Evaluating Environmental Policies and Programs in the Context of Multi-Level Governance

Per Mickwitz The Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) Environmental Evaluator’s Networking Forum June 22, 2006

How will I use my 20 minutes?
Some conceptual slides
• 7 minutes

Case study examples
• 12 minutes

Summary of the main points
• 1 minute

13.10.2006

What do I mean with multi-level?
Global level
Policies & Programs

The Economy

Knowledge

The Environment

Local level
13.10.2006

What do I mean with multi-level?
Global level
Policies & Programs •International (UN, Kyoto, …) •Federal (EU, USA) •Country – State (Finland, Alaska,…) •Region (Kymenlaakso,…) •Municipal (Helsinki, Boston,…)

Local level
13.10.2006

Policies and programs at which level should be evaluated?
Global level
Policies & Programs •International (UN, Kyoto, …) •Federal (EU, USA) •Country – State (Finland, Alaska,…) •Region (Kymenlaakso,…) •Municipal (Helsinki, Franklin,…)

Local level
At all levels and the interaction with the other levels should be considered.

What do I mean with Governance? “From Government to Governance”
Our understanding of Government in its context - “from steering to
influence”…

What Government do - From hierarchy
to networks -Partnership…
13.10.2006

The context where Government take place
- Globalization … - Information overload

The top-down implementation model
International Policy US Federal / EU Policy

State Implementation

Outcomes
13.10.2006

State, Regional, Local Policies

Example: Marine NOx emissions
International Policy

1

20 18

SPECIFIC NO EMISSIONS (g/kWh)

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 200 400 600 800

EU Policy

IMO proposal

National Implementation

Outcomes

• • • • •

On the agenda 1988 Proposal 1990 Adoption 1997 15th ratification 2004 Into force on May 19, 2005
RPM

x

13.10.2006

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Example: Marine NOx emissions
International Policy

Low NOx Combustion (25 - 35% reduced NOx)
EU Policy

• Today standard in all Wärtsilä engines

Direct Water Injection (50 - 60% reduced NOx)
National Implementation

• Development started 1990 • First engine in use in January 1999 • In February 2003: 53 delivered & ordered

Selective Catalytic Reduction (85-95%
Outcomes

2

reduced NOx)

• In February 2003: 60 delivered & ordered

13.10.2006

Example: Marine NOx emissions
International Policy
0,15

Swedish ports have differentiated harbour & fairway fees based on NOx emissions
Gothenburg Helsingborg Malmö Stockholm

0,1

EU Policy
0,05

0

-0,05

National Implementation
-0,1 -0,15

3
Outcomes

-0,2

-0,25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

NOx (g/kWh)
13.10.2006

Example: Marine NOx emissions
International Policy

EU Policy

1 400 1 200 Thousand km 1 000 800

12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 tonnes of emissions

National Implementation

600 400 4 000 2 000 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Ship traffic NOx

Outcomes

4

200 0

13.10.2006

Example: Marine NOx emissions
International Policy

EU is preparing action:
EU Policy

5

National Implementation

Outcomes

• Commission of the European Communities. A European Union strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM(2002) 595 final, Brussels, 20 November 2002.

13.10.2006

The top-down implementation model

Marine NOx emissions
1. International Policy International Policy 7. EU Policy EU Policy
2.
4.

National Implementation
5.

3. & 6. Outcomes Outcomes
13.10.2006

National, Regional, Local Policies

Three important point for Evaluation in the context of multi-level governance
The effects were not linear top down Policies at different levels supported each other The international agreement had effects 15 years before it entered into force
13.10.2006

De-coupling of emissions from energy production
100 90 Emissions (1,000 t) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990 1992 1994 SO2 NO2 1996 1998 Fuel consumption 2000 2002 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Fuel consumption (PJ)

13.10.2006

Example:

Energy SO2 & NOx emissions
International Policy

1
EU Policy

The Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, adopted in 1979 and entered into force in 1983
• The Helsinki Protocol - 30% SO2 was signed in 1985 and entered into force in 1987. • The Sofia Protocol to freeze NOx or reduce the emissions to the 1987 levels by the end of 1994 was signed in 1988 and entered into force in 1991. • The Oslo Protocol was signed in 1994 and it entered into force in 1998.

National Implementation

The Large Combustion Plant Directive 88/609/EEC
Outcomes

13.10.2006

International Policy

Key elements in the Finnish intervention theory (program theory) for SO2 and NOx ELVs a. Technological potentials & costs assessed. b. Based on these assessments ELVs are defined. c.
(SO2 140 – 230; NO2 50 - 290 mg/MJ).

EU Policy

National Implementation

Theory
Outcomes

d.

Boilers with originally higher specific emissions have to undertake action in order to bring down their specific emissions. Those boilers already below their ELV would not necessary have to reduce their emissions, but to make sure they will not increase. Although the ELVs are determined for specific emissions, they are also expected to be reflected in the level of total emissions. If, however, the total
production level is increased…

13.10.2006

Example: NOx emissions
International Policy

Case: Decree (257/1991),
• NO2 annual average 230 mg/MJ
500

EU Policy

400

National Implementation

2

Specific NO2 (mg/MJ)

Specific emissions! (b &c) What about total?(d)

300

200

Outcomes

3

100

0
13.10.2006

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

by Mickwitz, Kivimaa & Attila

Example: NOx emissions
International Policy

Case: Decree (257/1991),
• NO2 annual average 230 mg/MJ
5 000

EU Policy
4 000

Total NO2 (tonnes)

3 000

National Implementation

2

2 000

1 000

Outcomes

3
0

1990
13.10.2006

1993

1996

1999

2002

by Mickwitz, Kivimaa & Attila

One important point for Evaluation in the context of multi-level governance
There were linear top down effects

But…

13.10.2006

Example: Energy SO2 emissions
International Policy

Case Helsinki Energy
• As a response to the international debates/commitments • Local politicians decided to build a Natural gas plant instead of a coal plant as proposed by the company

EU Policy

National Implementation

Direct effect of international policy without National level policies
Outcomes

2

13.10.2006

Example: Energy SO2 emissions
International Policy

Case Helsinki Energy 26 boilers and gas turbines (Pth=2,940 MW)
40 Fuel consumption (PJ) 30 Oil 20 10 0 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 Coal Natural gas

EU Policy

National Implementation
400 Specific emissions (mg/MJ)

300 SO2 mg/MJ NO2 mg/MJ

Outcomes

2

200

100

13.10.2006

0 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002

One important point for Evaluation in the context of multi-level governance
There were linear top down effects and effects that are not top down at the same time.

13.10.2006

So far al the examples have been of policies at different levels complementing each other that is not always the case “EU has never managed to make a policy so complicated that the Finnish Ministry of the Environment has not been able to make it more complicated through domestic decisions” Leena Saviranta June 16, 2006
13.10.2006

The intervention theory (program theory) or the target group may change when policies at different levels interacts The EU Directive concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61).
• Based on the assumption that the main target group is large scale industrial factories.

13.10.2006

The intervention theory (program theory) or the target group may change when policies at different levels interacts The EU IPPC Directive was implemented in Finland through the new Environmental Protection Act (entered into force March 1st 2000)
• Still based on the assumption that the main target group is large scale industrial factories. • But incorporated the target groups of all previous Finnish permit legislation, such as waste permits, water permits, air permits, etc.
13.10.2006

Our evaluation, however, showed that during the two first years:
Number of Permits

0
(1) Pulp & Paper Industry (2) Metal Industry (3) Energy Production (4, 5, 6) Chemical industry and handling (7 a-c) Mining (7d) Peat production (10) Production of food and feed (11a-b) Animal Farms (11c) Aquaculture (13) Waste water treatment Waste water Waste treatment Polluted soil Other activities
13.10.2006

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

IPPC-Activities

Other Activities

Conclusions:
a. b. c. d. e. f.
13.10.2006

Policies & Programs do not only influence local activities top-down through all intermediate levels, they can have direct effects But, Policies & Programs may work top-down Policy processes may be very slow, but if predictable & credible they can have effects before formally in force Policies & Programs at different levels may complement each other, but they may also be in conflict There is newer only implementation at national/regional/local level of international/federal policies, there are always political goals involved Program theories & target groups may be different at different levels