New alternative and complementary environmental policy instruments and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive

Abstract

Based on a study conducted for the Environment Agency for England and Wales, we discuss the contribution that new alternative and complementary environmental policy instruments might make to the realization of the objectives of the EU's Water Framework Directive. Following a survey that identifi ed nearly 100 examples where alternative and complementary instruments are currently being applied in the UK, we categorize such instruments as information-based approaches, private and voluntary regulation or support and capacity building measures. Examples are given of each category of instrument before further fi ndings on the preconditions for the successful application of such measures are presented. These preconditions relate to levels of commitment from key groups, levels of stakeholder understanding, the role of the lead actor, the importance of timing, the need to deliver a clear message, the importance of enforcement, the role of the media and the importance of social capital in key networks. We conclude that alternative and complementary measures have signifi cant potential to contribute to the realization of the Water Framework Directive's objectives, but only where these preconditions are met.

Provision of Climate Advice as a Mechanism for Environmental Governance in Swedish Agriculture

“…In terms of motivation and capacity of the regulated (Gouldson et al, 2008),, the main contribution might be therapeutical rather than a support for change, which might be important but still inadequate in the face of the challenge that climate change poses. The risk of regulatory capture is clearly imminent and needs to be balanced with clear goals, other policy instruments and processes that allow broader stakeholder involvement, including, e.g., environmental groups.…”

“…Governance here draws its meaning from its distinction from what is commonly labeled as "government": the hierarchal, command and control model where the state defines both ends and means within a particular policy area -and enacts them through legalistic measures. In this discussion, the prime interest is on the changing nature of policymaking, the changing roles of actors involved and policy instruments utilized (Gouldson et al, 2008;Taylor et al, 2012). Here, we follow Jordan et al (2013), and see the usage of new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) as the empirical correspondent of environmental governance.…”

“…Advisers may for instance inform about consequences of laws and regulations, or point at existing subsidies and financial supports. However, besides accentuating "sticks" or "carrots", advisers might raise the capacity among farmers regarding how to reduce their emissions, targeting the embeddedness of practice (Gouldson et al, 2008). Moreover, in the Swedish example, advice is shaped through activities at multiple levels which feature both private and public actors.…”

“…On the one hand, the cooperative and inclusive approach may raise capacity and thereby enable real implementation and change (Gouldson et al, 2008;Taylor et al, 2012). On the other hand, environmental ambitions may be lost in a negotiating game in which costs, competitiveness and prevailing skills and practices are among the counterparts (Jordan et al, 2003b).…”

“…Participation could occur during development or implementation of policy, and implies voluntary and consent-based processes rather than command and control. Such processes could potentially raise the capacity among those subject to regulation (Taylor et al, 2012), and, given that practice is often deeply embedded and sometimes unresponsive to both economic incentives and legislation, such capacity might be crucial for the outcome of policy (e.g., Gouldson et al, 2008). …”