Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions - Resilient Ecosystems Project
Place-based policy-making and community resiliencebuilding for climate change
Final Report, July 2013
Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University/ Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
& Sarah Giest, Simon Fraser University
About the Project
The scale, pace and range of climate change has far-reaching impacts on BC’s ecosystems. Research
under the resilient ecosystems theme seeks to understand these impacts and to develop management
solutions that will maintain the viability of ecosystems in the province. Given that many such ecosystems
are now under threat from climate change, the emphasis is on risk and adaptive management.
Achieving integrated social, economic and environmental development and sustainability is one of the
greatest challenges governments around the world face today. Given the complexity of the factors involved,
an exclusively top-down approach to decision-making will not always yield the best solutions, especially on
the climate-change front. This collaborative project is examining the capacity of local governments and
communities to participate in multi-level government climate change decision-making and to implement
high-quality evidence-based or place-based, policy initiatives.
Place-based approaches (PBAs) in policy are processes in which stakeholders engage in collaborative
management of issues experienced within a geographic space and are particularly well suited to climate
change adaptation efforts; however, successful implementation of climate change policies in such settings
needs ‘leadership, adaptive management and stakeholder collaboration’ (Bellefontaine and Wisener 2011).
Our research shows that BC is lacking horizontal and vertical integration for successful environmental
networking, but that PICS is providing and could expand on its provision of resilience-building elements
together with government and community stakeholders.
Project Team
Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University/ Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
Jeremy Rayner, University of Saskatchewan
Christopher Stoney, Carleton University
Adam Wellstead, Natural Resources Canada
2
Table of Contents
About the Project ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Team ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Phase 1 (2011-2012) ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Research Highlights................................................................................................................................... 5
Phase 2 (2012-2013) ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Research Highlights................................................................................................................................... 8
Final Remarks ............................................................................................................................................. 11
References .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Table of Figures
Table 1. The Distribution of New Environmental Policy Instruments in the Nine Jurisdictions (EU/Australian
infomration based on Jordan et al. 2005, 486) .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1. Taxonomy of policy adoption. .............................................................................................................. 9
3
Introduction
The goal of the project “Place-based policy-making and community resilience-building for climate change”
was to answer two key questions connected to climate change, first, how to make communities more
resilient to environmental events and how to shape policy in a way that supports the ability to buffer climate
change-caused disturbances. Thereby, special attention was paid to European examples of networking and
learning as well as the policy tools used. In this context, the research finds that transnational municipal
networks can serve as an important example for BC communities in terms of sharing ideas and learning
from each other’s experiences. This describes the ability of communities to self-organize and retain the
capacity of learning in the context of change (Armitage 2008). Local, provincial and federal governments
need to match these developments with the according policy tools – thinking about the combination of
existing and the introduction of new ones. In federal systems such as Canada, government needs to pay
attention towards local communities and their vertical and horizontal linkages in order to undertake effective
long-term planning. This should ultimately inform place-based strategies that can strengthen the
connections between different levels of jurisdictions of government. In contrast, aspatial policies pay less
attention to locality based on the premise that policy should be built around ‘mobility, agglomeration and
thus, the promotion of specific urban sectors or technologies with little or no recourse to the regional
context’ (Barca, McCann and Rodriguez-Pose 2012, 140). This disregards the notion that even spaceneutral policies will always have explicit spatial effects, many of which will undermine the goals of the policy
itself unless its special effects are taken into account. In an environmental context, this aspect is of special
importance as problems are complex and have to be addressed from multiple entities. Another aspect to
place-based policy is its flexibility or sometimes path-dependence when it comes to implementing new
measures or policy tools. Identifying a given path, breaking with it and creating a new one will be a
reoccurring challenge for governments in the climate change field. Among a continuum of possibilities from
sticking to the status-quo to path-creation, British Columbia serves as one of the examples of a ‘path
dependent policy intervention’ approach (Levin et al. 2012) in connection with the carbon tax. Given these
different aspects of resilience and place-based policy, the project concludes that BC is taking strides in
networking and path dependent policy intervention; however local communities will have to continuously
work on their adaptability not only to provincial (climate) policy change, but also developments in
neighbouring provinces and the US. The same applies to the provincial government in relation to federal
attempts and cap and trade decisions in the US. The carbon tax gives BC an edge in climate change, but
the adaptation process is ongoing.
4
Phase 1 (2011-2012)
Phase 1 of the project “Place-based policy-making and community resilience-building for climate change”
looked at the European experience of multi-level governance and placed-based policy making in the
climate change field and drew lessons for British Columbia. Specifically, the research focused on
community-based collaborative approaches in which cities and regions connect in order to learn from each
other and implement environmental tools.
Research Highlights
British Columbia has made an independent and voluntary effort to meet more ambitious climate change
goals than has the federal government while using the full suite of policy instruments, including regulations
and disincentives. British Columbia was able to set itself apart not only from other Canadian provinces, but
generally in North America by introducing the carbon tax. This fits in with the more ambitious goals of the
province and its communities. These goals include the greenhouse gas emission reduction of 33 percent
below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Further climate action focuses on the production of
clean electricity and having a carbon-neutral government (Ministry of Environment Climate Action
Secretariat 2011). To achieve these goals, the 2008 carbon tax was designed to be phased-in over a fiveyear period, with an initial price of $10 per tonne of carbon, increasing to $30 per tonne in 2012 (Crossman
2012). BC also became the first Canadian province to join the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) – a group
now composed of one US state and four provinces although initially it was much larger. The WCI focuses
on and is developing a regional cap-and-trade system to reduce GHG emissions. In BC, this initiative is
supported by the ‘Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act’. To date, BC has relied on direct government
control and regulation for its environmental management but has shown interest in market-based
instruments (see Table 1, Scott et al. 1995). Research shows that for regulations to be effective, they must
be supported by monitoring and enforcement procedures (Haley & Luckert 1995). In this, community
governments can play a key role in enforcing some of the goals and implementing provincial measures for
climate change through enhanced European network-type activities.
However, compared to European countries, British Columbia’s efforts to apply new environmental tools are
sometimes counterproductive, because policy tools have been layered on top of existing ones without due
attention paid to their procedural components. It seems that BC has long-term visions in place, but is
5
missing short-term pursuits and coherent instruments to pursue them. Especially in the past two years
government advances for climate change have lost momentum.
Table 1. The Distribution of New Environmental Policy Instruments in the Nine Jurisdictions (EU/Australian information
based on Jordan et al. 2005, 486)
Finland
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
UK
Ireland
European Union
France
Australia
Canada
British Columbia
Eco-Taxes
Tradable
Permits
Voluntary
Agreements
Ecolabels
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Low/Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Environmental
Management
Systems
High
High
Medium
High
Low/Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Several cities in BC beyond the major metropolitan centres of Vancouver and Victoria also have developed
climate change action plans that aim for local emission reduction and look at specific solutions in each
setting. Those cities – among others– include Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Campbell River.
Communities like these assert significant influence on local land use, transportation patterns, building
energy use and solid waste management – all significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. ‘In
fact, local governments...influence approximately 50% of greenhouse gas emissions when decisions are
made to support the walkability of a community, transit, smaller and more energy efficient housing types
and more’ (City of Campbell River 2011). There are common elements that reoccur in every community,
but there are also initiatives that address specific challenges, such as the danger of fish species abundance
for communities close to the ocean and land conditions change or the issue of flooding in coastal areas. To
date, however, the provincial and federal governments have failed to utilize these municipalities in effective
environmental policy monitoring and evaluation.
In terms of networking attempts, there is the PICS Climate Solutions Network and government-informing
‘Climate Action Working Groups’. The PICS network has been designed to facilitate communication and
collaboration among researchers, scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders in the area of climate
change. Thereby, they touch upon almost any climate change related issue, such as adaptation, mitigation
6
or evaluation. PICS was established by the BC government to bring together research from and beyond BC
and link to other global institutions. The goal is to create an international network of scholars, entrepreneurs
and policy-makers. PICS also supports researchers with fellowships for continuing climate change
research. In connection with government and industry, the institute frames questions, develops policy
options and technological solutions, assesses the implications and communicates the issues and
opportunities to government, industry and the general public (PICS 2008). Further, through its work with
communities, PICS is a crucial outreach tool for communicating local challenges. The Climate Action
Working Groups on the other hand work with government to provide input, help define a vision, build
partnerships and recommend critical research priorities (Ministry of Environment 2012). Further, at the
regional and community level, there are engagement frameworks in place: First, the seven regional
citizen’s conservation councils (CCCs) on climate action, which were established in 2008. The councils
include citizens, who represent their region’s youth, seniors, municipal government, local business, First
Nations, community groups and educational institutions. They have helped to form a grass root regional
network that aims to stimulate climate action in every region of the province (Government of British
Columbia 2010:7). For communities there are engagement tools that can be used. The Pacific Resource
Conservation Society & Destination Conservation has developed different models according to specific
community needs or the ‘Natural Step’ five-level framework for strategic sustainable development that can
be adapted to engagement goals.
Research Outcomes
Poster Presentation at the PICS Annual Forum, June 2012, Victoria (BC) – Poster link:
http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/howlett_poster.pdf
Giest, Sarah and Michael Howlett (2012). “Multi-level Governance and Place-based Policy-Making for
Climate Change Adaptation: the European Experience and Lessons for British Columbia”. BC Studies 176.
Giest, Sarah and Michael Howlett (2013). “Comparative climate change governance: Lessons from
European transnational municipal network management efforts”. Environmental Policy and Governance
(under review).
7
Phase 2 (2012-2013)
Phase two of the resilient ecosystems project focused on the variations in place-based approaches (PBAs)
regarding their flexibility towards climate change issues. Generally speaking, PBAs are, due to including
policy in which stakeholders engage in collaborative management of issues experienced within a
geographic space, particularly well suited to climate change adaptation efforts; however, every policy within
an administration also carries the burden of being path-dependent – ranging in a spectrum from making
climate change approaches consistent to being completely defined by a binding agreement. This bares the
question of how much flexibility PBAs need regarding environmental issues and how much consistency
would be necessary to succeed. The research shows that British Columbia was able to adopt – in
connection with the carbon tax – a ‘path dependent policy intervention’ approach (Levin et al. 2012).
Research Highlights
Based on variations of path-breaking and path-creating elements, four adaptation options are developed
(Figure 1), which display the four ways to tackle the stickiness of some set-ups. Starting with ‘adapting to
existing structures and policies’, this option is the furthest away from being path-creating or path-breaking.
It describes a situation in which the winning coalition for change is not big enough and new policy
instruments or ideas have to yield to the underlying, dominant trajectory. Likely path-creating, but not pathbreaking is the ‘operation in a niche of an existing path’. This means that change occurs at a niche-level –
mostly in one community or region – and mainly in isolation (Seyfang & Smith 2007). Thus, a niche is
defined as a protected space that tolerates poor returns, accepts uncertainty and provides supportive
networks for experimentation and advocacy (Schot & Geels 2008). In sum, while change within the larger
regime tends to be incremental and path-dependent, path-creating change originates in this niche (Smith et
al. 2010). Further, ‘overcoming inertia and implementing new policy’ is almost the opposite to the niche
development. Here, an existing path is broken, however, no new path is created. Thus, there is the
possibility that this change might be overturned, because it does not completely free its actors from existing
institutions, standards or higher decision instances. Finally, the last option possesses both characteristics,
as it is able to be path-breaking and path-creating at the same time. It overcomes an old trajectory and
creates a strong winning coalition paired with a lock-in effect into a new path. All four of these variations are
ideal types and often cases are hybrids of two adoption developments. However, the categorization helps
to analyze climate change cases from path-dependent perspective and evaluate whether they are creating
a new path, breaking an old one or doing both.
8
Figure 1. Taxonomy of policy adoption.
For the example of the carbon tax, British Columbia falls into the last category of overcoming an old and
creating a new path. The solution that the province found represents a recent trend in climate change
policy. Sustainability scholars have argued that the underlying development path and the institutional
constraints matter more to the successful realization of climate change goals than previously thought (i.e.,
Robinson et al. 2006; Cohen et al. 1998; Burch 2010). Environmental initiatives are moving away from
being passive to institutional inertia and instead look for key reforms and generating momentum for change
(Meadowcroft 2009). British Columbia is a frontrunner in climate change and thus ‘on the edge of what is
likely to come in local government responses in Canada’ (CURA 2009, 8). What we see in the analysis of
the carbon tax creation in BC is intended path-dependence initiated by a policy entrepreneur and locked-in
by increasing returns for a winning coalition. First, the Liberals – and Premier Gordon Campbell in particular
– used some techniques for overcoming institutional inertia (Meadowcroft 2009). They were able to
generate momentum that encourages additional positive changes through (1) long-term targets, as the
carbon tax is linked to emission reduction and price-increase over-time; (2) neutralizing opponents by
getting businesses on their side and ‘stealing’ this issue from the opposition; (3) develop a climate friendly
public ethos, especially through the media, as the carbon tax introduction brought B.C. positive climate
change reviews in the Economist Magazine, the New York Times and the LA Times – encouraging the
positive attitude through pointing out that the tax had no negative effect on economic growth; and (4) using
the state apparatus to pioneer reforms by making public bodies carbon-neutral. These techniques were
then combined with the mentioned policy window in which problem, policy and problem stream came
together, fuelling the introduction of the tax. Beyond this opportunity, the tax is also deliberately designed to
9
create immediate ‘stickiness’. It increases the support of the original target population for maintaining the
intervention by making the tax revenue neutral; it expands the original target population through coalition
building of municipalities and schools based on the fact that they would lose revenues if the tax would ever
be cancelled and the set-up of the tax created progressive incremental behavioural change ultimately
lowering emission (Levin et al. 2010).
Research Outcomes
Paper Presentation at CPSA, June 4-6, 2013, Victoria (BC): “Paced-based policy in climate change:
Flexible and path-dependent elements” in Session 15, Public Administration, Issues in Multi-Level
Governance II, June 6 at 3.15pm.
Giest, Sarah and Michael Howlett (2013). “The Pre-Conditions of Environmental Governance: The role of
network management in the development of climate change policy”. Environmental Science & Policy
(forthcoming).
Giest, Sarah (2013). “Place-based policy in climate change: Flexible and path-dependent elements”.
Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy (under review).
10
Final Remarks
Tying together both research phases of the project, several aspects can be highlighted for British Columbia
and the PICS institute. First, bottom-up and top-down dynamics in climate change do not always align from
a multi-level governance perspective. While BC is making independent efforts to pursue environmental
goals through policy tools, such as the carbon tax, the province’s policy might eventually come in conflict
with the federal pursuit on a sector-by-sector basis. This would make it difficult to, for example, combine
and address carbon emission across sectors such as electricity, transportation, aviation, oil and gas. Also,
communities and cities in BC have developed action plans and made networking attempts in climate
change, however, the knowledge generated by those networks often remains unused by the provincial
government. Second, the carbon tax has been a success not only for reducing emissions in the province,
but also in policy terms. The way it was implemented could be an example for other provinces in Canada
for overcoming path-dependent solutions. BC was able to be path-breaking and path-creating at the same
time. The carbon tax overcomes an old trajectory and creates a strong winning coalition paired with a lockin effect into a new path. Still, in relationship to Canada-wide and American developments, BC will have to
think about a cap-and-trade system as well as the long-term effectiveness of the carbon price and its
impact on economic competitiveness. BC also cannot rest on its laurels connected to the carbon tax.
Because provincial action has an effect on municipal action, there needs to be constant monitoring and
evaluating of the options available. To inform these options, PICS plays a crucial role. Through its multidisciplinary and solution-oriented approach, it might already have some of the answers to the questions
that BC will have to tackle in the coming years.
11
References
Armitage, Derek (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the
Commons 2 (1), 7-32.
Barca, Fabrizio, McCann, Philip and Andres Rodriguez-Pose. 2012. The case for regional development
intervention: placed-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science 52 (1), 134-152.
Burch, Sarah. 2010. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three
municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 20, 287-297.
Campbell River.2011. Community Energy & Emissions Plan. Available at http://alturl.com/vxp2k (accessed:
2012/03/20).
Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J. and D. Rothman. 1998. Climate change and sustainable
development: towards dialogue. Global Environmental Change 8, 341–371.
Crossman, Tony (2010). Tackling Climate Change in BC. HazMat Management 22 (2), 29-10.
Community-University Research Alliances (CURA). 2009. Meeting the Climate Change Challenge:
Municipal Responses to BC Climate Policy. Application to Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada.
Haley, D. and M.K. Luckert (1995). Policy instruments for sustainable development in the British Columbia
forestry sector. In: A.D. Scott and D. Cohen, (eds.) Institutions for sustainable development in natural
resources in British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver. 54-79.
Jordan, Andrew, Wurzel, R.K.W. and Anthony R. Zito (2003). New Environmental Policy Instruments: An
Evolution or a Revolution in Environmental Policy? Environmental Politics 12 (1), 201-224.
Levin, Kelly, Cashore, Benjamin, Bernstein, Steven and Graeme Auld. 2010. Playing it Forward: Path
Dependency, Progressive Incrementalism and the ‘Super Wicked’ Problem of Global Climate Change.
Conference Paper, Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions Congress, 10-12 March
2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/09/2010_super_wicked_levin_cashore_bernstein_auld.pdf (accessed: 2013/05/22).
Meadowcroft, James. 2009. Climate Change Governance. Background Paper to the 2010 World
Development Report. Policy Research Working Paper 4941, The World Bank Development Economics.
Available at: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/05/19/000158349_20090519144015/Rende
red/PDF/WPS4941.pdf (accessed: 2013/05/23).
Ministry of Environment Climate Action Secretariat (2011). Preparing for Change: Climate Action in British
Columbia. Available at: http://www.sfu.ca/grc/friesen/friesen2011/ (accessed: 2012/03/20).
Ministry of Environment. 2012. Climate Action Working Groups. Available at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/working_groups.html (accessed: 2012/03/20).
Pacific Institute for Climate Change Solutions (PICS). 2008. Turning climate knowledge into climate action.
Available at:
12
http://www.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/assets/pacific_institute_for_climate_solutions/pics_brochure.pdf
(accessed: 2012/03/20).
Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A., Sampson, B. and W. Soper. 2006. Climate
change and sustainable development: realizing the opportunity. Ambio 35, 2–8.
Schot, J. and F. Geels F. 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, fi
ndings, research agenda and policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20, 537-554.
Scott, Anthony, Robinson, John and David Cohen (1995). Managing Natural Resources in British
Columbia: Markets, Regulations and Sustainable Development. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Seyfang, G. and A. Smith A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new
research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16, 584-603.
Smith, A., Voss, J.-P. and J. Grin. 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the
multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy 39, 435-448.
13