The role of voluntary approaches in a regulatory environment
•
1 like•793 views
The document discusses the role of voluntary approaches in regulation. It notes that regulations are not always effective due to assumptions, lack of knowledge, and implementation issues. A case study on nitrate regulations found large differences between predicted costs/benefits and actual outcomes. Voluntary approaches have strengths like partnership and flexibility but also weaknesses like variable commitment and implementation. Effective voluntary approaches require clear objectives, decision processes, measuring outcomes, and recording activities. The regulatory environment involves evidence, predictions, values and implementation at multiple levels. The state should optimize well-being, set objectives, measure outcomes, and provide guidance while voluntary approaches address issues flexibly.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to The role of voluntary approaches in a regulatory environment
Similar to The role of voluntary approaches in a regulatory environment (20)
More from Countryside and Community Research Institute
More from Countryside and Community Research Institute (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The role of voluntary approaches in a regulatory environment
- 1. The role of voluntary approaches in a regulatory environment John Powell CCRI University of Gloucestershire
- 2. Overview “The key strategic message...is that Defra , its agencies and delivery partners need to establish an entirely new approach to and culture of regulation...” “...Defra’s starting point...should be non- regulatory solutions...” Farming Regulation Task Force 2011
- 3. Why regulate agricultural activity? • Deal with market failures – Control externalities - avoid environmental/health/welfare damage – Achieve minimum quality standards – Ensure production of ecosystem services • Implement EU requirements
- 4. Making good regulations • Post-implementation review suggests regulations – not always accurate – not always effective • Problems arise due to – Assumptions – lack of sector/technical knowledge – poor problem formulation – external drivers – implementation/enforcement issues
- 5. Case study: Nitrate Regulations Comparison of ex-ante IA and post implementation review High magnitude differences: • Costs (timing) • Benefits • Storage capacity • Moving and making more efficient use of slurry • Record keeping • Increased farm costs
- 6. Nitrate Regulations: accounting for ex-ante/ex-post differences •Assumptions •Sector knowledge •Implementation support •Methodological •Technological •External drivers •Systemic
- 7. Exploring voluntary approaches Examples • Market certification schemes Types of voluntary action – Farm Assurance – Organic • Unilateral commitments • Agri-environment schemes – ESA/CSS • Public voluntary schemes – ELS/HLS • Industry led initiatives • Negotiated agreements – Campaign for the farmed environment – Voluntary Initiative – Tried & Tested
- 8. Application of voluntary approaches: CFE • Successful partnership • Difficult targets • Communicating the message • Flexible delivery – variable impact • Linked to ELS – action oriented programme • Measures not always implemented effectively
- 9. Strengths of Voluntary Approaches • Partnership working • Improved understanding - brings organisations together • Build on existing frameworks/networks • High level of commitment • Changing attitudes • Reaching the ‘hard to reach’ • Allows for local tailoring and adaptation- space to experiment
- 10. Voluntary approaches - weaknesses Process Individual involvement • Costs • Clarity of message • Variable commitment by • Variable implementation partners • Lack of awareness and • Sharing responsibilities understanding • Time requirements • Attitude – some do not get • Need for sustained involved commitment • ‘Quality’ of actions • Speed of decision making • Need for sustained • Rhetoric vs action commitment • Unwillingness to engage • Uncertainty over the future (e.g. external drivers)
- 11. Fitting voluntary approaches into the policy process Post-implementation review Policy development &review Appraisal: wider options Enactment Options Final proposal Appraisal: full IA in tandem with consultation Appraisal: refinements to IA of preferred option
- 12. Options for the future • Explore mixed approaches • Re-define role of government • information and guidance • programme design • apply sanctions • distribute support • ensure fairness • flexibility in approach • Explore alternatives to regulation through IA
- 13. Requirements for effective voluntary approaches • Clear and realistic objectives • Agreed decision making procedures • ‘Programme theory’ • Capacity to provide information • Outcomes oriented • Centralised control with flexible local delivery • Feedback systems – measuring value for money • Recording and recognition of activities taking place • Implementation time frame
- 14. Forms of regulatory activity Applicability of coercion (works through…) Individual Environment conduct of conduct Remote Distributive Constituent Party Likelihood of coercion: Group Immediate Regulatory Redistributive Decentralised Centralised
- 15. Nitrate regulations – Stakeholder views “the whole package is difficult to comply with - there are a lot of aspects and it is overwhelming” Implementer “...we only have 5 or 6 weeks to spread. On the wet areas we may only have 3 or 4 days when conditions are right. We have to pay staff extra overtime ...” Farmer “There is a gap trying to get “Farmers are clearly worried farmers to understand the about costs...in particular regulation – it is difficult to storage facilities...” understand – therefore difficult Stakeholder to regulate” Implementer
- 16. The regulatory environment Process • Regulations are based on: - Evidence - Prediction - values. • Theory of regulatory capture • Regulatory ‘trap’ – difficult to explore options Implementation • Regulation occurs on more than one level
- 17. Application of voluntary approaches Role of the state: • When and where to use? • Optimising societal well- being • Setting objectives • Measuring ‘quality of outcomes’ • definitional guidance • participatory incentives • enforcement capability
Editor's Notes
- Objectives: Discuss the nature of regulatory activity in the agricultural sector Explore voluntary approaches
- Making good regulations is difficult Review of literature suggests: Work on Nitrate and Waste regulations supports this. Regulatory impact assessements often reveal differences between predicted and actual impacts: Use of worst case scebarios - strategic behaviour by those being regulated Compliance issues might alter costs - limited policy options considered - incorrect assumptions Limited impacts explored - variable impacts
- Unclear differences: Reduction in stocking rate Additional spreading costs Reduction in fertiliser use Dairy derogation Implementation and enforcement costs Competitiveness
- Nitrate regs Assumptions: Derogations Reductions in stocking rates Spreading of slurry Sector Knowledge Renting land Implementation support Provision of advice/guidance Mapping and appeals Methodological Costs annualised over 20 yrs Increased time to manage nitrates Technological - Anaerobic digestion External drivers - Fertiliser prices Systemic – timing; options explored
- Are voluntary approaches any better than regulations? Types of voluntary action Unilateral commitments (adoption of self-developed standards) Public voluntary schemes (voluntary adoption of standards developed by government agencies) Negotiated agreements (joint development of standards with an agency often involving binding contracts Alternatives to regulation (BIS): No new intervention Information and education Self-regulation Co-regulation Economic instruments What influences participation: Personal satisfaction or Utility Market based incentives Government incentives (either +ve or –ve ) Free rider problem – extent to which individuals rely on others to take action (Blandford 2010) ‘ voluntary’ ag env schemes are not paying farmers for provision of outcomes but for delivery of land management practices. (Burton 2013)
- CFE is viewed as more unnecessary bureaucracy and they are not recording their CFE activities on line, partly from fear of inspection. They are not following the CFE guidelines - farmers are not keen to follow guidelines for activities they are doing voluntarily Significant level of resources, supported by administration and resources of NFU and CLA Implementation requires time Some evidence accessing the ‘hard to reach’ farmers. Agronomists very effective at spreading the message – coming from multiple sources reinforces the message. Not all relevant sectors of the industry are on board. Land agents not involved. Type of approach- hybrid. Operates in conjunction with other programmes e.g. ELS No ‘regulation’involved Receives financial support from Defra
- Partnership working Improved understanding Healthy tension Brings organisations together Build on existing frameworks/networks High level of commitment from those involved Changing attitudes Reaching the ‘hard to reach’ Space to experiment Allows for local tailoring and adaptation Potentially able to reach more quickly to external drivers Creates ‘peer pressure’ to get involved
- CFE costs • More time than anticipated/Huge amount of time – at centre and regionally • Encroaches upon main occupation/Not always managed to integrate effectively with day job • Level of input not fully recognised/Uncharged work/Unaccounted time inputs • Funding the programme manager/ Financial costs • Time input for meetings • Resource cost implications of multiple persons per organisation being involved • Senior people time • Opportunity costs of not putting resources into other campaigns • Potential reputational damage • Facilities provision/Invested time and resources • Training costs: Internal and external • Writing articles for publication/Production of leaflets/Resource inputs to deliver the CFE message
- Explore mixed approaches industry–government hybrids support for sector-led approaches Re-define role of government Provider of information and guidance Applicator of sanctions Means of distributing support Ensuring equity and fairness Develop impact assessment to explore alternatives to regulation Effectiveness of alternatives
- Clear and realistic objectives Agreed decision making procedures ‘ Programme theory’ - persuasive rationale to encourage action Capacity to provide information Centralised control with flexible local delivery Feedback systems Recording and recognition of activities taking place Implementation time frame Burton 2013: Agri-env schemes not delivered value for money Lower yielding land entered into schemes Options selected for ease of management rather than ecological objectives Little evidenc eof attitudinal change Practce of restricting farmer behaviour does not foster commitment to nature conservation Reviewof 128 studies show providing extrinsic rewards for performing behaviours generally weakens intrinsic motivations. /therefore ag env payments will not bring about desired attitudinal or cultural changes needed. Ag env schemes continue because easy to implement and monitor, and acceptable to farming because involve little change to current practices. ‘ result oriented’ schemes that pay for outcomes more likely to achieve better results be cost-effective
- Regulations based on a mix of evidence, prediction, economic judgement, interest group lobbying, and values. Theory of regulatory capture Regulatory ‘trap’ – difficult to explore other options due to the politics that grow up around a particular policy approach Often only one option from a range of possible approaches. Regulation occurs on more than one level: Legislative level Agencies design procedural rules for implementing Individual regulators apply the rules and decisions to particular situations
- Gunningham explores some alternative approaches – concludes....where state does devolve decison making to local level the state must still retain particular roles – but whcih roles and under what circumstances? 3 clear roles for state: definitional guidance participatory incentives enforcement capability what's the role of government? Can it abdicate responsibility and hand everything over to the 'citizen'? When to use reg approaches: strongly opposing views on direction of change irreversible impacts immediate change required potential for harm to health When to use vol approaches general consensus on direction of change attitudinal change required where immediate change not required Positive links to business and/or individual utility requirements for a vol approach: • all stakeholders need to be on board • clear, simple message • time inputs required • provision of advice • getting the message across - resource inputs • working in partnership • costs (£??million/yr)