Transcript `Climate village` Studsgård - CIDEA – Citizen Driven Environmental

Collaborative arrangements
and climate change policies
in Danish municipalities –
a governance perspective
Presentation
CIDEA Closing Conference
University of Copenhagen
20 October 2014
Jens Hoff
Department of Political Science
University of Copenhagen
Denmark
[email protected]
Institut for Statskundskab
Agenda:
•
1. Co-creation of climate change mitigation
•
2 The practice: types of citizen participation
3.
•
•
•
How do we evaluate the new collaborative arrangements?
- CO2-reductions?
- democratic effects?
- governability?
Institut for Statskundskab
Fundamental research question:
How is it possible to engage and motivate
citizens to do an effort to reduce their carbon
footprint?
Institut for Statskundskab
Focus of research:
•
‘Collaborative arrangements’
concerning climate change
mitigation
(Healey, 2006 (1997))
•
‘Co-creation’ of local climate
change policies
(Joiner & Josephs 2007)
•
‘Citizen driven innovation’ in
climate change policies
(Bason 2010)
Institut for Statskundskab
The field of possible collaborative arrangements
concerning climate change mitigation:
Initiation of intervention:
Government agents, local authority
Focus of intervention:
Individual
Person
Family
Schools/institutions
Housing cooperatives
Civil society, citizen driven
Institut for Statskundskab
Community
Villages
The field of possible collaborative arrangements
concerning climate change mitigation:
Initiation of intervention:
Government agents, local authority
Klimabevidst
Citizen visits
Computer games
Transport game
‘Climate families’
Person
School campaign
Family
Green day care
MyClimatePlan
‘Climate ambassadors*
Schools/institutions
Housing cooperatives
Villages
Surveys in 3 municipalities
AB Søpassagen
Climate village
Studsgaard
Civil society, citizen driven
Institut for Statskundskab
The field of possible collaborative arrangements
concerning climate change mitigation:
Initiation of intervention:
Government agents, local authority
Klimabevidst
‘Climate families’
Person
Family
MyClimatePlan
‘Climate ambassadors*
Schools/institutions
Housing cooperatives
Villages
Climate village
Studsgaard
Civil society, citizen driven
Institut for Statskundskab
www.klimabevidst.dk
www.borger.klimabevidst.dk
These websites are developed to help Danish citizens and companies, who want to reduce their
carbon footprint, but who lack knowledge about the existence of different possibilities, what
effect different actions have, and how to get started.
Institut for Statskundskab
Both versions of klimabevidst.dk are build up around 12 categories, each representing
a different area of action concerning climate change mitigation (lighting, transport,
heating, etc.) . All guides are written in everyday language and demand no prior
knowledge of the field.
Institut for Statskundskab
‘Climate families’:
Background:
Ballerup, a typical suburban
municipality just outside Copenhagen,
wants to reduce its CO2-emissions
with 25% from 2006-2015. Five
percent of this reduction is to be
achieved by citizens. This means that
citizens have to reduce their CO2
emissions by 26% in the period.
Twenty (representative?) families were
selected. They were to constitute ‘role
models’ and be a showcase of more
‘CO2-sensible’ ways of living.
The families had to engage in two
types of activities: 1) a carbon
accounting regime (6 months), 2) use
of a toolbox of green devices (shower
timer, bicycle gear, etc.)
Institut for Statskundskab
Carbon accounting regime
Climate families –
the work
The families were gathered in a project
group, which refined the concept,
defined the areas of intervention and
discussed all relevant aspects of the
project.
In the first 6 months the families were
to register their consumption of
electricity and all other CO2-relevant
activities in every detail (see scheme).
Half of the families were very active in
communicating the results of the
project to the rest of the municipality
through expositions, fairs, giving talks
etc.
The project is widely regarded as a
success.
Institut for Statskundskab
MyClimatePlan:
Background:
In 2009 the municipality of Middelfart
offered any group of min. 10 citizens
living in the same neighbourhood the
posssibility to receive a free energy
check of their home.
At the check an energy advisor from
the local energy company turned up,
together with a representative from
the municipality and two builders.
Afterwards an energy report was sent
to each household, and the builders
sent an offer covering the points
mentioned in the report.
Household were offered a 15%
reduction by the builders, on the
conditions that some other
households in the group would also
retrofit.
Institut for Statskundskab
MyClimatePlan changes to
‘ESCO-light’
Story continued:
The project was slow to pick up, and was
replaced by ESCO-light in 2011. A main
problem in MCP was the cost of energy
consultation.
Therefore the municipality decided, in
collaboration with the energy companies, to
train builders in energy counseling. After the
training the builders could deliver the
necessary counselling to customers, and if
they decided to have the work done, the
builder could help the customer to sell the
energy savings to the energy company.
All win: customers gets free and qualified
energy conselling, and a discount on the
work done, builders enhance their
knowledge about energy renovation, energy
companies outsource the burden of
generating energy savings, the municipality
gets CO2-reductions and more revenue
because more jobs in the building industry
are created.
Institut for Statskundskab
‘Climate ambassadors’
Background:
As a result of a project set up in collaboration
between the social housing complex, AAB
Skovparken and the municipality of Kolding 15
unemployed women, mainly with an other ethnic
background than Danish volunteered to work as
‘neighbourhood mothers’
The women followed a 12 week education with
sessions on how to save on water and energy. The
education gave them competences and selfconfidence, and half of them are now working as
climate ambassadors, who can be booked for free
counselling by the tenants in the housing complex.
Institut for Statskundskab
‘Climate village’ Studsgård
Background:
Studsgård is a small village with 250
families 10km outside of Herning. In
2008 the village started a collaboration
with the municipality of Herning in
order to become a ‘climate village’.
The village association
(‘Borgerforeningen’) agreed on a CO2reduction of 25% in 2012 (baseline
2007) for the village as such .
The municipality of Herning is
supporting the project with a ‘green
coordinator’, who is helping to start up
different green initiatives.
Institut for Statskundskab
‘Climate village’
Studsgård- the activities:
A range of different activities has been
undertaken:
•Common ‘climate friendly’ dinners
•Placement of waste containers on the
city square (cardbord, metal)
•Energy counselling
•Opening of a second hand shop
•Planting of trees
•Establishment of a vindmill guild
•And more
Period:
Activity:
Ton CO2 reduced from fra 2009
to 31.12. 2012
2009 and onward
Common climate friendly dinners
4,1 ton CO2
2012 and onward
11 stk. 6 kW sun cell plants
(private)
20,3 ton CO2/år
2010
5 oil-fired boilers changed to
district heating
23,4 ton CO2/år
2010
5 ha farmland changed to mixed
forest
67 ton CO2/år
2011 and onward
Second -hand shop
4,5 ton CO2
2011 and onward
Cardboard container
4,7 ton CO2
2009 and onward
Metal container
5,5 ton CO2
.
Total CO2 reduction since
2009
Institut for Statskundskab
220 ton CO2
Are these projects succesful – and by what measures?
What are the goals of the projects and to what extent are they realized?
•
•
•
•
•
•
CO2-emissions?
To increase knowledge about climate change?
To engage and motivate citizens do do a personal effort?
To strengthen social cohesion in communisties
To create jobs and local revenue
To improve local democracy?
What are the agendas of the involved stakeholders?
Institut for Statskundskab
The development of citizen participation in
environmental regulation/climate change mitigation
Period:
Role of public
authorities
Dominant discourse on
policy solutions
1960’s-1980’s
Regulator
“Social
engineering”
1980’s-1992
Innovator
“Common
responsibility”
1992-2009
Mediator
“Global
Responsibility”
2009Facilitator
Citizen
responsibility
is key
“Nudging”
(artefacts and
techniques to affect
behaviour).
Ad hoc arrangements
to cope with citizen
initiatives and projects
Policy instruments
Laws, permits
Policy network
creation, coproduction, selfregulation, interactive
policy making,
environmental taxes,
tradeable permits
Global treaties,
Local Agenda21,
EU Model Plan for
Public Participation,
Four Directives
concerning citizen
participation
Type of experts used
Engineers
Lawyers
Engineers
Lawyers
Social scientists
Stakeholders
Engineers
Lawyers
Social scientists
Stakeholders
NGO’s
‘Citizen experts’
Engineers
Lawyers
Social scientists
Psychologists
PR-consultants
Stakeholders
NGO’s
‘Citizen experts’
Lay people
Role of citizens
Objects of
steering/protesters
Co-producers,
stakeholders
’Cosmopolitans’
(objects/participants in
global action)
‘Future makers’ (‘do it
here and now’)
Institut for Statskundskab
A steering perspective on the development
Is this a Foucaldian story? – are the increasingly sophisticated techniques of governance used to
turn basically disengaged or uninformed citizens into ‘green bodies’ subject to a ‘low carbon
diet’? = a strengthening of the power of public authorities, making a more effective policy
implementation possible?
Reality is more complicated than this:
Example: ‘Climate families’
It was only possible to engage the 20 families in the project because they were involved very
early, and given a huge say in the development of the project, which meant that they eventually
assumed responsibility for the project.
As public authorities enter into the private homes of families, so do the families enter the inner
working of the public authority. This is precarious balance where public authorities are obliged to
‘do more with less control'- or ‘ release control to gain governability’
The public ‘loss of control’ opens a space for citizen-directed initiatives, which works in directions
not anticipated by public authorities, or challenging their preferred policies in the area.
Institut for Statskundskab
A democratic perspective
Two perspectives on citizen participation within democratic theory:
1)A pragmatic tradition (citizen participation as a policy)
2) A normative tradition (citizen participation as a ‘school in democracy’)
Institut for Statskundskab
A democratic perspective
In the pragmatic tradition one can distinguish between substantive and instrumental
arguments for citizen participation:
Substantive arguments:
• Local knowledge contributes with new insights.
• Citizen participation reduces the uncertainty connected with scientific knowledge.
Instrumental arguments:
• If citizens are involved they are more likely to understand and accept a given
decision (conflict-reducing effect).
• Citizen participation will increase confidence and learning. This will give a policy
longevity and lead to better implementation.
• Citizen will take on ownership when they become involved
Institut for Statskundskab
A democratic perspective
In the normative tradition the purpose of citizen participation is as much the process
itself, and the participants, as it is the result of the process.
Citizen participation works as a ‘school in democracy’ cultivating the civic potential of
the participants. (Pateman 1970, Barber 1984).
Citizens are empowered through participation (Arnstein 1969).
Citizen participation creates a space for deliberation about public matters (Dryzek
2002, Held 2006).
Institut for Statskundskab
A democratic evaluation of the projects: ‘information campaigns’
versus citizen driven community projects
Parameters:
www.klimabevidst.dk
‘Climate village’
Studsgård
Local knowledge input
-
+
Reduce uncertainty of
scientific knowledge
-
+
Conflict-reducing effect
not relevant
+
Learning
+
+
Ownership
-
+
Cultivation of civic virtues
?
+
Empowerment
+
+
Space for deliberation
-
+
Institut for Statskundskab
More intangible benefits of citizen driven
community projects:
•
•
•
•
They support and strengthen the community
They create a feeling of a common identity
The community becomes more attractive to outsiders
Improved relations between community and public
authorities
• If anchored in communities policies will have a longer life
Institut for Statskundskab
Conclusions:
”If we wait for governments, it’ll be to late; if we act as
individuals, it’ll be to little, but if we act as communities, maybe
it’ll be enough”. Ben Brangwyn, Transition Network trustee (cited in Irving 2009)
While this conclusion is doubtful, the CIDEA research project has at least
demonstrated that both in a steering perspective as well as a democratic perspective
citizen initiated community based projects have more benefits for all stakeholders
than projects initiated by public authorities and directed towards individuals. (we
have to find ways to move initiatives from upper left to lower right square in our
figure).
However, projects can also fail if the precarious balances between on the one hand
control and governability, and on the other hand efficiency and democracy are not
found and respected.
Institut for Statskundskab