Insufficient climate policy integration in EU Energy Policy: the importance of the long-‐term perspective’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8 (2), 228-‐247. European Council (1998), Council Conclusions, Cardiff European Council. European Council, Brussels. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2005), Environmental Policy Integration in Europe: State of Play and an Evaluative Framework, Technical Report 2/2005, Copenhagen: EEA. Griggs, D., M. Stafford-‐Smith, O. Gaffney, O.M. Rockström, P. Shyamsundar, W. Steffen, G. Glaser, N. Kanie, and I. Noble (2013), ‘Sustainable development goals for people and planet’, Nature 495, 305-‐307. Hertin, J., and F. Berkhout (2003), ‘Analysing institutional strategies for environmental policy integration’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5 (1), 39–56.
Jacob, K., A. Volkery, A. Lenschow (2008), ‘Instruments for environmental policy integration in 30 OECD countries’, in Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow (eds), Innovation in Environmental Policy?, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 24–48. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow (2010), ‘Policy paper environmental policy integration: a state of the art review’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 147–158. Jordan, Andrew and Andrea Lenschow (eds) (2008), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jordan, A., A. Schout, M. Unfried (2008), ‘The European Union’, in Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow (eds), Innovation in Environmental Policy?, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 158–179. Jordan, A. and A. Schout (2006), The Coordination of the European Union: Exploring the Capacities of Networked Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knudsen J.K. (2012), Environmental Policy Integration (EPI): renewable fuel for an EU energy policy, in Israel Solorio and Francesc Morata (eds), European Energy Policy: the Environmental Dimension, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 57–74. Lafferty, W.M. and E. Hovden (2003), ‘Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework’, Environmental Politics, 12 (3), 1–22. Lehtonen, M. (2007), ‘Environmental policy integration through OECD peer reviews: integrating the economy with the environment or the environment with the economy?’ Environmental Politics, 16 (1), 15–35. Lenschow, A. (2002a), ‘New regulatory approaches in “greening” EU policies’, European Law Journal, 8 (1), 19–37.
Lenschow, A. (2002b), ‘Greening the European Union: an introduction’, In Andrea Lenschow (ed.), Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. London: Earthscan, pp. 3–21. Lenschow, A. (2002c), ‘ “Greening” the European Union: are there lessons to be learned for international environmental policy?’, Global Environmental Change 12, 241–245. Lenschow, Andrea (ed) (2002d), Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe, London: Earthscan. Liberatore, A. (1997) ‘The integration of sustainable development objectives into EU policy making’, In Susan Baker, Kousis M, Richardson D, Young S (eds), The Politics of Sustainable Development, London: Routledge, pp. 107–126. Mickwitz, P. (2012), ‘Evaluation’, In Andrew Jordan and Camilla Adelle (eds), Environmental Policy in the European Union (3rd edn), London: Earthscan, pp. 267–286. Mickwitz, P., F. Aix, S. Beck, D. Carss, N. Ferrand, C. Görg, A. Jensen, P. Kivimaa, C. Kuhlicke, W. Kuindersma, M. Máñez, M. Melanen, S. Monni, S. Branth Pedersen, H. Reinert, S. van Bommel (2009), Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance, PEER Report 2. Partnership for European Environmental Research: Helsinki. Mickwitz, P. and P. Kivimaa (2007), ‘Evaluating policy integration: the case of policies for environmentally friendlier technology innovations’, Evaluation, 13 (1), 68–86. Nilsson, M. (2005), ‘Learning, frames and environmental policy integration: the case of energy policy in Sweden’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 207-‐226.
Nilsson, M., T. Zamparutti, J.E. Petersen, B. Nykvist, P. Rudberg and J. McQuinn (2012), ‘Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector-‐environment policy interactions in the EU’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 22, 395-‐423. Nilsson, M. and K. Eckerberg (eds) (2009), Environmental policy integration in practice shaping institutions for learning, London: Earthscan. Nilsson, M. and L.J. Nilsson (2005), ‘Towards climate policy integration in the EU: evolving dilemmas and opportunities’, Climate Policy, 5, 363–376. Nilsson, M. and A. Persson (2003), ‘Framework for analyzing environmental policy integration’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5 (4), 333–359. Nilsson, M., M. Pallemaerts and I. Homeyer (2009), ‘International regimes and environmental policy integration: introducing the special issue’, International Environmental Agreements, 9 (4), 337-‐350. Nollkaemper, A. (2002), ‘Three conceptions of the integration principle in international environmental law’, in Andrea Lenschow (ed.), Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe, London: Earthscan, pp. 22–32. OECD (2011), Towards Green Growth. Paris, OECD Pallemaerts, M. (2006), ‘The EU and sustainable development: an ambiguous relationship’, in Marc Pallemaerts and Albena Azmanova (eds), The European Union and Sustainable Development: Internal and External Dimensions, Brussels: VUB Press, pp. 19–52. Persson, A. (2009), ‘Environmental policy integration and bilateral development assistance: challenges and opportunities with an evolving governance framework’, International Environmental Agreements, 9, 409–429.
Peters, B.G. (1998), ‘Managing horizontal government’, Public Administration, 76, 295–311. Primmer, E. (2011), ‘Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry’, Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1822–1832. Reitig, K. (2013), ‘Sustainable climate policy integration in the European Union’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 23, 297–310. Russel, D., and A.J. Jordan (2008), ‘The United Kingdom’, in Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow (eds), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 249–267. Steurer, R. (2008), ‘Sustainable development strategies,’ in Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow (eds), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 93–113. Underdal, A. (1980), ‘Integrated marine policy: what? why? how?’, Marine Policy, 4 (3), 159–169. UNEP (2011) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Nairobi, UNEP. Urwin, K. and A. Jordan (2008), ‘Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance’, Global Environmental Change, 18, 180–191. Wilkinson, D., D. Benson, A.J. Jordan (2008), ‘Green budgeting’, in Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow (eds), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 70–92. Wilkinson, D. (2007), Environmental Policy Integration at EU Level: State-‐of-‐the-‐Art Report, report for the EPIGOV Project. Berlin: Ecologic.
Wilkinson, D., M. Fergusson, C. Bowyer, J. Brown, A. Ladefoged, C. Monkhouse, A. Zdanowicz (2004), Sustainable Development in the European Commission Integrated Impact Assessment for 2003. IEEP: London. World Bank, (2010) Lessons from environmental mainstreaming: towards environmental sustainability. Washington, DC: World Bank. Wurzel, R.K. (2008), ‘Germany’, in Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow (eds), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 180–201. Recommended Literature Adelle, C. and Russel, D. (2013), ‘Climate policy integration and environmental policy integration: a case of déjà vu?’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 23, 1–12. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow (2010), ‘Policy paper environmental policy integration: a state of the art review’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 147–158. Lenschow A. (ed) (2002d), Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. London: Earthscan. Nilsson, M and K. Eckerberg (eds) (2009), Environmental policy integration in practice shaping institutions for learning, London: Earthscan.
