1

Mapping the Intensity of Finnish Climate PoliciesInternal workshop 23.9.2016Visa Kivisaari, Jani Lukkarinen, Mikael Hildén, Eeva Primmer & Paula Kivimaa WP5

2

Outline of the presentation1. Key questions and ideas behind the study2. Data & Methods3. Preliminary results4. Where do we go from here?

3

Policy mix approach to transitions”The rationale behind [analysing policy mixes] is the multiple market, system and institutional failures in place requiring multi-faceted policy intervention.” [Reichardt & Rogge, 2016: 63]

“In spite of a growing body of research on issues like countries’ climate mitigation strategies, climate policy change, and diffusion of specific policies, accumulating knowledge is hampered by the limited comparability of findings.” [Schaffrin et al., 2015: 257]

”…policies could be disruptive in the institutional context shaking the regime in a way that reduces the value of existing practices and technologies…” [Kivimaa & Kern, 2016: 207]

4

• What are the policies that potentially affect the transition?

Constraining? Advancing?

• How can one measure the ‘strength’ or ‘intensity’ of a policy?

Effective <-> rhetoric/symbolic

The questions and tasks

5

The basic idea

1) For a policy to have any impact, it must display certain basic characteristics that can be objectively determined. CPA index [Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S., 2015]

2) It is possible to measure the (potential) impacts on energy transitions by exploring the TIS functions that the policy is expected to promote.TIS analysis [Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F., 2016]

(semi-)quantitative coding work: turning qualitative data into quantitative measurement

6

• Policies and Measures (PAMs) reported to EU in 2015 and policies of Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment

Policy data

7

Index of Climate Policy Activity (CPA)

• Integration – there is a recognisible intragration into a wider set of policies

• Scope – it has a clear scope

• Objective - it has specific objectives

• Budget – it has a budget

• Implementation – it is being implemented

• Monitoring – it is being monitored

(Each criterion can get a value between 0 and 1)

8

Coding: CPA example 1:Voluntary energy efficiency agreements• Integration – 0,5

• Scope – 0,15

• Objective – 0,33

• Budget – 0

• Implementation – 0,25

• Monitoring – 0,5

• Coded value 0,289

9

Coding: CPA example 2:Promoting wind power (tariff system)• Integration – 0,5• Scope – 0• Objective – 0,13• Budget – 1• Implementation – 0,75• Monitoring – 1

• Coded value 0,563

10

Index of Climate Policy Activity (CPA)

Intensity Measure

Mean

Integration 0,6Scope 0,3Objective 0,06Budget 0,08Implementation 0,67Monitoring 0,57CPA Index 0,38

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

All policies arranged by the index value

11

Some preliminary CPA-Index results

• In general, most of the emission reductions are allocated to few policy instruments.

• Many sectors (particularly transport & agriculture) remain latent in policy intensity measures.

• Majority of policies lack budget and clear objective -> suggests a weak design

• All the significant energy transition policies are not reported in PAMs.

12

Creative and disruptive policy functions (TIS)C1 Knowledge development and diffusionC2 Influence on the direction of searchC3 Entrepreneurial experimentationC4 Market formationC5 Legitimation/AdvocacyC6 Resource mobilisation

D1 New Control policiesD2 Significant changes in regime rulesD3 Reduced support for dominant regime technologiesD4 Changes in social networks, replacement of key actors

(Each criterion can get a value of 0, 0,5 or 1)

13

Coding: TIS example 1:Voluntary energy efficiency agreementsC1 Knowledge development and diffusionC2 Influence on the direction of searchC3 Entrepreneurial experimentationC4 Market formationC5 Legitimation/AdvocacyC6 Resource mobilisation

D1 New Control policiesD2 Significant changes in regime rulesD3 Reduced support for dominant regime technologiesD4 Changes in social networks, replacement of key actors

14

Coding: TIS example 2:Promoting wind power (tariff system)C1 Knowledge development and diffusion

C2 Influence on the direction of search

C3 Entrepreneurial experimentation

C4 Market formation

C5 Legitimation/Advocacy

C6 Resource mobilisation

D1 New Control policies

D2 Significant changes in regime rules

D3 Reduced support for dominant regime technologies

D4 Changes in social networks, replacement of key actors

15

TIS-functions

C1 Knowledge

develo

pment a

nd diffusion

C7 Influen

ce on th

e dire

ction of sear

ch

C4 Entre

preneu

rial ex

perimen

tation

C2 Mark

et form

ation

C6 Legiti

mation/A

dvocac

y

C5 Resource

mobilis

ation

D1 New Contro

l polici

es

D2 Significan

t chan

ges in

regim

e rules

D3 Reduced

support

for dominan

t regi

me tech

nologies

D4 Change

s in so

cial n

etworks

, replac

emen

t of k

ey act

ors0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Others (6)Agriculture & forestry (6)Waste management (4)Land-use planning (2)Buildings (9)Transport (4)Energy efficiency (4)Renewable energy (4)

16

Some preliminary TIS results

• Experimentation and knowledge creation score surprisingly low.

• Agricultural policies remain a non-factor.

• Energy policies emphasise constructive more than destructive elements.

• Waste and buildings account for most of the disruptive policy elements.

• The found disruptive functions (new control policies and regime rules) are system-level instead of technology-specific (reduced support).

17

Reflection• The strenght of policies can be determined ’reasonably objectively’ (i.e.

estimates are independently repeatable, but require transparent reasoning)

• Is the low disruptive score an indication of a missing policy function or a demonstration of the difficulty in detecting it?

• Overall, all sectors contain policies that are weak in every respect. Do these policies have some other function(s) [such as increasing the acceptability of the ’stronger’ policies, functioning as catalysts for future policies or are they ’pure’ lip service?

• Evaluation of policy intensity and TIS-functions tell fairly little in isolation - relations, comparisons and groupings are the key.

• How do the two approaches complement each other, do they?

18

Sources

Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008

Reichardt, K. & Rogge, K. (2016). How the policy mix impacts innovation: Findings from company case studies on offshore wind in Germany. Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions 18, 62-81.

Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S. (2015). Toward a Comparative Measure of Climate Policy Output. Policy Studies Journal, 43(2), 257–282. http://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12095

Kiitos!