Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 101, Issue 3–4, pp 427–445 | Cite as

Navigating the dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies

  • Constanze Haug
  • Tim Rayner
  • Andrew Jordan
  • Roger Hildingsson
  • Johannes Stripple
  • Suvi Monni
  • Dave Huitema
  • Eric Massey
  • Harro van Asselt
  • Frans Berkhout
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Climate change is widely recognised as a ‘wicked’ policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term.

Keywords

European Union Voluntary Agreement European Union Level European Union Emission Trading Scheme European Union Climate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agnolucci P (2006) Use of economic instruments in the German renewable electricity policy. Energy Policy 18:3538–3548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen MS, Barker T, Christie E et al (2007) Competitiveness effects of environmental tax reforms (COMETR) National Environmental Research Institute. University of Aarhus, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett G (1991) Dilemmas: coping with environmental problems. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Böhringer C, Schwager R (2003) Die Ökologische Steuerreform in Deutschland—ein umweltpolitisches Feigenblatt. PWP 4:211–222Google Scholar
  5. Börkey P, Lévèque F (1998) Voluntary approaches for environmental protection in the EU. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Bressers JTA, Huitema D (1999) Economic instruments for environmental protection. Can we trust the magic carpet? Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 20:175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEC (2001) European governance. A white paper. CEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2005) Communication from the commission: the support of electricity from renewable energy sources. CEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. CEC (2006a) The European climate change programme. EU action against climate change. CEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. CEC (2006b) The second European climate change programme. Working group ECCP review—topic group energy supply. Final report. CEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. CEC (2006c) The second European climate change programme. Working group ECCP review—Transport. Final report. CEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. CEC (2007a) Biofuels Progress Report. Report on the progress made in the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in the Member States of the European Union. CEC, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. CEC (2007b) Green Paper follow-up action: report on progress in renewable electricity. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. CEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2006) Synthesis of climate change policy evaluations. DEFRA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. EAC (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee) (2004) Budget 2004 and energy. The Stationary Office (TSO), LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. EAC (2005a) Pre–budget 2004 and budget 2005: tax, appraisal, and the environment. TSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. EAC (2005b) The international challenge of climate change: UK leadership in the G8 and EU. TSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Ecofys, Lund University, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Politecnico di Milano (2007) From theory based policy evaluation to SMART policy design. Ecofys, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. EEA (2006) Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2006. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  20. Egenhofer C, Fujiwara N, Gialoglou K (2005) Business consequences of the EU emissions trading scheme. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. Egenhofer C, Fujiwara N, Åhman M et al (2006a) The EU emissions trading scheme: taking stock and looking forward. CEPS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. Egenhofer C, Jansen JC, Bakker SJA et al (2006b) Revisiting EU policy options for tackling climate change: a social cost–benefit analysis of GHG emissions reductions strategies. CEPS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. Eichhammer W, Boede U, Gagelmann F et al (2001) Greenhouse gas reductions in Germany and the UK—coincidence or policy induced? Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellerman D, Buchner B (2006) Over-allocation or abatement? A preliminary analysis of the EU ETS based on the 2005 emissions data. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  25. FES and Policy Studies Institute (PSI) (2005) Evaluation of the government’s energy efficiency policies and programmes. AEA Technologies, DidcotGoogle Scholar
  26. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) (2005) How the European Union responds to the global threat of climate change. FoEE, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Future Energy Solutions (FES) (2005) Climate change agreements—results of the second target period assessment. AEA Technology/DEFRA, DidcotGoogle Scholar
  28. Glachant M, de Muizon G (2007) Climate change agreements in the UK: a successful policy experience? In: Morgenstern RD, Pizer WA (eds) Reality check: the nature and performance of voluntary environmental programs in the United States, Europe, and Japan. RFF, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Glass GV, McGaw B, Smith ML (1981) Meta analysis in social research. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  30. Golder Europe EEIG (2005) Report on implementation of the landfill directive in the 15 Member States of the European Union. Golder Europe EEIG, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  31. Grubb M, Azar C, Persson M (2005) Allowance allocation in the European emissions trading system: a commentary. Clim Policy 5:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gunningham N, Gabrosky P (1998) Smart regulation. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Heikkilä I, Pekkonen J, Reinikainen E et al (2005) Energiansäästösopimusten kokonaisarviointi. Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  34. Huitema D, Rayner T, Massey E et al (2008) Climate change policy evaluation across Europe. ADAM P2 deliverable. Available at www.adamproject.eu
  35. Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W et al (2009) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol Soc 14:26Google Scholar
  36. Interwies E, Blobel D, ten Brink R et al (2002) Ökosteuer—Stand der Diskussion und der Gesetzgebung in Deutschland, auf der EU-Ebene und in den anderen europäischen Staaten. Ecologic, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. IPA Energy and Water Consulting (2007) UK power sector emissions—targets or reality. IPA Energy and Water Consulting, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobsson S, Lauber V (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation. Energy Policy 34:256–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jordan AJ (1999) The implementation of EU environmental policy: a policy problem without a political solution? Environ Plann C 17:69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jordan AJ (2000) The politics of multilevel environmental governance: subsidiarity and environmental policy in the European Union. Environ Plann A 32:1307–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jordan A, Liefferink D (eds) (2004) Environmental policy in Europe. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Jordan A, Wurzel RKW, Zito AR (eds) (2003) ‘New’ instruments of environmental governance? Cass, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Kerr A (2007) Serendipity is not a strategy: the impact of national climate programmes on greenhouse-gas emissions. Area 39:418–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Khan J (2006) Evaluation of the energy audit programme in Finland within the framework of the AID-EE project. Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  45. Kok MTJ, Vermeulen W, Faaij A et al (eds) (2002) Global warming and social innovation. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Krarup S, Ramesohl S (2000) Voluntary agreements in energy policy—implementation and efficiency. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuik O, Aerts J, Berkhout F et al (2008) Post-2012 climate policy dilemmas. Clim Policy 8:317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lechtenböhmer S, Grimm V, Mitze D et al (2005) Target 2020: policies and measures to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Wuppertal Institute and Wissenschaftszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  49. Legambiente (2007) Stop al carbone per salvare il pianeta. Dal via libera del pna a riconversioni e nuove centrali agli incentivi CIP6 per il sulcis. Legambiente, RomeGoogle Scholar
  50. Linder SH, Peters BG (1989) Instruments of government: perceptions and contexts. J Public Policy 9:35–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Majone G (1989) Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  52. Maslin M, Austin P, Dickson A et al (2007) Audit of UK greenhouse gas emissions to 2020. UCL Environment Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Massey E, Bergsma E (2008) Assessing adaptation in 29 European countries. Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken (IVM), Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  54. Michaelowa A (2003) Germany. A pioneer on earthen feet? Clim Policy 1:31–43Google Scholar
  55. Mitchell C, Bauknecht D, Connor PM (2006) Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany. Energy Policy 3:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Motiva (2006) Energy conservation agreements—progress review 2005. Motiva Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  57. Mustonen E, Sinko P (2000) Hiilidioksidiveron vaikutus kotitalouksien tulonjakoon. Government Institute for Economic Research, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  58. Neuhoff K, Åhman M, Betz R et al (2006) Implications of announced phase II national allocation plans for the EU ETS. Clim Policy 6:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nilsson M, Jordan A, Turnpenny J, Hertin J, Nykvist B, Russel D (2008) The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Pol Sci 41:335–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  61. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Environmental performance review: Germany. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD (2002a) Environmental performance review: Italy. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD (2002b) Environmental performance review: United Kingdom. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD (2003) Environmental performance review: Poland. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Oxera (2005) Policies for energy efficiency in the UK household sector. Oxera, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Parsons W (1995) Public policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Edward Elgar, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  67. Pierson P (2000) Not just what, but when: timing and sequence in political processes. Stud Am Polit Dev 14:72–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pöllänen M, Kalenoja H (2005) Linja-autoalan energiansäästösopimuksen arviointi. Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  69. Prime Minister’s Office and Economic Council (2000) Environmental and energy taxation in Finland—preparing for the Kyoto challenge. Prime Minister’s Office, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  70. Radaelli C (2007) Whither better regulation for the Lisbon Agenda? J Eur Public Policy 14:190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rogge K, Schleich J, Betz R et al (2006) Increasing the ambition of EU emissions trading. Greenpeace International, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosenau JN (1992) Governance, order and change in world politics. In: Rosenau JN, Czempiel EO (eds) Governance without government. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI) (2000) Die Klimaschutzerklärung der Deutschen Industrie unter neuen Rahmenbedingungen. Monitoringbericht 1999. RWI, EssenGoogle Scholar
  74. Sabatier P (1986) Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. J Public Policy 6:21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schön D, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Sijm J, Neuhoff K, Chen Y (2006) CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Clim Policy 6:49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sorrell S, Sijm J (2003) Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Rev Econ Pol 19:420–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen (SRU) (2000) Umweltgutachten 2000. Schritte ins nächste Jahrtausend. SRU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  79. SRU (2004) Umweltgutachten 2004. Umweltpolitische Handlungsfähigkeit sichern. SRU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  80. SRU (2005) Umwelt und Strassenverkehr. Hohe Mobilität—Umweltverträglicher Verkehr. SRU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  81. Stufflebeam D (2001) The metaevaluation imperative. Am J Eval 22:183–209Google Scholar
  82. Symons EJ, Speck S, Proops J (2002) The distributional effects of carbon and energy taxes. Eur. Environ. 12:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Szarka J, Blühdorn I (2006) Wind power in Britain and Germany. Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  84. Tiezzi S (2005) The welfare effects and the distributive impact of carbon taxation on Italian households. Energy Policy 12:1597–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (WBBWA) (2004) Zur Förderung Erneuerbarer Energien. Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  86. Weidner H (2005) Global equity versus public interest? Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  87. Weiss C (1975) Evaluation research in the political context. In: Struening EL, Guttentag M (eds) Handbook of evaluation research, vol 1. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  88. Weiss C (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39:426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wüstenhagen R, Bilharz M (2006) Green energy market development in Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energy Policy 34:1681–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constanze Haug
    • 1
  • Tim Rayner
    • 2
  • Andrew Jordan
    • 2
  • Roger Hildingsson
    • 4
  • Johannes Stripple
    • 4
  • Suvi Monni
    • 3
  • Dave Huitema
    • 1
  • Eric Massey
    • 1
  • Harro van Asselt
    • 1
  • Frans Berkhout
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.European CommissionJoint Research CentreIspraItaly
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations