R O A D  T O  A A R H U S

  What we usually expect from ministerial conferences of any kind is some sort of drama - a tough negotiation between leading world powers or a publicity battle between various pressure groups and governments. But if we are involved in the preparation of inputs into the conference, we of course expect studies, reports, substantive discussions, consensus declarations and speeches praising our achievements.

  This difference in expectations is based on the fact that only dramatic issues make it to the headlines in the media, while serious substantive issues remain out of the public eye - if environmental conferences make it to the media at all. During the ministerial conference in Sofia in 1995, for example, the only issue covered by the media was the debate about the safety of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, which wasn't even on the official agenda of the conference. What then can we expect from Aarhus, the fourth in a series of ministerial conferences under title "Environment for Europe"?

  Discussions among ministers and non-governmental organisations as well as businesses, may create opportunities, for spectacular fights. And the host, Danish Minister of Environment and Energy Svend Auken is known for his environmental radicalism and Viking approach to international negotiations. With all the right ingredients in place, many observers are wondering where the drama is lurking. Is it going to evolve around the NGO session or around the business session? Will there be 2 a.m. fighting over one or two sentences in the ministerial declaration that might prejudice the country positions regarding the Kyoto Protocol? Will there be another battle between North America and Europe regarding approaches to environmental policy or will a rift emerge between the Central European countries that are joining the EU and the Newly Independent States which would like to receive increased Western assistance while not admitting their poor environmental performance of recent years? Which countries will and which won't sign the Public Participation Convention?

  Judging by some preliminary signs, any of these can actually happen in Aarhus. But judging by the mood at the last preparatory meeting before the conference in Geneva at the end of April, the conference will be packed with various achievements and a positive spirit of cooperation. Three new international legally binding instruments will be signed: the Public Participation Convention as well as protocols on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. A strategy to phase out lead from petrol all over Europe by 2005 will be adopted. Ministerial debates will take place about the state of environment in Europe, how to better assist the NIS countries, how to secure more and better financing for the environment, how to promote energy efficiency and protect biodiversity in the context of ongoing changes and about future environmental cooperation in Europe. On top of all this, environmental citizen organisations will themselves prepare a debate about public participation with the ministers, and another session will be held with business leaders from the West and East.

  The quantity of achievements may also actually translate into a new sense of quality. With significant participation from both the private sector and NGOs, underpinned with the signature of the Public Participation Convention, the conference may symbolise the emerging maturity of the "environment sector" in Europe - a maturity where the structures of communication, discussion and cooperation among different actors are well established, where environmental objectives take precedence over conflicts and where the environmental sector can engage in a dialogue with other sectors, rather than foster in-fighting.

  Interestingly enough, integration of environmental concerns into other sectors is becoming one of the most prominent issues for the future of the Environment for Europe process. The evaluation of the 5th Environmental Action Programme for the EU as well as the Dobris+3 report on the state of environment in Europe both highlight failures in the sectoral integration of environmental policies so far. The negative environmental impacts of transport and agriculture continue to grow all over Europe. The Kyoto commitments call for fundamental changes in energy and transport policies. And the global Agenda 21 can only be implemented through the integration of economic, social and environmental objectives for the development of societies.

  In order to deal with sectoral integration, the environmental ministers, along with the other stakeholders, need their own "club", and then they need to engage in dialogue with other sectors based on environmental priorities. The Environment and Transport Conference in Vienna is such an example, and the priority of engaging in dialogue with the agriculture, transport, energy and chemicals sectors have found their way into the draft ministerial declaration.

  So, are we perhaps going to see a consolidation of the environmental sector across stakeholder groups and across Europe at Aarhus? It may very well happen, and it could be the most significant result of the conference, even if it doesn't make it to the headlines. The EAP Task Force for example has already made sectoral integration one of its top priorities for post-Aarhus work, and there is growing recognition that the approach and results of the Environment for Europe process are becoming a successful model of implementation for the global Agenda 21 in the region - a model of solving environmental priorities that are based on science and political realism in a result-oriented way, a model with participation and adequate distribution of responsibility among various actors, a model that may actually bring environmentalism into the mainstream of society and economy, moving it from a reactive to a proactive mode.

  Perhaps this is why even Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, is considering coming to the Aarhus conference. So in place of the usual absence of drama, his appearance may eventually carry the conference to the headlines after all.