Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction

The document explores Environmental Policy Integration (EPI), defined as the integration of environmental objectives into non-environmental sector policies. It identifies a tension between 'rational' EPI (focused on efficiency and avoiding contradictions) and 'normative' EPI (which argues for 'principled priority' for the environment). The author categorizes the means of achieving EPI into normative factors (political leadership), organisational factors (overcoming sectoral compartmentalisation), and procedural factors (impact assessments and sector strategies). Using Sweden and the EU as primary examples, the paper notes that while legal and procedural frameworks are often established, translating these into substantive policy outputs remains a significant challenge.

• Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) is conceptually elastic and often interpreted in two primary ways: as a rational process to improve policy-making efficiency or as a normative objective that assigns a higher priority to environmental concerns over other sector goals.
• The achievement of EPI is influenced by three inter-related categories of factors: normative (such as political leadership and policy culture), organisational (such as government architecture and budgeting), and procedural (such as action plans and impact assessments).
• In the European Union, EPI has been pursued through three main pillars: Article 6 of the EU treaty, the 'Cardiff process' requiring sector-specific strategies, and the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development. However, the Cardiff process has seen 'mixed' results, with inconsistent quality across sectors and a failure to translate commitments into actions.
• Sweden has implemented several concrete EPI measures, including the 1998 Environmental Code, a system of fifteen national environmental quality objectives (NEOs), and a 'sector responsibility' mandate for 24 government authorities. Despite these, an evaluation in 2004 indicated that progress was limited by unclear mandates and coordination problems.
• A critical challenge in EPI is the risk of 'dilution,' where environmental concerns are included in policy but given such low weight that the output is not truly integrated. This highlights the importance of 'principled priority' to ensure environmental objectives are not merely subsidiary.
• Sectoral compartmentalisation within governments creates a 'turf mentality' and asymmetric power relations, where environmental departments are often involved too late in the policy process, leading to environmental concerns being viewed as restrictions or costs rather than core objectives.
• There is a significant gap in EPI literature regarding substantive criteria for evaluating policy outputs; most existing criteria are procedural (focusing on whether a process was followed) rather than assessing the actual environmental effectiveness of the resulting policy.

APA

Persson, Å. (2004). Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Policy-institutions/pints_intro.pdf

Chicago

Persson, Åsa. Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2004. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Policy-institutions/pints_intro.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Persson |first1=Åsa |title=Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=June 2004 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Policy-institutions/pints_intro.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{persson2004environmental, author = {Persson, Åsa}, title = {{Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2004}, month = jun, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Policy-institutions/pints_intro.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }