103 Abstract This paper assesses three sustainable de- velopment strategies – the European Union’s Sustainable Development Strategy in its revised version, the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustain- able Development and Slovenia’s Development Strategy – according to the level of sustainability these strategies provide. Deriving from three di- verse sustainable development regimes, select- ed strategies are scrutinised for the presence of the five general principles of effective sustainable development strategies promoted by the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development. Building on George and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) framework for analysis, we concentrate on principles of strategic planning and sustainable development, and a coordinated set of measures to ensure their implementation. The results reveal that the major differences be- tween the assessed strategies are present in the sophistication of the theoretical bases and the integration of three main pillars of sustainable development (i.e. environmental, economic and social). In general, the assessed strategies re- flect a high degree of inclusiveness of a variety of interests. However, there is a common weak- ness among them in terms of implementation, be it in the provision of adequate resources, the guarantee of adequate implementing capacity of the institutions designated for implementation or the precise definition of the institutional frame- work responsible for the implementation of the strategy. Keywords: sustainable development, sus- tainability assessment, European Union Sustain- able Development Strategy, Slovenia’s Develop- ment Strategy, Mediterranean Strategy for Sus- tainable Development, sustainable development principles, Slovenia. TOWARDS OUR COMMON FUTURE: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE MEDITERRANEAN AND SLOVENIA Tomaž DEŽELAN Alem MAKSUTI Tomaž DEŽELAN Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Tel.: 00386-1-580.52.31 E-mail: tomaz.dezelan@fdv.uni-lj.si Alem MAKSUTI Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: alem.maksuti@gmail.com. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 43 E/2014, pp. 103-121 104 1. Introduction Sustainable development has become a catchphrase in political and bureaucratic discourse in the past two decades, despite – or rather because of – the absence of any consensus regarding its explicit meaning. Its genealogy and the power-related nature of its definitions (see Richardson, 2004) make it a tool for frequent misuse, primarily in politico-administrative language. As an indication of this, a former World Bank of- ficial identified 72 relevant definitions of sustainable development (Rogers et al., 2008, p. 22), thus adding weight to the argument (see Drhová, 2011; Rogers et al., 2008) that sustainable development entails a polity-specific definition of values and principles for achieving a sustainable society on a long-term basis. Determination of sustainable development is therefore seen as being subject to judgement based on prevailing val- ues and ethical norms in a given time and space (Holmberg and Sandbrook, 1992, p. 23). The lack of consensus regarding the state of the world’s ecosystems and the role of humanity should be understood in the same light. The origins of this plethora of definitions are frequently traced to the much-criti- cised lack of clarity and broad strategic framework of the concept of sustainable de- velopment formulated in the Bruntland report titled Our Common Future (see Unit- ed Nations, 1987), which failed to become a definitive guideline for policymaking (Drhová, 2011) and opened the door for power-related criticism (Richardson, 2004). At the same time, it has to be noted that there is no universal path or societal structure for a sustainable society (Becker et al., 1997), which allows different regimes1 to take up different but equally successful paths. In addition, despite notable differences in the determination of paths to a sustainable society, all paths tackle the challenge of management of the material conditions of societal reproduction and the character of their transformation. Hence, Drhová (2011, p. 87) argued that sustainable develop- ment should be understood more as the way to achieve a sustainable society than as a target state. Sustainable development strategies are in effect visions of ‘a way to achieve a sus- tainable society’ since they present a ‘coordinated, participatory and iterative process of thoughts and actions to achieve economic, environmental and social objectives in a balanced and integrative manner’ (Meadowcroft, 2007, p. 154). By analyzing them we hope to reveal the actual level of normative commitment of individual communities and regimes to a sustainable future and should also indicate whether these strategies truly have the character of a sustainable development strategy – i.e. whether they adhere to a set of principles of strategic planning and sustainable development and a coordinated set of measures to ensure their implementation, as is set out in the Agen- da 21 and post Agenda 21 documents. 1 In this paper we employ a generic understanding of the term ‘regime’. We understand sus- tainable development regimes as a set of rules and cultural, political and social norms that regulate the operation of sustainable development in the polity. 105 Since sustainable development regimes are not bound to a single level (i.e. the state level) and may in fact be overlapping,2 the pivotal aim of this paper is to examine the efforts of selected sustainable development regimes individuals may be impacted by in the Slovenian context. Disregarding the potential existence of Local Agenda 21s, we focus on the state level as well as on levels beyond the state (international and supranational), assess the efforts of three sustainable development regime lev- els – supranational (the European Union), regional (the Mediterranean region) and national (Slovenia) – and their vision for the future and ways of attaining it. With this assessment of existing strategic planning mechanisms based on George and Kirkpat- rick’s (2006) framework for analysis, we identify the areas that should be improved by policymakers in order for the analysed sustainable development regimes to com- ply with existing sustainable development principles. As a result, this study provides information for all relevant stakeholders from different levels on the areas in which improvements are needed. In section 2 we continue with a general framing of sustainable development and a brief evolutional screening of key events and documents that determine the field on a global level. Section 3 sets forth the very extensive research framework and data uti- lised for this study, while in section 4 we provide detailed results of the sustainability assessment of each of the three analysed strategies. The concluding section provides a brief comparative discussion of common and diverse aspects of selected strategies as well as tentative suggestions for future drafters. 2. Framing sustainable development Sustainable development increasingly pervades the everyday life of global popu- lation despite having been coined by the International Union for Conservation of Na- ture and Natural Resources a quarter of a century ago (Seema, 2010). Notwithstanding the wide-spread belief that the concept of sustainable development represents one of the most ancient ideas in human heritage, its current understanding of the way of reconciling the needs of development with protection of the environment certainly represents something new (Voigt, 2009, p. 12). Sustainable development is no longer about integrating environmental consider- ations into the economic development process, but about a development process of a qualitatively different nature that represents an epistemic shift to a new paradigm since not only economic and ecological systems need to be addressed (Jensen, 2007, p. 511). This paradigm shift is a consequence of greater awareness of environmental degradation, poverty, social disruptions and humanitarian crises through the Club of 2 Citizens and residents of any locality may carry a burden of, or enjoy the fruits of, several sustainable development regimes at the same time. For example, in addition to local, sub- state/regional and national sustainable development regimes, regional and supranational regimes across state borders may be in operation (e.g. the Mediterranean region, the Euro- pean Union (EU)). 106 Rome and the Stockholm Declaration that no longer regarded development solely in terms of gross national product but as a policy aimed at better living conditions for all (Voigt, 2009, p. 13). The World Conservation Strategy from 1980 is one of the first in- ternational documents to explicitly deal with development and environmental limits (Voigt, 2009, p. 14); however, via the Brundtland Report sustainable development be- came a broad policy objective and gave the impetus to install the sustainable develop- ment concept in all documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Blewitt, 2008, p. 15). While some earlier approaches to sus- tainable development were oriented to ecology as well as its utilisation and expressed the relevance of environmental protection for the socio-economic interests and needs of developing countries, it is the Brundtland Report that has had the most far-reaching implications for the overall transformation of policy and law based on the sustainable development concept (Voigt, 2009, p. 15). The Rio Declaration (Agenda 21) introduced a new approach with a central focus on the Brundtland Report and the mainstreaming of environmental protection into developmental progress. According to Agenda 21, governments should adopt National Sustainable Devel- opment Strategies (NSDSs) to improve or restructure the decision-making process in order to integrate socio-economic and environmental considerations and ensure a broader range of public participation (UN, 1992, chapter 2). To reinforce the trend of preparing proper sustainable development strategies, international organisations and clubs of states have taken up ownership of sustainable development and are actively exploring new and better indicators to measure progress and drafting new guidelines to foster it (Voigt, 2009, p. 19). For example, the Organization for Eco- nomic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee established a set of principles and the United Nation’s (UN) Department of Economic and Social Affairs drew up similar principles, which are designed to provide coun- tries with in-depth information on possible approaches to and methodologies for achieving a sustainable society (George and Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 147). The pivotal document on the global level nevertheless remains Agenda 21 and represents a basis for various supranational, supranational-regional, national and local sustainable de- velopment strategies (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002; Haughton and Counsell, 2004; Baker et al., 2005). During the last two decades contemporary regional sustainable development strat- egies were also prepared as long-term approaches to integrating the economic, social and environmental policies of different states with shared characteristics, challenges and vulnerabilities (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002, pp. 70–72). Examples of regional supranational sustainable development strategies are the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD) and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS). Focused on issues and priorities of a regional nature, these strategies are essen- tially independently linked to the NSDSs of countries from the Mediterranean region and/or member states of the EU (Hoballah, 2006; Pallemaerts and Azmanova, 2006). However, this regional planning could also be understood as an additional connect- 107 ing potential between national, regional and subnational planning systems (Pridham and Konstandakopulos, 2005). Overall, a variety of approaches have been used to assess this diverse set of sus- tainable development strategies (OECD, 2005; UNDESA, 2005). Individual states as well as clubs of states have also conducted more or less formalised assessment ex- ercises, some periodically and some with the support of external experts. However, most of these assessment exercises have refrained from establishing clear benchmarks against which shortcomings may be judged and progress monitored (George and Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 147). As a result, this paper rests on the assessment methodol- ogy proposed by George and Kirkpatrick (2006), which avoids the above-mentioned criticisms and scrutinises selected strategies for the incorporation of sustainable de- velopment principles. Selected assessment criteria have been designed to provide an overall assessment of a particular principle and to deliver useful information for the policymakers responsible for strategy improvements and incremental revision of ex- isting documents. 3. Method and data A sustainability assessment as an integrative concept (Gibson, 2006) demands a holistic approach. In this paper we employed the frequently verified assessment methodology of George and Kirkpatrick (2006) to evaluate strategic planning pro- cesses of three sustainable development strategies3/regimes. Our scrutiny focuses on sustainable development strategies that serve as standardised artefacts (Wolff, 2004, p. 284) and that can be legitimately used to make assumptions about the intentions and ideas of their creators and the sustainable development regime they represent. The basic principles of effective sustainable development strategies concentrate on ‘principles for strategic planning and sustainable development, and a coordinated set of measures to ensure their implementation’ (George and Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 146). The United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and the OECD identified five general principles of effective sustainable development strategies at the national level: a) integration of economic, social, and environmental objectives; b) participation and consensus; c) country ownership and coordinated policy process; d) comprehensive and coordinated policy process; and e) targeting, resourcing and monitoring. The first two principles are regarded as sustainable de- velopment principles, while the other three are more general principles of strategic planning and management (George and Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 148). These categories also provide a useful tool for assessing long-term strategies on the subnational level. In accordance with these five general principles, four assessment criteria were de- vised (see Table 1). 3 Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Environmental Sustainability and Shared Prosperity; The EU Sustainable Development Strategy and Re- newed EU Sustainable Development Strategy; and Slovenia’s Development Strategy. 108 Table 1: Criteria for assessment of strategic planning mechanisms against sustainable development principles A. Integration of economic, social, and environmental objectives Criterion A1 integration Strategic planning in the country is based on a comprehensive and integrated analysis of economic, social, and environmental issues, which clarifi es links between the three spheres, resolves confl icts between them where practicable, and negotiates appropriate trade-offs where confl icts remain. Criterion A2 social and poverty issues Strategic planning in the country integrates poverty eradication, gender issues, and the short-term and long- term needs of disadvantaged and marginalized groups into economic policy. Criterion A3 environmental and resource issues Strategic planning in the country integrates the maintenance of sustainable levels of resource use and the control of pollution to maintain a healthy environment in economic policy. Criterion A4 international commitments Measures are in place to ensure compliance with international agreements which the country has entered into, on environmental and social issues. B. Participation and consensus Criterion B1 involvement of stakeholders The country’s processes of strategic planning, implementation, monitoring, and review include the partici- pation of stakeholders, including government, decentralized authorities, elected bodies, non-governmental and private sector institutions, and marginalized groups. Criterion B2 transparency and accountability The management of the country’s strategic planning processes is transparent, with accountability for deci- sions made. Criterion B3 communication and public awareness Measures are taken to increase public awareness of sustainable development, to communicate relevant in- formation, and to encourage the development of stakeholder involvement in the strategic planning process. Criterion B4 long-term vision and consensus The country’s strategic planning processes are based on a long-term vision for the country’s development, which is consistent with the country’s capabilities, allows for short-term and medium-term necessities, and has wide political and stakeholder support. C. Country ownership and commitment Criterion C1 high-level government commitment The process of formulating and implementing the national strategy is led by government, with evidence of high-level commitment. Criterion C2 broad-based political support The country’s strategic planning process has broad-based political support. Criterion C3 responsibilities for implementation Responsibility for implementing strategies is clearly assigned to bodies with the appropriate authority. Criterion C4 coordination with donors The country’s strategic planning process is coordinated with donor programmes. D. Comprehensive and coordinated policy process Criterion D1 build on existing processes The national strategy for sustainable development is based on existing strategic planning processes in the country, with coordination between them, and mechanisms to identify and resolve potential confl icts. Criterion D2 analysis and information Strategic planning in the country is based on a comprehensive analysis of the present situation and of forecasted trends and risks, using reliable information on changing environmental, social, and economic conditions. Criterion D3 realistic goals The national strategy is based on a realistic analysis of national resources and capacities in the economic, social, and environmental spheres, taking account of external pressures in the three spheres. Criterion D4 decentralization The country’s strategic planning processes embrace both national and decentralized levels, with two-way iteration between these levels. 109 E. Targeting, resourcing, and monitoring Criterion E1 budgetary provision The sustainable development strategy is integrated into the budget process, such that plans have the fi nan- cial resources to achieve their objectives. Criterion E2 capacity for implementation The sustainable development strategy includes realistic mechanisms to develop the capacity required to implement it. Criterion E3 targets and indicators Targets have been defi ned for key strategic economic, social, and environmental objectives, with indicators through which they can be monitored. Criterion E4 monitoring and feedback Systems are in place for monitoring the implementation of strategies and the achievement of their defi ned objectives, for recording the results, and for reviewing their effectiveness as strategies for sustainable de- velopment, with effective mechanisms for feedback and revision within the planning process. Source: George and Kirkpatrick (2006, p. 149) Indicators showing the extent to which each criterion has been met are defined as a qualitative coding scheme offering scores for each criterion. The methodology allows for four descriptive assessment scores for analysed sustainable development strategies: A) all requirements of the criterion are fully met; B) all requirements of the criterion are satisfactorily met, although some more improvements are desirable; C) some requirements of the criterion have been satisfactory or fully met, but others have not yet been satisfactory met; and D) few requirements of the criterion have, as yet, been satisfactory met (George and Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 150). In addition to scoring schemes, the acquired results are accompanied by a short supporting text containing the main arguments for each individual score. 4. Results 4.1 Sustainable development in the European Union and the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) In December 1999 the Helsinki meeting of the European Council invited the Euro- pean Commission (EC) to prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy for dovetailing policies for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development (Euro- pean Council, 1999). The EC issued a consultation paper in 2001 focusing on initial views of the challenges and opportunities for a long-term strategy. After a few months of coherent coordination at different levels, a sustainable development strategy (EU SDS) was prepared and adopted at the European Council meeting in June 2001 in Gothenburg (European Council, 2001). The strategy was based on the principles of coordinated economic, social and environmental development and harmonisation of policies at the supranational, national and local level (European Council, 2001). Un- der the new strategy, major European policy proposals were to include a sustainable impact assessment, improvement of internal policy coordination by EU institutions between different sectors and development by member states of national sustainabil- ity plans and strategies (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002, pp. 71–72). 110 The strategy document from Gothenburg was just a step on a long journey that requires prolonged actions to fulfil agreed-upon objectives (Bernheim, 2006). In 2005, the European Council asked the EC to propose a ‘more comprehensive and more am- bitious’ strategy (Bernheim, 2006, p. 89). After intensive stocktaking and coordination between the member states, the EC prepared a revised EU SDS in December 2005. The new strategy did not replace the former strategy, but it did expose some of its unclear priorities and sharing of responsibilities, as well as the absence of clear monitoring mechanisms. The EC has also introduced progress reports for reviewing priorities and has encouraged member states to review their national strategies in light of the EU SDS, to enhance mutual learning. Original documents from 2001 and revised doc- uments from 2006 were included in our analysis. The EU SDS emerged as an ambitious attempt to act as a holistic, long-term sus- tainable development strategy. It could be understood as a framework strategy, with high potential to encourage member states and local authorities to prepare and im- plement their own sustainability strategies. Wide-range inclusion of different stake- holders from the preparation process is also foreseen in the strategy’s implementation process. The strategy’s inclusion of wider international background is evident, as well as coherence with sustainable development regimes from other levels. This is partic- ularly highlighted in the revised document in which closer articulation between the local, national and European levels of governance is stressed as one of the guiding principles (see also Pridham and Konstadakopulos, 2005). Positive features of the as- sessed strategy also encompass commitment to continuous cooperation between the EU and its member states in the field of policy coordination, periodic assessment and the establishment of measurable indicators for the strategy’s evaluation and future decisions; however, these points have proved to be very idealistic in real life. The revised EU SDS addressed some weaknesses of the original document (e.g. vague priorities, lack of clear monitoring mechanisms). It clarified set objectives, pro- vided clear monitoring mechanisms, emphasised deeper integration of different poli- cies and intensified cooperation with member states for further development and re- view of indicators (see also Bernheim, 2006). Despite the modifications introduced in the renewed strategy, it still suffers from an absence of clarity. Firstly, it is rarely clear when determining institutional competencies and is ambiguous when elaborating on its translation into relevant policies. In terms of EU policies, the relationship between sustainable development and environmental protection and action to combat climate change is not always clear, let alone the relationship with the Lisbon Strategy, which aims to strengthen innovation and economic growth (see also Schaik et al., 2009). It is unclear whether the EU SDS is considered to be separate and complementary to the Lisbon Strategy, separate and in direct competition with it or an environmental addition to it (see Pallemaerts, 2006; Schaik et al., 2009). The relationship is therefore à la carte, since the EU SDS is sometimes presented as an ‘overarching objective’, an integral part of the Lisbon Strategy or even disconnected from it due to the separate temporal and political tracks (Pallemaerts, 2006, p. 32). Finally, the EU SDS falls with in the remit of DG Environment, which should indicate that sustainable development 111 Table 2: Assessment of the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) Principles Criteria and scores Remarks 1 2 3 4 A. Integration and sustainability B C C B Strong formal connection between the three sustainability pillars (i.e. environmental, economic and social) is obvious, while additional in- ternal policy coordination between different sectors remains a gener- al commitment of EU institutions (A1). Overall and operational objec- tives in the sphere of social and poverty issues are presented in with the context of the poverty problem at the global level. Basically, all planned actions for solving these problems depend on EU member states’ policies (A2). Climate change and clean energy are identifi ed as one of the key challenges, in light of the measures of EU and UN conventions on climate change (A4). The realisation of objectives for preventing climate change and providing clean energy is highly dependent on EU member states (A3). B. Participation and consensus B C B B A multi-stakeholder approach is employed in the preparation process (B1). Transparency and accountability for decisions made rely on EU member states. The latter also have a key role in targeting commu- nication to the most appropriate level. In the renewed document, the EC has undertaken to prepare a guide to the strategy, including good practices and policies (B2, B3). Besides long-standing commitments to sustainability in the EU, the strategy also emphasises global soli- darity and the importance of cooperation with partners outside the EU (B4). C. Ownership and commitment B A B D EU institutions and member states declare full commitment to im- plementation of the strategy – member states indirectly (through national strategies) and EU institutions through permanent as- sessment of the situation – and improving internal policy coordi- nation between different sectors (C1, C3). EU SDS is the result of the political commitment and support of all interested actors from different levels (C2). Success of the strategy is primarily depend- ent on EU and member states’ policies and fi nancial inputs (C4). D. Comprehensive and coordinated policy process B B B A EU SDS includes goals from previous/parallel initiatives (e.g. Lisbon Strategy) (D1). The renewed strategy provides for comprehensive analysis of the present situation through progress reports (D2). The EC has undertaken to prepare a set of measurable indicators for re- alistic implementation of the strategy (D3). Two-way interaction and perpetual coordination between the EU and member states is antici- pated (multilevel approach) and essential for successful implementa- tion of the strategy (D4). E. Targeting, resourcing, and monitoring C D B B Financing the implementation of the strategy depends on structural reforms in the fi eld of economy, taxation, energy consumption, etc., and synergy between various community and other co-fi nancing mechanisms (E1). Implementation capacity is dependent on the economic situation. Some deadlines anticipated in the EU SDS of 2001 have already expired (E2). Monitoring of indicators is provided in close cooperation with the EC and member states (E3). Perma- nent feedback from the latter is essential for monitoring and objective evaluation of implementation of the strategy (E4). is primarily considered to be an environmental issue within the daily practice of EU policymaking (see also Schaik et al., 2009). 112 The crucial test for the EU SDS lies in its implementation (Bernheim, 2006, p. 92). To- gether with the Lisbon Strategy for economic renewal, it has to work towards bring- ing the concept of sustainability in the EU to life. But its implementation capacity is strongly dependent on the economic situation in EU member states and worldwide. In the revised EU SDS, envisaged financing and economic instruments are mainly packed into reforms of the economy, taxation and energy consumption. Necessary actions are set loosely, with no clear measures or deadlines for their implementation (e.g. ‘to promote market transparency and prices that reflect the real economic, social and environmental costs of products and services’ (Council of the European Union, 2006, p. 24)). Member states are invited to consider further steps related to policies, and some co-financing mechanisms are only scheduled as an option – but the EC is committed to preparing a roadmap for the reforms in all sectors in the future. Con- sidering the fact that some deadlines anticipated in the original EU SDS have already expired, the ongoing economic crisis in Europe and the consequences that will come from that, it is logical to expect that implementation of the EU SDS remains a great challenge for the EU and its member states. 4.2 Sustainable development in the Mediterranean region and the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD) Three years after Stockholm and the setting up of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), sixteen Mediterranean countries and the European Community adopted the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), which is the first scheme to be adopt- ed as a Regional Seas Programme under the auspices of the UNEP (United Nations, 2011). With the objective of assisting Mediterranean countries to assess and control marine pollution, formulate national environment policies, improve the governments’ ability to identify better options for alternative patterns of development and optimise choices for the allocation of resources, the plan became the Action Plan for the Protec- tion of Marine Environment and Sustainable Development of the Coastal Areas of the Mediterranean (MAP Phase II) in 1995 (United Nations, 2011). The dynamic that led to the revision of MAP also initiated the decision to establish a Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development (MCSD) in Montpellier in 1996 (Mediterranean Action Plan, 2011). The latter presents a forum for dialogue and proposals where the Contracting Parties of the MAP define a sustainable devel- opment strategy for the Mediterranean region. MCSD acts as an advisory organ to the MAP and is composed of representatives of the contracting parties as well as civil society actors. After reaching an agreement on a common vision, the MCSD drafted six key challenges to sustainable development that should be addressed in the Medi- terranean, making development and environmental protection a top priority (Hobal- lah, 2006). The preparatory process was designed and presented at the annual MCSD meeting in 2002, and structured as a series of synchronized actions aimed primarily at promoting a participatory and multi-stakeholder approach (Hoballah, 2006, pp. 160-161). Instead of engaging a small team of experts to prepare the regional strat- egy, the MSSD has been drafted on the basis of strategic integration of representa- 113 tives from Mediterranean states, local authorities, business groups and environmental NGOs from the national and supranational levels. After a long process of preparation, MCSD prepared the wide-ranging Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Develop- ment (MSSD) in 2005 (Cantore et al., 2011, p. 1). The MSSD calls for action to pursue sustainable development goals, taking into account regional idiosyncrasies. According to Hoballah (2006, p. 157), the Mediter- ranean is a prototypical regional test case due to its common economic, social and environmental context and ubiquitous issues such as coastal urbanisation, rapidly growing tourism, scarcity and contamination of water supply, pollution of coastal wa- ters and loss of biodiversity (see also Koboević et al., 2012). Hence, the gaps between developed and developing countries is well acknowledged, and the necessity to help the transition of some Mediterranean countries in the East Adriatic, the South and the East Mediterranean is well identified (Mediterranean Action Plan, 2005). Over- all, the strategy is designed for Mediterranean countries to benefit from the strategy equally by exposing four main objectives: contributing to economic development by enhancing Mediterranean assets; reducing social disparities and improving cultural integration; changing unsustainable production and consumption patterns as well as ensuring sustainable management of natural resources; and improving governance at local, national, and regional levels (Mediterranean Action Plan, 2005). The first implementation assessment of the MSSD for the period 2005–2010 was done in 2011. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the work done and to offer recommendations to the members of MCSD on how to improve and update MSSD indicators for implementation in the future (Cantore et al., 2011). The report exposed some new, emerging priorities that should be included in revised version of the MSSD in the future and suggested actions to improve the implementation of the strategy. For the purpose of overall assessment, the main document from 2005 and the report on assessment of the implementation from 2011 were included in our analysis.4 The MSSD is a framework strategy and plays a catalytic role in the further pro- motion of sustainable development in Mediterranean countries. However, despite its strategic orientations the MSSD is not strictly binding on national governments. It is primarily designed to promote sustainable development in the Mediterranean region, to strengthen the commitment and solidarity between countries and to provide sug- gestions on the modalities by which countries can incorporate MSSD principles into national strategies. Positive features of the assessed strategy comprise the inclusive approach taken during the preparation process, the (allegedly) active involvement of stakeholders in the implementation process, its consistency with other strategic docu- ments from the regional, supranational and global levels, and its impact on countries 4 For proper use of the selected methodology and bett er insight into the area, this examination also includes some information from the publication’s Plan Blue: observation, analysis and the prospective center responsible for highlighting the environment and development is- sues in the Mediterranean region ([Online] available at htt p://planbleu.org/en/publications, accessed October 1, 2013). 114 Table 3: Assessment of the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD) Principles Criteria and scores Remarks 1 2 3 4 A. Integration and sustainability C B A B Strong integration of three sustainable development pillars is de- tected on a normative level. Economic, social and environmental issue indicators strictly relate to seven priorities (A1). Reducing so- cial disparities by improving living standards and gender equality is stated as a major objective. Somewhat neglected areas are the problems and needs of marginalised groups (A2). Requirements for the environment and renewable sources of energy are met and fully operationalised (A3). Improved governance is based on shared re- sponsibility between developed and developing countries. Strategy is inextricably linked with NSDSs and consistent with international agreements, especially in the area of the environment (A4). B. Participation and consensus B D B C A multi-stakeholder approach was employed in the preparation pro- cess. Long-term vision is clear and supported by the vision for sus- tainable development of all Mediterranean countries. Implementation strongly depends on political authorities at the national and local lev- els that are in charge of transmission and implementing all planned projects (B1, B4). Accountability for decisions is dispersed and de- pendent on all MCSD members (B2). Stakeholder involvement is provided during the implementation, which in principle provides for education in sustainable development with a participatory approach and public access to information (B3). C. Ownership and commitment D D D B Responsibility for implementation of planned projects and the re- quired political support are the domain of national and local au- thorities (C1, C2, C3). Different fi nancial initiatives are provided, and long-term measures for the more favourable fi nancial environment in all countries needed to support sustainable development processes in least-favoured rural areas, cities and neighbourhoods (C4). D. Comprehensive and coordinated policy process D D D A The MSSD does not affect policy actions in single countries, and it omits detailed suggestions about how national strategies should be designed and implemented. Situation assessment and continu- ity of planned actions fall to the national and local authorities and other stakeholders, which means decentralisation per se (D1, D2, D4). How realistic goals are depends on planning processes at the national and local levels, which can vary from country to country. The heterogeneity of Mediterranean countries complicates delivery of an accurate assessment of how realistic the strategy’s goals are (D3). E. Targeting, resourcing, and monitoring D D A B The voluntary fi nancial contributions provided by countries are cru- cial for successful implementation. Capacity for implementation de- pends heavily on national budgets and realistic plans for sustainabil- ity projects (E1, E2). Vague indicators were updated with the fi rst implementation assessment, making them clearer and more quantifi - able (E3). Continuous monitoring is anticipated. Two-year monitoring cycles are provided to assess progress in implementation. In-depth assessment is planned for every fi ve years, the fi rst occurring in 2010 as a special assessment for the Third World Summit on Sustainable Development (E4). 115 that are preparing NSDSs. In a certain way, the MSSD presents a framework for for- mulation, review or updating of national strategies, and an effective partnership in the efforts towards sustainability. The key structural barrier of the MSSD is its de- pendence of its success on the implementation of planned actions by national and local governments. The lack of supranational high-level authority and the permanent dependence on voluntary financial contributions also significantly determine the suc- cess of the strategy. The actual exercise is de facto unimaginable without integration of MSSD principles into specific policies designed and led by national governments or institutions of supranational political authorities (e.g. the EU). Integration of prin- ciples of sustainability from different levels strengthens the concept of sustainable development and increases its potential for successful implementation of defined measures and achievement of goals. 4.3 Sustainable development in Slovenia and Slovenia’s Development Strategy (SDS) Deliberations on sustainability in Slovenia date back to the early 1990s, when the government adopted the Starting-Points for Regulating Development Planning in the Republic of Slovenia in 1992 and the Proposal to Regulate Annual and Development Planning in the Republic of Slovenia in 1993 (Radej, 2000, p. 48). The Strategy for Economic Development of Slovenia (SEDS), adopted in 1995 and renewed in 2001 by the Slovenian Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, defined sus- tainable development as a ‘new development paradigm’, combining the economic, social and environmental aspects of welfare equality. SEDS also laid the groundwork for Slovenia’s National Development Programme for 2002–2006, another important document for sustainable development in Slovenia. In addition to those documents, which gave priority to reducing the economic development gap, the National En- vironmental Action Programme (NEAP) was prepared in 1999, with objectives and measures for the field of environmental protection and the use of natural resources. NEAP directly highlighted the environmental dimension of sustainable development and addressed Agenda 21. Based on broad consensus and comprehensive public debate, in June 2005 the Government of the Republic of Slovenia adopted Slovenia’s Development Strategy (SDS). The basic idea was to set up a strategy that would establish the principle of sustainability in all development documents in the country (Černe, 2004, p. 95). After the adoption, the government appointed the Reform Committee, a working group of approximately 150 experts, to propose concrete measures for the implementation of the strategy in terms of competitiveness, higher economic growth and employment. The SDS is primarily oriented towards the Lisbon goals, as it mainly exposes econom- ic issues but does not completely neglect the social and environmental component of sustainable development. It emphasises five key development priorities, the fifth of which is oriented towards sustainability (see Šušteršič et al., 2005). A revision of the SDS was planned with the involvement of the National Coun- cil for Sustainable Development (NCSD). The revision of the strategy started in 2008 116 with a scenario-building exercise, in order to identify gaps in the current strategy and achieve a consensus about priority measures for the future. In March 2011 the gov- ernment initiated the renewal of the strategy, with the intention of facilitating the EU 2020 strategy. The dominance of the ‘Lisbon rhetoric’, therefore, remains embedded in the core of Slovenia’s upcoming sustainable development strategy. The Ministry of Economic Development and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia prepared the first draft of the renewed SDS in August 2013 (MERS, 2013), but the document is still in the drafting phase. Summary results of the assessment of the SDS are provided in Table 4. Table 4: Assessment of the Slovenia’s Development Strategy (SDS) Principles Criteria and scores Remarks 1 2 3 4 A. Integration and sustainability C C D D Separated development priorities with weak integration (A1). Social and poverty issues are presented separately in the fourth development priority. Principles of solidarity and better social inclusion of vulner- able groups are mentioned (A2). Poorly defi ned measures for further integration of environmental policy into other sectoral policies and con- sumer patterns (A3). Strategy is primarily oriented towards the Lisbon goals (A4). B. Participation and consensus B B D C A bottom-up drafting process, with the cooperation of various experts and stakeholders. The strategy’s implementation rests primarily on government and ministries; local authorities and stakeholders are neglected (B1). Responsibility for decision-making is the domain of ministries without provided mechanisms for transparency and com- munication with the public (B2, B3). Sustainability is addressed as a separate development priority with two-year actions plans (B4). C. Ownership and commitment B B A D Signifi cant government involvement during the preparation and im- plementation of the strategy (C1). The Reform Committee, a working group of approximately 150 experts, is preparing a proposal of concrete measures to deliver SDS objectives and provides additional political and expert support (C2). Responsibility for implementation is clearly assigned to authorities with appropriate competences (ministries) (C3). Donor programs are completely neglected in the document (C4). D. Comprehensive and coordinated policy process B D C D The SDS is primarily oriented towards the Lisbon Strategy (D1). Suffers from vague and universal formulations. Comprehensive analysis of the current situation is also overlooked; proposed objectives and meas- ures are desirable rather than real (D2, D3). Decentralisation is barely mentioned. Focus is only on the establishment of regions and provid- ing better conditions for the development of the local economy (D4). E. Targeting, resourcing, and monitoring D C D B Lacks budgetary provisions. Does not have a special chapter on fi - nancing and implementation of the strategy (E1). Provision of fi nancial resources needed for implementation depends on privatization of state property, tax reform and launching of public-private partnerships (E2). Suffers from vague indicators for all pillars of sustainable development (E3). The Slovenian Development Report (prepared annually by the Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (IMAD)) moni- tors the implementation of the strategy and is a document adopted by the government as a guideline for formulation of national economic and development policies (E4). 117 In its current form, the SDS of 2005 appears to be a failed attempt to develop a holistic long-term strategic document, as it has proved deficient in a majority of its set goals. The biggest shortcoming is the fragmentation of goals and weak integration of policy sectors across the entire document. Sustainability is superficially presented as a separate development priority with no deeper integration into other sectoral policies. According to the criteria from the qualitative scoring scheme, besides the responsibil- ity of actors for the strategy’s implementation, none of the requirements are fully met. This is particularly the case with environmental provisions, natural resource issues, budgetary provisions and the inclusion of local authorities and stakeholders in the implementation process. Some positive features of the strategy are the inclusiveness of its preparation process and in the phase of preparing measures to deliver its objec- tives. Slovenia as a case on the state-level reflects more or less a similar image of vague- ness as MSSD and EU SDS, especially in terms of non-transparency when it comes to sustainable development. It has manifested a moderate amount of commitment to the provisions of Agenda 21, as it has a tremendous sectoral focus, which is contradictory to Agenda 21’s cross-sectoral orientation. However, some important steps forward have been taken, most notably with the creation of the Slovenian Council for Sustain- able Development which was set up to adopt guidelines and recommendations for sustainable development in the Republic of Slovenia, assess the documents related to sustainable development and take part in discussions and give suggestions referring to the NEAP and other sectoral strategies based on the principles of sustainable devel- opment. Nevertheless, the Council has proved to be more or less inactive. 5. Concluding discussion It is difficult to compare sustainable development strategies, especially if they rep- resent the vision of a sustainable future at different levels, and to determine the most elaborated and complete strategy among the examined ones, although there are dif- ferences between the scores in the qualitative coding scheme. The major differences between the assessed strategies are in the sophistication of the theoretical base and the integration of three main pillars of sustainable development. The MSSD and EU SDS stand out in a positive way – especially the revised EU SDS, which reflects ambitious targets for the key internal and external sustainable development challenges classified under six headings, for which concrete actions are provided. On the other hand, Slo- venia’s Development Strategy primarily exposes economic issues, with weak integra- tion of the three main pillars of sustainable development, since the social and environ- mental components are barely mentioned and only the fifth key development priority is reserved for sustainable development, which is otherwise not a cross-cutting issue. However, a positive feature of all assessed strategies is a ‘bottom-up’ drafting pro- cess with the cooperation of different authorities, experts and stakeholders. Another positive attribute is that on the conceptual level all analysed strategies planned for monitoring procedures, including close cooperation of different authorities and stake- holders from various levels. Some weaknesses that are more or less common to all 118 assessed strategies are imprecise elaboration of development goals, unreachable ob- jectives of sustainability and vague measures for the objectives’ fulfilment. Virtually all evaluated strategies also lack important practical elements, which diminishe their importance on the level of implementation. For example, they do not have clear dead- lines and financing provisions for planned projects. In some cases deadlines anticipat- ed in assessed strategies have already expired (EU SDS and SDS), while financing of planned projects depends on reforms in the future or on voluntary contributions (e.g. the MSSD). Overall, the assessed strategies suffer from a lack of guaranteed financial resources for successful implementation, or at least from a lack of clear financial plan- ning, which at the core determines their future. A pivotal deficiency of regional strategies, particularly the MSSD, is that their im- plementation depends on political authorities at the national and local levels. Those authorities are in essence in charge of transmission and implementation of all planned projects common to member states. In effect, this disperses the accountability for ad- opted decisions and also, in the case of the EU SDS, imposes a burden of implemen- tation on the national and subnational authorities, whether they like it or not and whether they have the capacity or not. The EC and the MCSD are responsible for monitoring at the supranational/regional level and for preparing progress reports. However, these limited obligations clearly have fallen short of reaching anticipated targets (see Bernheim, 2006; Hoballah, 2006). The implementation of the Slovenian development strategy is the domain of national ministries, while there is a weak con- nection to subnational levels, with decentralisation barely being mentioned. Given the importance of national and subnational authorities to the implementation of regional/ supranational strategies, the missing link to the subnational level presents a serious barrier to effective implementation of the entire set of strategies. This assessment of strategic planning mechanisms in three sustainable develop- ment regimes thus maps the necessary paths to future improvements. In the case of the EU SDS and the MSSD, it is essential to assess realistically the actual implemen- tation capacity of the national and subnational authorities responsible for implemen- tation of planned objectives. In parallel, specific instruments allowing for the imple- mentation of capacity building (e.g. financial and human resources) by national and subnational authorities have to be devised. It is, moreover, necessary to prepare and implement mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation that are based on measurable indicators set to achievable levels, thus taking into account the implementation capa- bilities of involved actors and the timing with which the planned projects are carried out. In the case of the Slovenian development strategy, significant mainstreaming of the social and environmental component of sustainability is needed, since the cur- rent orientation is heavily tilted towards the economic issues set out by the Lisbon Strategy and the EU 2020. Ultimately, therefore, sustainable development in the three assessed regimes has a great deal to do with genuine commitment to its principles, a deep reflection of the current state of the society, and planning for an achievable, long-term-oriented common future. 119 References: 1. Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (eds.), The Politics of Sustainable De- velopment: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union, London and New York: Routledge, 2005. 2. Becker, E., Thomas J., Immanuel S. and Wehlin, P., Sustainability: A Cross-disciplinary Concept for Social Transformations, Paris, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cul- tural Organization, MOST Policy Papers 6, 1997. 3. Bernheim, T., ‘The EU Sustainable Development Strategy: Its Implementation and Up- coming Review’, in Pallemaerts, M. and Azmanova, A. (eds.), The European Union and Sustainable Development: Internal and External Dimensions, Brussels: VUB Press, 2006, pp. 79-92. 4. Blewitt, J., Understanding Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan, 2008. 5. Cantore, N., George, C. and te Velde, D.W., Assessment on the Implementation of the Med- iterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD) for the Period 2005-2010, London: Overseas Development Industry, 2011. 6. Council of the European Union, ‘Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) − Renewed Strategy’, 2006, [Online] available at http://www.sd-network.eu/ pdf/quarterly%20reports/EU_SDS_final_version_2006_June26_en.PDF, accessed on May 23, 2013. 7. Černe, F., ‘Strategija Razvoja Slovenije’, in Blatnik, A. (ed.), Trajnostni razvoj – od strate- gije do prakse, Celje: Mestna občina Celje, 2004, p. 95. 8. Dalal-Clyton, B. and Bass, S., Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book, Lon- don: Earthscan, 2002. 9. Drhová, Z., ‘Sustainable Development Strategy: A Tool for Strategic Governance?’, 2011, Central European Journal of Public Policy, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 86-97. 10. European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions: Helsinki European Council, 10 and 11 December 1999’, 1999, [Online] available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/ACFA4C.htm, accessed on September 1, 2013. 11. European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions: Göteborg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001’, 2001, [Online] available at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/back- ground/docs/goteborg_concl_en.pdf, accessed on September 1, 2013. 12. George, C. and Kirkpatrick, C., ‘Assessing National Sustainable Development Strate- gies: Strengthening the Links to Operational Policy’, 2006, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 146-156. 13. Gibson, R.B., ‘Beyond the Pillars: Sustainability Assessment as a Framework for Ef- fective Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological Considerations in Significant Decision-Making’, 2006, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 259-280. 14. Haughton, G. and Counsell, D., Regions, Spatial Strategies and Sustainable Development, London and New York: Routledge, 2004. 15. Hoballah, A., ‘Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean Region’, 2006, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 157-167. 16. Holmberg, J. and Sandbrook, R., ‘Sustainable Development: What Is to Be Done?’, in Holmberg J. (ed.), Making Development Sustainable: Redefining Institutions, Policy, and Economics, Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992, pp. 19-38. 120 17. Jensen, H.B., ‘From Economic to Sustainable Development: Unfolding the Concept of Law’, 2007, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 505-513. 18. Koboević, Ž., Milošević-Pujo, B. and Kurtela, Ž. ‘Sustainable Development and Inte- grated Coastal Zone Management – the Processes of a Succsessful Protection of the Coastal Sea’, 2012, Naše more, vol. 59, no. 3-4, pp. 176-188. 19. Meadowcroft, J., ‘National Sustainable Development Strategies: Features, Challenges and Reflexivity’, 2007, European Environment, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 152-163. 20. Mediterranean Action Plan, ‘Institutional framework’, 2011, [Online] available at http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001002, accessed on February 12, 2011. 21. Mediterranean Action Plan, ‘Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development’, 2005, [Online] available at http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&- catid=001017002001, accessed on February 12, 2011. 22. Ministry of Economic Development and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia (MERS), ‘Strategija razvoja Slovenije 2014-2020, osnutek’, 2013, [Online] available at http://www.mgrt.gov.si/fileadmin/mgrt.gov.si/pageuploads/EKP/Drugi_dokumenti/ SRS_09_08_2013.pdf, accessed on February 1, 2014. 23. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Good Practices in the National Sustainable Development Strategies of OECD Countries, Paris: OECD, 2005. 24. Pallemaerts, M., ‘The EU and Sustainable Development: An Ambiguous Relationship’, in Pallemaerts, M. and Azmanova, A. (eds.), The European Union and Sustainable Devel- opment: Internal and External Dimensions, Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2006, pp. 19-52. 25. Pallemaerts, M. and Azmanova, A. (eds.), The European Union and Sustainable Develop- ment: Internal and External Dimensions, Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2006. 26. Pridham, G. and Konstadakopulos, D., ‘Sustainable Development in Mediterranean Europe? Interactions between European, National and Subnational levels’, in Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (eds.), The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union, London and New York: Routledge, 2005, pp. 125-148. 27. Radej, B., ‘Gospodarski razvoj in okolje v sistemu in dokumentih razvojnega načrto- vanja’, in Flajšman, B. (ed.), Naprej k naravi II., Ljubljana: Ekološki forum LDS, Liberal- na akademija, 2000, pp. 47-63. 28. Richardson, T., ‘Environmental Assessment and Planning Theory: Four Short Stories about Power, Multiple Rationality and Ethics’, 2004, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 341-365. 29. Rogers, P., Kazi, P., Jalal, F. and Boyd, J.A., An Introduction to Sustainable Development, London: Glen Educational Foundation, Earthscan, 2008. 30. Schaik, V.L.G., Kok, M.T.J. and Petersen, A.C., Adapting EU Governance for a more Sus- tainable Future. Background Paper to Getting into the Right Lane for 2050, Netherlands, Bilthoven: Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009. 31. Seema, P., ‘A Brief History of Sustainable Development’, 2010, [Online] available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/61432562/Introducing-Sustainable-Development-Intro- duction, accessed on November 1, 2010. 121 32. Šušeteršič, J., Rojec, M. and Korenika, K. (eds.), Strategija razvoja Slovenije, Ljubljana: UMAR, 2005. 33. UNDESA, Expert Group Meeting on Reviewing National Sustainable Development Strate- gies, New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005. 34. United Nations, ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’, 1987, [Online] available at http://www.un-documents.net/ wced-ocf.htm, accessed on June 1, 2014. 35. United Nations, ‘Agenda 21’, 1992, [Online] available at http://www.un.org/esa/sust- dev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf, accessed on March 13, 2014. 36. United Nations Environmental Programme, ‘The Action Plan’, 2011, [Online] available at http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001002, accessed on February 12, 2014. 37. Voigt, C., Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law; Resolving Conflicts between Climate Measures and WTO Law, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publish- ers, 2009. 38. Wolff, P., EU Member State Experiences with Sustainable Development Indicators, Luxem- bourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004.