Energy
Waste
Water and Sewage
Transport
Green Blue
Buildings & land use
englishdeutsch
Project Summary Project Description Application of Tools Opinion of Tools Decision making process Contact Details

Opinion of tools

Name der Fallstudie
Dogme 2000


Name of tool
Dogme 2000

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
Amongst the Dogme participants there were different motivations for joining the network, as well as the network has different functions in the municipality.<br> • For Albertslund, Dogme is the "foreign-policy" of the municipality´s environmental policy. They already have policies on the different Dogme´s, but see the Dogme-network as a way of strengthening environmental policies in general, and a way to collaborate with other municipalities (interview with officer, Albertslund)<br> • For Copenhagen and Ballerup, Dogme functions as an umbrella for the different environmental initiatives and policies in the municipality. For Copenhagen, the political commitment was also a way of making the environmental policy more efficient (officer, Copenhagen)<br> • For Herning and Fredericia, Dogme is an environmental initiative, parallel to others in the municipality. For Herning it was also a chance to participate in a network with larger municipalities, in contrast to the other networks, where they were always the largest municipality (interview with officer, Herning). Also for the other municipalities, Albertslund and Copenhagen were seen as attractive partners in a network on sustainable development. </p> <p>For all the municipalities, Dogme is seen as a way to maintain and emphasise an image as a green municipality. </p> <p>Dogme was implemented voluntarily (the municipalities had different reasons to participate), but the initiative came from Albertslund and Copenhagen municipalities for Dogme. There was no explicit criteria used for choosing the tool, but the municipalities had knowledge of other tools. The municipalities are members of other networks on sustainability, and know other potential networks. The main difference between Dogme and other networks is the political commitment in Dogme. Other networks on sustainable urban development (for instance ICLEI) are based on intentions, but with no actual commitment, no consequences if the intentions are not followed, and no ways to actually measure or document progress. As an officer explains: "The difference is that Dogme 2000 commits – in the other networks you meet once a year, have a good time, and go home. It is nice that you can exchange experiences with other municipalities, but…….?" In contrast to other networks, Dogme 2000 is a politically based network; it was conceived politically, established by means of political networks, and of personal contacts between the mayors of the municipalities.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
A main problem is that the number of members in Dogme is small; therefore, recruiting new members is a major challenge (interview with Mayor, Copenhagen). The political commitment, which gives much power to the initiatives in Dogme, also might keep some municipalities away from joining the network. As an officer points out: "It takes political courage to be able to say open in public, "we can do better", and to admit that things are not going well on all points". </p> <p>Another barrier is the Danish "structure-reform". It will reduce the number of municipalities, and transfer tasks from the counties to the municipalities. Due to this reform, which will take place from 2007, the municipalities are reluctant to commit themselves to new initiatives, such as Dogme 2000.</p>


Opinion of tool - assessment by tool users
The annual audits reveal the improvements being made in the municipality as a result of the tools implementation.There are also several examples on spin-off?s in the Dogme-network. For instance, in one department in the municipality of Copenhagen, going through the EMAS-certification, they discovered that screening and mapping of flows (energy, water, waste etc.), as the initial step of the EMAS-procedure, was a much more efficient way to get an overview of their department, that existing management tools they were using (interview with Mayor, Copenhagen). The actual flows ? and the economy related to them ? are little known or visible in the departments and institutions. Another example is the goals of 75% organic food in the municipality?s institutions. This demands that the staff maps the ingredients (vegetables, meat, oil, flour etc.) used for the meals, which again might give an opportunity to improve the quality of the food. For instance, the mapping has showed a general tendency of using too little fat in the children?s food (a consequence of adults converting their own food habits to children?s meals).

On a more general level, the thread of social decline in the neighbourhoods of Albertslund was a strong motivation for the municipality to enter the environmental initiatives. This strategy has been successful, and the environmental initiatives and the network-management have had an "empowerment-effect" in the neighbourhoods (Andersen & Godt-Hansen, 1997).

All actors involved in Dogme seem very satisfied with the way Dogme is working. A main reason and a main difference to other types of networks is that Dogme (As mentioned before) is based on a commitment, which is supported by the use of indicators and external audits. The necessity of local commitment is another main lesson from Dogme: People who have do fulfil environmental goals also have to define the goals themselves; it is not enough that the municipality defines the goals, and asks local actors to fulfil them. If local actors define their own local goals (although they might not be very ambitious), it will make them feel an ?ownership? to them, and might later motivate them to take up actions on other fields.

There is a large potential for using the tool. At the moment there are other municipalities participating as "observers" (3-4 municipalities), with the intention of joining the network at later stages. However, the potential should over time be larger. The barriers are, as mentioned before, that it requires ambitions and openness in the political system. For international transferability this is also the case. Mayors in other European cities have been rather scared by the openness in the external audit of Dogme, which might reveal a lack of progress. Also, there are organisational and legal differences, for instance related to EMAS-certification of cities: In many cities in other European countries (especially in the UK), the local authorities typically do not own schools, institutions, infrastructure services etc., which instead have been outsourced or privatised. This makes the certification quite different (and easier) compared to municipalities who are directly responsible for such services.

All actors interviewed have good experiences of Dogme, and would use the tool again or recommend it.

Opinion of tool - reviewer\'s assessment
Dogme 2000 is a very useful and innovative tool. The concept of setting up concrete measures, committing politicians, involving other institutions and local actors gives it a lot of advantages, which have already been demonstrated.

There is a risk if other municipalities see it as an "environmental elitist club", giving the impression that it requires extraordinary initiatives or finances to participate. Therefore it is important to inform other municipalities about the concept, the success-stories and the spin-offs related to Dogme.

Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?

Dogme 2000

Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):

Für den vollständigen Bericht hier klicken (pdf)