improving environmental policy enforcement - UT RIS webpage

Environmental Engineering and Management Journal

August 2013, Vol.12, No. 8, 1637-1643

http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania

IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ENFORCEMENT Vera Vikolainen1, Theo de Bruijn2, Hans Bressers1 1

CSTM, Twente Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development, School of Management and Governance, Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands 2 Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Centre for Urban and Environmental Development, Enschede/Deventer, The Netherlands

Abstract Enforcement is a crucial final step in any policy process, including environmental policies. Ideally policy formulation is subsequently implemented and enforced. Enforcement is needed to make sure that the envisioned effects are realized in the end. The questions we put forward in this paper are what the meaning of enforcement is; how enforcement can be put on the political and administrative agenda; what difficulties are to be countered when strengthening enforcement at the local level. We build upon two studies. One is an evaluation of a national action program on enforcement. The other one is a study on a municipal strategy on enforcement. Strengthening enforcement practices is however an uphill battle. It needs to be implemented within current organizational and political structures and it needs constant attention. In the end, a combination of structural and cultural measures will most likely be most effective. Key words: enforcement of regulations, environmental policy, implementation, action program, policy evaluation Received: March 2013; Revised final: July, 2013; Accepted: July 2013

1. Introduction On May 13, 2000 a fireworks trade centre in Enschede, the Netherlands, exploded. The explosion wiped away an entire district, causing some twenty deaths and more than one thousand people injured. An enormous shockwave broke the shop windows of the city centre. Another kind of shockwave went through the public administration in the Netherlands. The comfortable idea that the implementation deficit in environmental policy, which had haunted the seventies and eighties was by then under control and licencing and enforcement were fully operational, was scattered by the disaster. The trade centre did not comply to many regulations and the local authorities were fully aware of it. Shocking was also the fact that the lessons from a similar incident years before had not been learned. Almost a year later on the night of New Year’s Eve of the year 2000, another major incident happened 

when a pub in the small town of Volendam burned down, killing 14 people and leaving 200 people severely injured, many for the rest of their lives. It turned out that crucial requirements had not been followed, for example with many of the emergency routes being blocked. Enforcement by the municipality and fire brigade had been lax and not lead to a minimum state of safety. Again, it became obvious that enforcement is not at all “under control” and probably never will be. It was clear that additional steps were needed. This paper addresses enforcement as a crucial final step in a policy process. We argue that, although not very popular, enforcement needs to be taken seriously. We describe an attempt made by the Dutch national government to put enforcement high upon local policy agendas. Our research also shows the difficulties of paying sufficient attention to enforcement. The questions we put forward in this paper are what the meaning of enforcement is; how enforcement can be put on the political and

Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: [email protected]

Vikolainen et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1637-1643

administrative agenda; what difficulties are to be countered when strengthening enforcement at the local level. We build upon two studies. One is an evaluation of a national action program on enforcement (Bressers et al., 2006). The other one is a study on a municipal strategy on enforcement (Bruijn et al., 2008). 2. Process description and simulation Enforcement is a crucial final step in a policy process. Ideally it starts with signalling a potential societal problem, followed by agenda formation. This then leads to policy development and policy formulation which is then subsequently implemented. Enforcement is needed to make sure that the envisioned effects are realized in the end. The effectiveness of regulation is often limited by difficulties with implementation and enforcement (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983). Although in theory regulators set the boundaries for all firms, in practice it has proven to be very hard for regulators to effectively control all firms. Different reasons can be given to explain why enforcement often is somewhat neglected. First, enforcement is not a popular topic to address. Acknowledging that stronger enforcement is necessary, for instance to prevent environmental risks, holds an implicit message that a situation is not under control. Enforcement also often means a negative message. People and organizations have to be told to behave differently from what they do. If not, they are punished. For instance enforcement of traffic speeds leads to many fines. Strengthening environmental enforcement implies that companies are probably not complying to regulatory standards. A second major reason why enforcement is sometimes neglected is that it is hard to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of enforcement. The benefits and effects of enforcement are often the prevention of an unwanted situation. How many accidents and possible road casualties are prevented through speed control? How much emissions or dangerous situations are prevented through timely enforcement? And when environmental issues are concerned the public legitimacy and the fear to lose jobs might be even stronger as a de - motivator than is the case with for instance enforcing good driving behaviour. These reasons can explain why enforcement is not a popular and well - addressed topic. The incidents in Enschede and Volendam, within a year from each other, proved that enforcement was a forgotten part of the policy cycle in the Netherlands that needed much more attention. This led to a national “Action Program Enforcement on High Level”. 3. Evaluating the Enforcement Action Program The action program was implemented under coordination of the Ministry of Justice. This ministry

1638

commissioned the Twente Centre of Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development (CSTM) of the University of Twente to evaluate the action program. Three questions were put forward: 1. To what extent have the ambitions of the action program been achieved? The action program held four central ambitions: • to get enforcement more clearly on the political and administrative agenda • to stimulate that enforcement gets more accepted as a normal part of governance • to give impulses to further professionalize the field with exchange between enforcers from different authorities and joint courses and symposia • to increase the legitimacy of enforcement as a feature of effective governments 2. To what extent do the different program lines add to the results? Activities were implemented through three program lines: • making inventories of best practices to encourage mutual learning • supporting well planned systematic “programmatic enforcement” among others through a benchmark programme and guidelines • further supporting activities like studies, conferences, publications etcetera. 3. What happened to the level of enforcement as a consequence of the action program? The program lines eventually aimed at improving enforcement practices of lower authorities. Although the evaluation study did not include empirical research on enforcement practices the actual improvement of these were, of course, the ultimate aim of the action program. An important question was to understand the influence of the action program on developing practices. In theory, the action program leads to better compliance, as shown on the next page. Causality, however, is a major issue in such a complex field as enforcement in which so many factors might play a role. We looked at the action program as a so called INUS condition: ‘Insufficient but Necessary part of a set, which is Unnecessary but Sufficient for the result’ (Mackie, 1974). The action program could be part of a group of factors that jointly explain the extent to which enforcement would become a more central element on political and administrative agendas. The action program itself would then be neither necessary nor sufficient but still be contributing to the set of factors that explains what happens to enforcement. 3.1. Research design and methods In our research we used different methods for answering these questions. First, we looked at existing studies, and all the material that was produced by the action program. Next to brochures, a project monitor and reports this included also the minutes of the project

Improving environmental policy enforcement

team that was in charge of the action program. These monitoring studies were held in 2002, 2003 and 2005. The last two were used among the data sources for our study. They are based on samples of about one hundred administrators and one hundred civil servants, from the municipalities, provinces and water boards (105 and 115 in 2003 and 94 and 133 in 2005). Next, 24 respondents were interviewed (mostly face to face). These were members of the program project team, coordinators of the different themes within the action program, consultants that helped in organizing the implementation process of the action program and some experts. We also organized two workshops with over 20 participants in total. This breadth of methods and research data enabled us to come to fairly robust conclusions. 3.2. Research findings Our study showed that the activities were well known and respected in the field of enforcers. The field of environmental enforcement was stronger represented than other subfields of enforcement of rules in the public space. While the assessment was that the Program had contributed to the level of awareness and priority of enforcement with politicians and administrators, still it had been an uphill battle. As soon as the shockwaves of the disaster and its media attention were decreasing the tendency is to let the priority for enforcement slip. That this only happened a bit in the five years of the Program is in that light a relative but substantial success. All the attention that the meetings and publications raised did help in this respect. A more permanent success has been in the more systematic approach to enforcement and the establishing of enforcers as a separate and respected profession. Enforcement staff as well as administrators act more professionalized than at the start of the program. There is clearly more attention for a more systematic approach to enforcement. But

continued attention is needed to sustain this effect. Programmatic enforcement was added later to the Action Program, but has evolved as the heart of the program. The activities within this line and the resulting products are widely acknowledged as useful and valuable. The collecting of best practices fell short of the ambition, at least within the timeframe of the action program, as it was only partially realized and too late to have a major influence on inspiring other municipalities during the period of the program. Stimulating collaboration is seen as one of the main merits of the program. Collaboration, nevertheless, is still difficult due to for instance diverging enforcement styles. Relatively little could be said about the development of the actual level of enforcement as there were insufficient data available. We did notice, however, that in the preceding processes as visualized below, positive results have been realized. Although we judged the program to be relatively successful especially given the limited timeframe of only 5 years, strengthening of local enforcement practices proved to be an enormous challenge, even in places where there is ample willingness and political will to do so. Below we describe the example of one municipality we looked at more closely. 4. Municipal policy enforcement in Leeuwarden Leeuwarden is the capital city of the Dutch province of Fryslân located in the north of the Netherlands. The first steps to improve enforcement were taken by the municipality in 1999 and its first enforcement project called “Je Maintiendrai” was approved in 2001. This project won an award within the framework of the National “Action Programme Enforcement on High Level”. This explicit link to the National “Action Programme Enforcement on High Level” makes Leeuwarden a good case study of implementing the national enforcement policy on a local (municipal) level.

Fig. 1. Input – process – output model of efficacy of Enforcement Action Program

1639


The project plan “Je Maintiendrai” announced the development of a new enforcement policy, a long - range programme and an implementation plan. In line with the Action Programme the new Leeuwarden policy stressed the importance of an programmatic and integral approach to make sure that for instance the numerous links between the environmental policy enforcement and other issues in the public space would be well regarded. The new enforcement policy was adopted in 2003 under the name Framework Enforcement Policy (hereafter: Framework). 4.1. Research design and methods The Municipal Audit Office of Leeuwarden commissioned the Twente Centre of Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development (CSTM) of the University of Twente to evaluate the enforcement practices in Leeuwarden against the Framework. The central research question asked by the Municipal Audit Office was: has the enforcement practice in Leeuwarden been programmatic and integral since the adoption of the Framework? If not, what are the causes? Programmatic enforcement was defined in the Framework as follows: “the administrative organization submits yearly on a recurring basis a long - range programme and an implementation plan for approval of the use of resources against the intended result and reports about it”. Integral enforcement was defined in the Framework as acting “in cooperation with all policy domains of the municipality and together with the external enforcement partners”. The research was carried out by three researchers from March through and including June 2008. The researchers conformed with the Municipal Audit Office’s protocol and served the purpose of fact - finding to reconstruct the factual development in the enforcement practices in Leeuwarden. The researchers used the following research methods. First, a document analysis was conducted. All available enforcement policy documents were collected and their content analysed. The document analysis included a complete set of Enforcement Steering committee and Enforcement Coordination body memos. Second, interviews were held with 12 respondents: the mayor of Leeuwarden, 6 sector managers (department heads), 2 team managers and 3 civil servants. All interviews were conducted by two researchers. Interview reports were drawn up and sent back to each respondent for fact checking. Third, a workshop was organized, in which 8 respondents were able to participate. Integral enforcement and coordination between different sectors was the main issue discussed during the workshop. In addition to this, the participants engaged in a dialogue to explore the possible solutions to current enforcement practices. A draft research report was sent back to the

1640

organization for fact checking after it was discussed with the Municipal Audit Office. The comments received at this stage were incorporated into the final research report (de Bruijn et al., 2008). The analysis was done at two levels: (i) firstly, on the level of five policy domains: Fire department, Environment, Legal and Security affairs, Maintenance and Public Space, and Construction and Residence; (2) secondly, to get a complete picture of coordination and cooperation on the level of the Enforcement Policy Framework i.e. integral enforcement. The concluding analysis was thus more than just a sum of findings from the five policy domains. Below we briefly discuss the findings at both levels of implementation. 4.2. Research findings 4.2.1. Implementation at the level of the Framework The Framework intended to launch a recurring, democratic and transparent enforcement process. This did not take place. The structure for implementing the policy, its cornerstones being the portfolio holder (alderman) in the Municipal Executive committee, Enforcement Steering committee and Enforcement Coordination body, had watered down. Only the Coordination body was still functioning. The announced revision of sector policies did not take place in all policy domains. Different sectors accounted for their enforcement activities within sector budgets, while a general Enforcement programme budget on municipal level was lacking. 4.2.2. Implementation at the level of policy domains The findings from each policy domain gave a varied picture: - the backlog with permits issued by the Fire department had been made up. Enforcement took place as planned, sometimes in cooperation with other sectors, though this cooperation was not always structured; - the environment sector had always been characterised by strong emphasis on enforcement, in particular due to national steering. The enforcement activities that took place were however rarely linked to the Framework; - several framework themes were taken up by sub - departments of Legal and Security affairs, which were implemented with certain elements of programmatic and integral enforcement; - the revision of enforcement policy for the Maintenance and Public Space did not take place. The sector’s focus was on making up the backlog of permit applications. Since 2006 sector plans had been drawn up for city surveillance; - the Construction and Residence sector revised their enforcement policy, which contained elements of programmatic and integral enforcement.


 Answer to the first part of the research question The research concluded that the enforcement practice at the time fulfilled the requirements of integral and programmatic enforcement as defined in the Policy Framework only to a small extent. It did not recur often enough, was not democratically approved and was not transparent enough. Enforcement as a theme was not accounted for and integration was limited to information exchange. Elements of integral and programmatic enforcement were present on the level of individual policy domains, but both concepts were not sufficiently developed. The Framework was thus only partially implemented. Several sectors made progress, but not all elements of integral or programmatic enforcement were found.  Answer to the second part of the research question In order to answer the second part of the research question, the above mentioned research findings were discussed in person with all respondents during the workshop session. This discussion generated the following list of reasons why the Framework was only partially implemented.  Framework not specific enough The definitions of programmatic and integral enforcement as provided in the Framework give little to hold on to in practice. Implementation came to a halt and as a consequence no further definition was reached.  Low administrative and political pressure The researchers’ observation was that the administration did not put pressure to further the Framework implementation. In addition to this, the failure to report back to the Council did not raise any questions. Although enforcers experienced the necessary administrative support in individual cases, little pressure was applied to make a turn towards programmatic and integral enforcement possible.  Changing personnel Key persons, including the mayor and the Framework authors, changed their position right after the policy had been adopted. This complicated the continuity of steering. Moreover, the departments headed by responsible managers increased in size as time passed, which resulted in decreased management capacity.  Organizational developments A recent change in the organizational structure of enforcement is an important step towards broader staff availability. This and previous reorganizations competed for attention with the recurred planning and accounting announced in the Framework. At the same time, these reorganizations were seen as an alternative form of integral enforcement. In some cases the regulations were improved and resulted in less potential friction points.

 Steering and reporting at sector level The steering and reporting was very sector oriented. A policy that transcended this sector structure was difficult to place in the existing procedures.  Enforcement backlog Several sectors built up a backlog with permit applications. The past several years were dedicated to making up this backlog before enforcement could be professionalized further. Although the research findings with respect to integral and programmatic enforcement were usually not positive, a lot of respondents stressed that the scale and quality of enforcement as such had increased during this time.  National priority setting Enforcement priorities for several sectors are set at the national level. For those sectors programming on the scale of Leeuwarden made less sense, although national priorities did not automatically settle the coordination with other sectors. At the same time, national developments improved integration for example by introducing the integrated living environment permit system (Wabo). Again, this shifted attention away from the implementation of the Framework.  Changing insights The insights with respect to integral enforcement in particular had changed. The fact that there are limits to staff functionality is now widely acknowledged. Policy domains require their own specific expertise. In addition to this, relatively low added value of the pilot enforcement project at street level in Leeuwarden (Grote Hoogstraat) played a role in the low take - up of integral enforcement.  Different systems Sectors used different (software) systems for the planning and administration of enforcement activities. This complicated the coordination of day to - day operations. The factors presented above accounted for the facts uncovered in the course of the research. Whether these factors were an acceptable explanation of the research findings was not up to the researcher to judge but was left to the judgment of the City Council. 5. Recommendations Describing the factual enforcement practices in Leeuwarden was the main focus of the research. However, the researchers were able to identify a number of potential solutions for designing future enforcement policy in Leeuwarden. The potential solutions came up mainly during the conversations with the participants in the workshop. Based on the research report the Municipal Audit Office of Leeuwarden issued recommendations for improving the connection between the executive and administrative level, between the Framework and everyday enforcement practice. 1641


5.1. Framework policy update The Framework in force, which was the subject of the research, proposed goals and structures that did not fit into the insights about enforcement at the time of research. In particular the insights concerning integral enforcement and its limits had developed further as compared to the preceding 5 years. In addition to this, the improvement of the Framework followed from the new legislative framework (integrated living environment permit system Wabo), which had already triggered organizational change. Professional enforcement required an up - to - date Framework that should be re - approved by the City Council. 5.2. Enforcement steering group At the time of research, a platform that would shape and give content to steering beyond sector level was a missing link. The Steering group was that potential link once and could be established again, for example under the leadership of an alderman responsible for integral enforcement. 5.3. Coordinating alderman It was important that the attention to programmatic and integral enforcement became rooted within the organization. The necessary steps at operational level had already been made. The designation of an portfolio holder for enforcement in the municipal executive committee is a measure that would complement the above mentioned steering group. The alderman in this position need not have a task of enforcement in all policy domains. It was important that his function included the monitoring and steering of integral and programmatic character of enforcement practices. This also implied the re launching of the yearly long - range programmes and implementation plans. 5.4. Sector - oriented accountability of enforcement programmes Sector - oriented steering and reporting proved to be a serious barrier for the implementation of Framework. The cornerstones of programmatic enforcement – a recurring, transparent and democratic process – required clear justification. Whether this were a separate chapter of the yearly account and programme budget, or explicit references to sector budgets, was an issue to be decided in consultation with the Council and the Executive committee. Finally: among the explanatory factors the researchers encountered multiple personnel changes and different procedures and systems used by different sectors. It was important to keep in mind that if the necessary conditions were lacking, e.g. for

1642

dossier transfer, the effects of the recommendations provided above would be less than one could hope for. 6. Conclusions We started this paper by highlighting the importance of enforcement for an environmentally healthy and socially orderly public space. Without proper enforcement little guarantees can be given that policy ambitions are realized. Even worse, real disasters can occur putting the lives of many people in danger. Strengthening enforcement practices, therefore, is of crucial importance. Our main conclusion of this paper can be summed up easily: strengthening enforcement practices is easier said than done. The urgency of stronger enforcement was obvious in the Netherlands after the major incidents in Enschede and Volendam. A dedicated national action program was installed with strong links to local enforcement teams. Still, it proved very hard to really change enforcement practices at the local level, and to keep enforcement on the political and administrative agendas. The case of Leeuwarden proves our point. The adoption of an enforcement Framework by the municipality of Leeuwarden was an attempt to institutionalize the enforcement of local policies. This is in line with the reasoning suggested by the action program, which aimed for yearly approval of enforcement programmes, appointment of enforcement coordinators etc. However, continued attention and stimulation are important for enforcement to really take root within an administration, because it is intrinsically unpopular. Our research demonstrated that the Framework in Leeuwarden was implemented only to a limited extent. Thereby the desired goals were not attained. The structure for implementing the policy watered down and implementation pressure decreased, new insights emerged and the attention shifted due to administrative changes. So, the conclusions of our research emphasize the big impact of development over time and the strong tendency for attention for enforcement to erode rather quickly, probably much faster than most aspects of environmental and other public policy. However, the research also showed the positive results that were clearly traceable, in particular on the level of five sectors. The linkages between the sectors improved, communication among them increased and more information exchange took place. This created a clearer picture of what integral and programmatic enforcement could contain and what meaning it could have. In addition to this, lessons were learned about different ways of executing enforcement ranging from soft to hard approaches. The learning process was related in particular to the integral aspect of enforcement. The Framework created a momentum to make these learning experiences possible, but without continuous incentive this momentum decreased.


Learning from the lessons in Leeuwarden we identify the following preconditions: 1. Make giving attention to enforcement a mandatory part of the policy process; Although in itself insufficient, it proves to be helpful at least to demand regular attention to be paid to enforcement. In the case of Leeuwarden their framework program asked yearly evaluations and a five year program evaluation. The former didn’t take place but the latter did (our study). Having such a framework in place at least gives legitimacy to raising the question about enforcement practices. 2. Integrate enforcement into the organizational and political structures; Appointing specialized task forces within the organization helps in creating sufficient expertise. Also at the political level enforcement needs to be part of the responsibilities of an alderman. 3. Organize a constant stream of activities, also at a higher (national) level. We notice that the action program m really put enforcement on the agenda. Moreover, networks of professionals working on

enforcement could be formed thanks to the many meetings and workshops. This can be done at the local level, but most powerful is to also have such activities at a higher level. Strengthening enforcement practices is an uphill battle. It needs to be implemented within current organizational and political structures and it needs constant attention. In the end, a combination of structural and cultural measures will most likely be most effective. References Bressers J.T.A., de Bruijn T., Fikkers D.J., (2006), Evaluation Enforcement on High Level, University of Twente, Enschede, CSTM Studies and Reports, CSTM - SR 250, (in Dutch), 1 - 71. de Bruijn T., Bressers J.T.A., Vikolainen V., (2008), Enforcement in Leeuwarden: a study commisioned by the Municipal Audit Office, University of Twente, Enschede, CSTM Studies and Reports, CSTM - SR 338, (in Dutch), 1 - 49. Mackie J.L., (1974), The Cement of the Universe, Oxford. Mazmanian D.A., Sabatier P.A., (1983), Implementation and Public Policy, Glenview Illinois: Scott, Foresman.

1643