Search

ABSTRACT There is a lack of evidence on regulatory effectiveness available to support policy makers with the selection of appropriate instruments to deliver better environmental regulation. We identify the types of evidence required to enable regulatory reform, characterize evidence gaps, and explore how these may be filled through future research. A typology of regulatory instruments is presented, and evidence of what has worked when and why is examined, drawing on international experience and recent cases from the United Kingdom (UK). Evidence of the capabilities of good environmental regulators for regulatory effectiveness is lacking, and it is proposed that ethnographic research that captures the nuances of regulatory practice will prove necessary to address this. This paper is of value to policy makers and regulators around the world considering the selection and deployment of the full range of environmental regulatory instruments to respond to environmental risks and in support of economic growth. It can inform the selection of suitable approaches and the design of institutions capable of delivering them. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present the preferences for environmental regulatory reform expressed by 30 UK businesses and industry bodies from 5 sectors. While five strongly preferred voluntary regulation, seven expressed doubts about its effectiveness, and 18 expressed no general preference between instrument types. Voluntary approaches were valued for flexibility and lower burdens, but direct regulation offered stability and a level playing field. Respondents sought regulatory frameworks that: are coherent; balance clarity, prescription and flexibility; are enabled by positive regulatory relationships; administratively efficient; targeted according to risk magnitude and character; evidence-based and that deliver long-term market stability for regulatees. Anticipated differences in performance between types of instrument can be undermined by poor implementation. Results underline the need for policy makers and regulators to tailor an effective mix of instruments for a given sector, and to overcome analytical, institutional and political barriers to greater coherence, to better coordinate existing instruments and tackle new environmental challenges as they emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This study re-analysed 14 semi-structured interviews with policy officials from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to explore the use of a variety of regulatory instruments and different levels of risk across 14 policy domains and 18 separately named risks. Interviews took place within a policy environment of a better regulation agenda and of broader regulatory reform. Of 619 (n) coded references to 5 categories of regulatory instrument, ‘command and control’ regulation (n = 257) and support mechanisms (n = 118) dominated the discussions, with a preference for ‘command and control’ cited in 8 of the policy domains. A framing analysis revealed officials' views on instrument effectiveness, including for sub-categories of the 5 key instruments. Views were mixed, though notably positive for economic instruments including taxation, fiscal instruments and information provision. An overlap analysis explored officials' mapping of public environmental risks to instrument types suited to their management. While officials frequently cite risk concepts generally within discussions, the extent of overlap for risks of specific significance was low across all risks. Only ‘command and control’ was mapped to risks of moderate significance in likelihood and impact severity. These results show that policy makers still prefer ‘command and control’ approaches when a certainty of outcome is sought and that alternative means are sought for lower risk situations. The detailed reasons for selection, including the mapping of certain instruments to specific risk characteristics, is still developing. Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image Highlights • 14 interviews with policy officials re-analysed instrument selection and environmental risk. • Positive, negative and neutral framings illustrated how instruments were perceived. • Low overlap between instrument category and risk significance suggests other influences in play. • Improved knowledge exchange is recommended for risk analysis and policy communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]