New Environmental Policy Instruments Research Articles

Nudging in the Forests—the Role and Effectiveness of NEPIs in Government Forest Initiatives of Bavaria

This paper analyzes the use of new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) and instrument mixes in government forest initiatives (GFIs), in Bavaria. It traces research questions on the repertoire of instruments applied and if an application of NEPIs leads to improving program effectiveness and legitimacy. In accordance with recent literature it assumes that GFIs, being developed and implemented for a long time in Bavaria, will make use of an instrument mix, including modern policy instruments; and that the use of such a mix of instruments would lead to improved effectiveness and legitimacy. The empirical paper aims to test these currently dominant theoretical thoughts and to contribute to further theoretical discussion with new empirical data, but it does not suggest a new theory. The primary data-basis for the analysis is qualitative interviews with 175 people from 16 GFIs, the selection of interviewees being based on social network analysis. The analysis uses an instrument typology as an analytical reference point and reveals that GFIs used a broad variety of instruments, both, traditional and new ones, to support and facilitate a range of activities in priority areas of forest landscapes, as expected. Some traditional instruments were modified for the use in GFIs only, other instruments were newly created for the purpose of GFIs, e.g., voluntary agreements between government forest administrations (AELFs) and private forest owners (PFOs). This supports assumptions from the theory that the most common forms of instrument integration would be layering and fusion. The paper also analyzes if the use of a mix of instruments by GFIs led to improving effectiveness and legitimacy, thereby contributing to a relevant question in the literature, because developing more complex policy instruments (NEPIs), is considered to help to avoid many problems of more traditional instruments in environmental governance. The analysis uses a set of theoretical elements, attributed to the use of NEPIs or modern instrument mixes, and compares these with actual empirical observations, to answer the question, if modern instrument approaches can lead to an improved program effectiveness and legitimacy. The paper concludes that the application of a modern mix of instruments did lead to an increase of short-term effectiveness, especially in road construction or improvement, but not to a noteworthy increase of long-term effectiveness, especially regarding forest conversion to increase forests’ climate resiliency, despite the application of nudging ‘in the forests’. Instead, nudging in the forests can result in increased conflicts and non-action, in some cases. Hence, the empirical evidence presented in this paper, does not (fully) support the assumption that a modern instrument mix would lead to improvements in effectiveness and legitimacy. It remains to be seen, if, in the longer-term, the improved road access would actually lead to more climate resilient forests; or what role natural hazards will play in this regard. Maybe, a more flexible design of the voluntary agreements and of eligibility criteria of funding schemes, could increase the share of forest owners, willing to participate and could enable processes of civic-knowledge integration and the development of more innovative, alterative-based, local solutions. Considering the strong, recent public engagement in climate change topics, this could be an opportunity to better integrate civil society to GFIs or to new forms of initiatives. A better integration of owners and society could also improve the legitimacy of GFIs, which is thwarted by the marginal participation of individual PFOs.

Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross‐national analysis

AbstractWhile both the economics and political science literature have gained considerable knowledge on why some environmental policies work better than others, we still lack a clear and consistent picture on the determinants of environmental policy effectiveness. This is primarily because influences of the policy design and the implementation process have often been studied in isolation from one another. This article intends to close this gap by systematically examining how different instrument types and the implementation structures interact. By analyzing the air pollutant emissions of 14 OECD countries over a period of 25 years (1990 to 2014), it is revealed that only command‐and‐control (C&C) regulations that are put into practice through well‐equipped and ‐designed implementation structures can be associated systematically with reductions in air pollutant emissions. Softer, so‐called new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), in turn, are found to have no significant influence on the outcome variable and this regardless of how they are executed and enforced. In essence, these findings indicate that (i) market‐ and information‐based policy instruments seem to be not as self‐implementing as often argued in the existing literature and that; (ii) C&C regulations and market‐ and information‐based instruments need quite different prerequisites to function properly.

Learning to listen: how collaborative dialogue in regulation influences landowner adoption of best management practices on unregulated lands

The emergence of new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) has launched a debate about the continued relevance of traditional regulatory approaches. Previous research examining the relationship of regulations and NEPIs has shown that regulations can compel engagement with voluntary approaches. In this paper, we demonstrate that the linkages between regulation and voluntary approaches need not be coercive. Through a study of sediment pollution in northern California, we show that regulatory processes have facilitated learning and motivated landowners to undertake voluntary actions. We suggest three elements that are fundamental to the success of this process: (a) the voluntary action must benefit the landowner, (b) resources must be available to reduce the implementation burden, and (c) the regulatory process must involve open and respectful communication between the landowner and the regulator. While not a panacea, this process of regulatory spillover offers a promising pathway for extending the reach of existing regulations.

New environmental policy instruments to realize forest expansion in Flanders (northern Belgium): A base for smart regulation?

This paper evaluates the current instrument mix, designs options for smart regulation and estimates the support base of new instruments for the forest expansion policy in Flanders (northern Belgium). The framework applied is a combination of theories on instrument choice (ICT), policy transfer and legitimacy. The ICT points out that there is a need for new environmental policy instruments (NEPI) oriented to private actors that inform them or create win–win situations for all involved parties. The need is especially high for farmers, who are key actors. The policy transfer analysis suggested instruments currently in use in the Netherlands, England and Denmark that can fulfill these needs. However, the acceptability – or legitimacy – of the suggested instruments in Flanders is only high for three of these, notably the carbon fund, flexible grant scheme and expert advice (especially by forest groups). This largely fills some smart regulation gaps, like the need for information (expert advice), the involvement of other institutional actors (certifiers, forest groups) and the higher involvement of the private sector (all). However, some gaps, such as flexible land purchase through cooperation with real estate agents or other private agents and opportunities for win–win outcomes with farmers, remain. Thus, it is not possible to fully optimize the instrument mix in accordance with the smart regulation requirements in Flanders’ forest expansion policy at this moment. However, as continuity or incremental change is characteristic of most public policy, this does not mean that the suggested changes will be impossible in the near future, especially with the changing character of the rural space.

Environmental Reform, Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process in Hong Kong: An Exploratory Study of Stakeholder Perspectives

A number of social surveys on environmental issues have been conducted in Hong Kong over the past 20 years but none has investigated processes of environmental reform from a stakeholder perspective. This paper reports on the findings of a survey of 120 representatives of eight stakeholder groups conducted in 2003. This exploratory study had two main objectives. First, it investigated stakeholder views on environmental policy making in Hong Kong including policy objectives and priorities, the policy instruments employed, the discourse surrounding environmental policy making and sustainable development, and the effectiveness of local environmental institutions. Second, it explored the extent to which Hong Kong is undergoing environmental reform processes consistent with the principles of ecological modernization. The results indicate that a conventional command-and-control model focusing on pollution control drives environmental policy making in Hong Kong. Government is seen as a relatively unresponsive, ‘controller’ regime relying heavily on laws and regulation to pursue its policy objectives. Support exists among stakeholders for the use of new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), particularly those of an economic nature, but there is scepticism about the potential effectiveness of voluntary environmental agreements. Local environmental discourse is characterized by the counter-positioning of economic development and the environment. Most stakeholders share the view that the debate surrounding sustainable development has been poorly informed and that the concept is not well-understood. Stakeholder responses suggest that there is considerable divergence between the potential and actual effectiveness of important local environmental institutions. While there is empirical evidence indicating that some environmental initiatives have produced technical outcomes consistent with ecological modernization, our findings suggest these do not reflect a conscious change in the direction of environmental policy and that the social and institutional transformations that also underpin ecological modernization have yet to become embedded in Hong Kong.

Geography and climate policy: a comparative assessment of new environmental policy instruments in the UK and Germany

New environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) (market-based instruments and environmental agreements) have moved to the forefront of environmental policy in recent years. From an economic theory perspective, NEPIs offer substantial benefits over ‘command-and-control’ regulation, yet empirical evaluations of their deployment and performance remain rare. This paper argues for a strong geographical contribution to this research agenda, utilising cross-national comparisons and actor-oriented perspectives to provide critical assessment and refinement of established NEPI theory. To illustrate this potential, this paper examines United Kingdom and German climate policy, using postal surveys and semi-structured interviews to assess corporate, industry association and policy-maker views on the effectiveness of eco-taxes, tradable permits and agreements in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. Divergences between theoretical and practitioner perspectives on NEPIs are discussed, leading to suggested strategies for enhancing the environmental effectiveness of market-based instruments. The influence of national policy styles on NEPI design and industry reactions to these instruments was also identified as severely under-represented within economic theories of environmental regulation. Whilst industry assessments of environmental policy are unavoidably coloured by vested interests, cross-national and actor-oriented analyses nevertheless provide important insights into processes of policy diffusion and the strengths and weaknesses of different NEPIs.

Australian Experience with ‘New’ Environmental Policy Instruments: The Greenhouse Challenge and Greenhouse Friendly Programs

In association with international moves to address the impacts of global climate change some governments including those in the EU, US, Canada and Australia have taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions via ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) (e.g. voluntary agreements, emissions trading and eco-labelling). This has been in response to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and in anticipation of the Kyoto Protocol coming into force. This paper focuses on Australian experience with two particular NEPIs: The Greenhouse Challenge and Greenhouse Friendly programs. Empirical evidence on the evolution and effectiveness of these programs is related to theoretical discussion on the role of NEPIs in industrial transformation, social learning and sustainability The success or effectiveness of these greenhouse NEPIs appears to be dependent on industry motivations and incentives for participation, the implementing agency's procedures and the design of the process for collaboration and information sharing between government and industry.

Politics, industry and the regulation of industrial greenhouse‐gas emissions in the UK and Germany

AbstractThis paper assesses the impact of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), such as eco‐taxes, tradable permits and environmental agreements, on the politics of regulating industrial greenhouse‐gas emissions. Intense academic debate surrounds the extent to which environmental policy is driven by the public interest, public choices between actor and stakeholder interests, or embedded institutional traditions. However, the effects on environmental politics of the recent shift from direct regulation to NEPIs remain seriously under‐researched. Surveys and interviews with industry and policy‐makers on the implementation of United Kingdom and German climate policy indicate that, although economic pressures do influence the design of policy instruments, public choice is far from dominant; nor are industry reactions to particular NEPIs uniform between countries. This suggests that national institutional traditions are far more influential in informing policy choices and industry reactions to policy innovations than is often acknowledged. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

European governance and the transfer of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union

This article examines the use of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), particularly market‐based instruments (for example, eco‐taxes) and voluntary agreements, in the European Union (EU). It focuses on the actor motivation behind the recent increase in the adoption of new and innovative instruments in EU (and member state) environmental policies while also taking account of the external international arena. The article assesses whether new ideas put forward by policy entrepreneurs, such as member governments, EU institutions, expert groups and non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), are the main motivation behind the EU adoption of NEPIs, or whether market and harmonization pressures are the main driving forces. It concentrates on eco‐taxes, voluntary agreements and eco‐labels, using the following three theoretical perspectives: (1) policy learning and transfer/ideational; (2) garbage can; and (3) institutional approaches.

The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments1

Abstract. New Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) are becoming increasingly attractive. From a global perspective, there has been a rapid diffusion of these market‐based, voluntary or informational instruments. This article examines the spread of four different NEPIs – eco‐labels, energy or carbon taxes, national environmental policy plans or strategies for sustainable development, and free‐access‐of‐information (FAI) provisions. The adoption of NEPIs by national policy makers is not simply a reaction to newly emerging environmental problems or to real or perceived deficits of traditional command and control regulation, rather the use of NEPIs can also be ascribed to the inner dynamics of international processes of policy transfer or policy diffusion. These processes make it increasingly difficult for national policy makers to ignore new approaches in environmental policy that have already been put into practice in ‘forerunner’ countries.

Struggling to Leave Behind a Highly Regulatory Past? 'New' Environmental Policy Instruments in Austria

Austria has long been urged to make wider use of market-based instruments by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Despite this and the significant increase in domestic demands in recent years, the uptake of 'new' environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), namely market-based instruments (such as eco-taxes and tradable permits), voluntary agreements and informational devices (such as eco-labels and eco-audits) has been only moderate. Austria has used some eco-taxes but has refrained from adopting an ecological tax reform. Tradable permits have arrived on the domestic political agenda primarily because of the European Union's efforts to make use of this type of NEPI. Voluntary agreements have been used only very sparingly despite a consensual domestic policy style. Overall, NEPIs have mainly supplemented traditional regulatory instruments and subsides which continue to dominate Austrian environmental policy. Austria is struggling to leave behind a strongly regulatory past. The Austrian policy structures and style as well as its formidable past environmental record have retarded NEPI innovation.

Comparative Conclusions - 'New' Environmental Policy Instruments: An Evolution or a Revolution in Environmental Policy?

The popularity of 'New' Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) has prompted widespread claims that contemporary environmental policy is undergoing a deep seated and long lasting revolution, characterised by a shift from environmental government to environmental governance. This study compares the adoption of NEPIs in the eight case study countries. It reveals that there are common drivers of change, but that the resulting pattern of use is highly differentiated across instrument types and countries. Very few countries are actually innovating in the way they use NEPIs; in most countries, certain types of NEPIs are either not being used or are being used but in a relatively incremental and evolutionary manner. These patterns of change are related to popular theories of comparative politics and public policy. It is concluded that a close empirical analysis of how NEPIs are actually being deployed in different national contexts, suggests that environmental governance is at best supplementing environmental government, not comprehensively supplanting it.

The Politics of 'Light Handed Regulation': New Environmental Policy Instruments in Australia

Introduction In order to understand the potential of New Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) in tackling issues like climate change, this paper places their development in the context of challenges to the traditional role of the Australian state in promoting welfare and national economic development through regulatory measures. This contextual information is crucial to understanding the mix of policy instruments adopted by contemporary policy makers. The analysis of environmental policy highlights the persistence of regulatory traditions and the emergence of new ways of organizing state interventions – including voluntary agreements, targeting resources to create competitive eco-efficient industries and research on economic or market-based systems like emissions trading.

From High Regulatory State to Social and Ecological Market Economy? New Environmental Policy Instruments in Germany

Demands for wider use of 'new' environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), namely market-based instruments (such as eco-taxes and tradable permits), voluntary agreements and informational devices (such as eco-labels and eco-audits) have increased significantly in Germany in recent years. Germany has also been urged to make wider use of market-based instruments by external actors (such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank). However, the uptake of 'new' policy instruments in Germany has remained uneven despite considerable NEPI innovation. German environmental policy has shown a high uptake of VAs and eco-labels. However, it has made only moderate use of eco-taxes although they have increased significantly with the introduction of the ecological tax reform in 1999. Tradable permits have not yet been tested on the national level although some states (Lander) set up pilot projects to gain practical experience ahead of the EU's tradable permit scheme. Overall, NEPIs have been used mainly to supplement traditional regulatory instruments which still dominate German environmental policy. Germany's transformation from a 'high regulatory' state (which makes wide use of traditional regulation and VAs) towards an ecological market economy (which relies primarily on market-based instruments) has therefore been a slow one.