The use of policy appraisal in water policy making

266 Pages·2017·4.59 MB·English

The use of policy appraisal in water policy making
Comparing WFD implementation in England and France

Blandine Gisèle Boeuf

Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Leeds
School of Earth and Environment
School of Geography

May 2018
ii
iii
The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own, except where work which
has formed part of jointly authored publications has been included. The contribution of
the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The
candidate confirms that appropriate credit has been given within the thesis where
reference has been made to the work of others.
Chapter 2 is a published paper: Boeuf B, Fritsch O (2016). Studying the Implementation
of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: a Meta-Analysis of 89 Journal Articles.
Ecology & Society 21(2), 19. The research was led by Blandine Boeuf and jointly
conceived, designed and undertaken by Blandine Boeuf and Oliver Fritsch. Blandine
Boeuf and Oliver Fritsch analysed the data and wrote the paper, with comments from
Julia K. Steinberger.
Chapter 3 is a published paper: Boeuf B, Fritsch O, Martin-Ortega J (2016).
Undermining European Environmental Policy Goals? The EU Water Framework
Directive and the Politics of Exemptions. Water 8, 1-15. The research was led by
Blandine Boeuf. It was conceived and designed by Blandine Boeuf and Oliver Fritsch,
with significant contributions from Julia Martin-Ortega. Blandine Boeuf undertook the
empirical work and analysed the data. Oliver Fritsch provided conceptual and analytical
feedback throughout the duration of the research. Blandine Boeuf wrote the paper with
the contribution of Oliver Fritsch, and with comments from Julia Martin-Ortega and
Julia K. Steinberger.
Chapter 4 is a paper accepted for publication on 26th January 2018: Boeuf B, Fritsch O,
Martin-Ortega J (2018). Justifying exemptions through policy appraisal: ecological
ambitions and water policy in France and the United Kingdom. Water Policy 20(3),
647-666. The research was conceived and designed by Blandine Boeuf. Oliver Fritsch
and Julia Martin-Ortega provided conceptual and analytical feedback throughout the
duration of the research. Blandine Boeuf undertook the empirical work and analysed the
data. Blandine Boeuf wrote the paper with the contribution of all authors, and with
comments from Julia K. Steinberger.
Chapter 5 will be submitted to Regulation & Governance for publication. The research
was conceived and designed by Blandine Boeuf. Oliver Fritsch provided conceptual and
analytical feedback throughout the duration of the research. Blandine Boeuf undertook
iv
the empirical work and analysed the data. Blandine Boeuf wrote the paper with the
contribution Oliver Fritsch, and with comments from Julia Martin-Ortega, Julia K.
Steinberger and Harold Levrel.

This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that
no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.

The right of Blandine Gisèle Boeuf to be identified as Author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

© 2018 The University of Leeds and Blandine Gisèle Boeuf
v

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Oliver Fritsch, Julia Martin-Ortega and
Julia Steinberger. I will never thank Oliver Fritsch enough for his invaluable help and
implication in this PhD. His expertise in political sciences, his unconditional availability
to answer quickly important or less critical questions at any day or time, his constant
critical and challenging feedback and his continued support were extremely helpful to
this work. I am also very thankful to Julia Martin-Ortega for her help and expertise in
environmental economics, and for providing ideas and thorough comments on this PhD.
I am equally thankful to Julia Steinberger, who has provided a very helpful, rigorous
and impartial feedback on this work.
This PhD has also been possible thanks to the funding provided by the School of Earth
and Environment, University of Leeds and by water@leeds through the SPRING award.
I am also extremely grateful to all the interviewees who have participated in this
research, as this PhD would not have been feasible without them. I would also like to
thank Harold Levrel and Will Hankey, as well as the anonymous reviewers of the
research papers, for their help and extremely useful feedback and comments on this
research.
In addition, I would like to thank my friends in Leeds Elke Pirgmaier, Gauthier Guerin,
Tom Smith, Jeanne Giniaux and Jérémie Brajou for their help and support and for the
comforting time we spent together during this whole adventure. I am also grateful to the
FAWKES project, for giving me the opportunity to meet other great people working in
water management.
Finally, I would like to thank all my family, especially my husband Cyril Mayeux, for
their unconditional love, encouragements and support throughout this PhD.
vi
Abstract

Of all natural resources, water is particularly under pressure due to its intensive use.
Therefore, it is vital to better understand the decision-making processes that could
reverse trends in environmental deterioration. Policy appraisal tools can help decision
makers develop sustainable public policies, as they support evidence-based policy
choices. In practice, however, they are rarely used as a basis for decisions. In this
context, this PhD has aimed to answer the following research question: How can we
explain the different uses of policy appraisal - in particular of economic analysis –
beyond evidence-based policy making in water decision making? To this end, I studied
the case of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) and the use of
cost-benefit analysis in its application in the United Kingdom and France, as recent
examples in which economic-based policy appraisal plays, in principle, a key role.
I showed that appraisal tools could reflect political objectives and environmental policy
ambitions in two ways. Firstly in the choice of the appraisal tool itself, which follows a
specific logic. Secondly, the operationalisation of the tool selected may be influenced
by political goals. As a consequence, the use of policy appraisal for evidence-based
decision making can partly be explained by the discrepancy between the output of the
appraisal and the political objectives pursued. More generally, I found that the politics
stream – i.e. the political context - determines the presence and importance of appraisal
tools in the policy process and explains further uses, in particular in problem definition
and policy formulation.
I also provided an empirical contribution to the knowledge on WFD implementation in
member states. I explained the process of setting objectives and exemptions in two
member states, and the role that economic analysis played in the decision-making
process. I showed that ambitions related to the implementation of the WFD, and the
political context more generally, shaped the decisions on the analytical tools used and
that choices made in the operationalisation of these tools partly influenced the
protection standards of individual water bodies. These results imply that debates on the
use of policy appraisal in WFD implementation should go beyond experts’ circles and
be considered in the political sphere.
vii
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ V
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ X
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. XI
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND WATER MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 5
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE ............................................................................................... 7
1.3 RESEARCH CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................ 11
1.3.1 The Water Framework Directive: a major policy for water protection in Europe .... 11
1.3.2 Setting objectives and exemptions to the Water Framework Directive .......................... 12
1.4 THEORETICAL BASIS ................................................................................................................................. 13
1.4.1 The Multiple Streams Approach .................................................................................................... 14
1.4.2 The Advocacy Coalition Framework ............................................................................................ 15
1.4.3 Recent developments: combining the MSA and the ACF ..................................................... 16
1.5 RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ....................................................... 17
1.5.1 Research strategy ................................................................................................................................. 17
1.5.2 Case study research ............................................................................................................................ 18
1.5.3 The choice of England and France for the cross-country comparison ........................... 19
1.5.4 Methodological scope ........................................................................................................................ 23
1.5.5 Data collection and analysis ........................................................................................................... 23
1.6 OUTLINE OF PHD ....................................................................................................................................... 25
1.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 2: STUDYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER
FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IN EUROPE: A META-ANALYSIS OF 89 JOURNAL
ARTICLES ........................................................................................................................................... 37
2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 38
2.2 THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE .............................................................................................. 39
2.3 STUDYING EU POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................ 43
2.4 METHODS AND DATA ............................................................................................................................... 45
2.5 PUBLICATION PATTERNS: WHO PUBLISHES WHEN AND WHERE? ............................................... 49
2.6 MAPPING SCHOLARLY INTEREST: COUNTRIES, POLICY LEVELS, THEMES ............................. 54
2.7 STUDYING WFD IMPLEMENTATION: THEORY AND METHODS .................................................. 62
2.8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 70
2.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 3: UNDERMINING EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GOALS?
THE EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND THE POLITICS OF
EXEMPTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 86
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 87
3.2 DATA AND METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 89
3.3 NEGOTIATING THE WFD: OPPOSING VIEWS ..................................................................................... 91
3.3.1 Ambitions and deadlines ................................................................................................................... 91
3.3.2 Implementation costs ....................................................................................................................... 93
3.3.3 Negotiating exemptions ..................................................................................................................... 94
3.3.4 The case of deadline extensions ..................................................................................................... 94
3.3.5 The case of disproportionality ........................................................................................................ 96
viii
3.4 THE COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: A TECHNICAL DEBATE OVER A POLITICAL
ISSUE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 97
3.4.1 Discussing exemptions in the CIS .................................................................................................. 98
3.4.2 Disagreements on disproportionality assessments in the preparation phase ............... 99
3.4.3 Reasons for the failure to come to an agreement on exemptions .................................... 102
3.5 BEYOND POLICY: THE PRAGMATISM OF THE WFD IMPLEMENTATION ................................. 103
3.6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 105
3.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 107
CHAPTER 4: JUSTIFYING EXEMPTIONS THROUGH POLICY APPRAISAL:
ECOLOGICAL AMBITIONS AND WATER POLICY IN FRANCE AND THE UNITED
KINGDOM ........................................................................................................................................ 114
4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 115
4.2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 117
4.2.1 Scale ........................................................................................................................................................ 118
4.2.3 Screening .............................................................................................................................................. 119
4.2.4 Costs and benefits data .................................................................................................................... 119
4.2.5 Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................................... 119
4.2.6 Additional parameters ..................................................................................................................... 119
4.3 DATA AND METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 120
4.4 POLITICAL AMBITIONS AND OBJECTIVE SETTING IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE .................... 121
4.4.1 England .................................................................................................................................................. 121
4.4.2 France .................................................................................................................................................... 123
4.5 OPERATIONALISING DISPROPORTIONALITY ANALYSES .............................................................. 124
4.5.1 Scale ........................................................................................................................................................ 125
4.5.2 Screening procedure ......................................................................................................................... 126
4.5.3 Costs and benefits data .................................................................................................................... 129
4.5.4 Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................................... 132
4.5.5 Additional parameters ..................................................................................................................... 133
4.5.6 Summary of our findings ................................................................................................................. 135
4.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 138
4.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 139
CHAPTER 5: THEORISING DIFFERENT USES OF POLICY APPRAISAL: WATER
REGULATION IN THE UK AND FRANCE ........................................................................... 145
5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 145
5.2 THEORY ...................................................................................................................................................... 147
5.3 CASES, DATA AND METHODS ............................................................................................................... 149
5.4 WATER REGULATION IN ENGLAND ................................................................................................... 151
5.4.1 The politics stream: the political context ................................................................................. 151
5.4.2 The problem stream: squaring the circle ................................................................................. 152
5.4.3 The policy stream: finding a solution ........................................................................................ 154
5.4.4 The process stream: justifying water policy decisions ........................................................ 155
5.5 WATER REGULATION IN FRANCE ....................................................................................................... 156
5.5.1 The politics stream: the political context ................................................................................. 157
5.5.2 The problem stream: the ambitions of French water policy ............................................. 158
5.5.3 The policy stream: a preference for a specific solution ...................................................... 159
5.5.4 The process stream: justifying water policy decisions ........................................................ 161
5.6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 162
5.7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 164
5.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 166
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 172
6.1 SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 174
ix
6.1.1 Academic context: the existing social science literature on WFD implementation in
member states ................................................................................................................................................. 174
6.1.2 Objective 1: unveil the motives, beyond evidence-based policy making, of the various
EU institutions for recommending a specific economic analysis ............................................... 175
6.1.3 Objective 2: determine whether and how the choices made for the economic
appraisal impacted the decision-making process domestically .................................................. 175
6.1.4 Objective 3: unveil the processes underpinning decision making and the role of
appraisal tools therein ................................................................................................................................ 176
6.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................................................ 177
6.3 INSIGHTS FOR POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 181
6.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 182
6.5 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ........................................................................................................ 183
6.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 184
APPENDIX A: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ............................................................................. 188
APPENDIX B: LIST OF POLICY DOCUMENTS ................................................................. 190
APPENDIX C: CODEBOOK ....................................................................................................... 215
APPENDIX D: UPDATE OF THE META-ANALYSIS ........................................................ 216
APPENDIX E: WFD NEGOTIATION HISTORY ................................................................. 220
APPENDIX F: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSES
PERFORMED IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE ........................................................................ 221
x
List of Tables

Table 1: Our sample ............................................................................................................................. 46
Table 2: Number of studies per policy level ................................................................................ 56
Table 3: Number of studies per country and WFD theme ....................................................... 70
Table 4: Position of each institution during the negotiation ................................................... 97
Table 5: Synthesis of findings ........................................................................................................ 136
Table 6: Interviewees ........................................................................................................................ 187
Table 7: Documents used in Chapter 3 ....................................................................................... 189
Table 8: Documents used in Chapter 4 ....................................................................................... 202
Table 9: Documents used in Chapter 5 ....................................................................................... 208
Table 10: Codebook used for the meta-analysis ...................................................................... 214
Table 11: Articles added to the sample ....................................................................................... 215
Table 12: Main steps of the WFD negotiation process .......................................................... 219