The European Green Deal: What Prospects for Governing Climate Change With Policy Monitoring?

The European Green Deal (EGD) puts forward and engages with review mechanisms, such as the European Semester and policy monitoring, to ensure progress towards the long-term climate targets in a turbulent policy environment. Soft-governance mechanisms through policy monitoring have been long in the making, but their design, effects, and politics remain surprisingly under-researched. While some scholars have stressed their importance to climate governance, others have highlighted the difficulties in implementing robust policy monitoring systems, suggesting that they are neither self-implementing nor apolitical. This article advances knowledge on climate policy monitoring in the EU by proposing a new analytical framework to better understand past, present, and potential future policy monitoring efforts, especially in the context of the EGD. Drawing on Lasswell (1965), it unpacks the politics of policy monitoring by analysing who monitors, what, why, when, and with what effect(s). The article discusses each element of the framework with a view to three key climate policy monitoring efforts in the EU which are particularly relevant for the EGD, namely those emerging from the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (now included in the Energy Union Governance Regulation), as well as related processes for illustration. Doing so reveals that the policy monitoring regimes were set up differently in each case, that definitions of the subject of monitoring (i.e., public policies) either differ or remain elusive, and that the corresponding political and policy impact of monitoring varies. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the findings for governing climate change by means of monitoring through the emerging EGD

Parteiendifferenz in der lokalen Klimapolitik? Eine empirische Analyse der hessischen Klima-Kommunen

Machen Parteien für die Klimapolitikgestaltung einen Unterschied? Diese Frage ist nicht nur angesichts des auf nationalen Beiträgen basierenden globalen Klimaregimes relevant, sondern auch, da die Klimapolitik häufig als stärker parteipolitisiert wahrgenommen wird als die Umweltpolitik im Allgemeinen. Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage auf der kommunalen Ebene nach, die bislang in der Forschung zur umweltpolitischen Parteiendifferenzhypothese selten Beachtung findet. Am Beispiel des Bundeslandes Hessen prüfen wir erstens, ob Parteiendifferenzen eine Rolle für den Beitritt der hessischen Städte und Gemeinden zum Klimanetzwerk „Hessen aktiv: Die Klima-Kommunen“ spielen. Zweitens prüfen wir, ob die Erstellung der obligatorischen Aktionspläne unter den Mitgliedern des Netzwerks mit Parteiendifferenzen in Zusammenhang steht. Die Untersuchung beruht auf einer Ereignisdatenanalyse der hessischen Städte und Gemeinden über den Zeitraum von 2009 bis 2020. Die Ergebnisse deuten an, dass von Grünen (Ober‑)Bürgermeister*innen regierte Städte und Gemeinden eher den Klima-Kommunen beitreten. Allerdings finden wir keine Hinweise darauf, dass sich die Erstellung der Aktionspläne, und damit ein konkreteres klimapolitisches Engagement, auf die Parteizugehörigkeit der (Ober-)Bürgermeister*innen zurückführen lässt. Allerdings zeigt sich, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Erstellung eines Aktionsplans mit der Stärke der Grünen in der Gemeindevertretung steigt. Diese heterogenen Ergebnisse lassen erkennen, dass die Parteiendifferenzhypothese auch zur Erklärung von Unterschieden in der kommunalen Klimapolitik beitragen könnte und dass weiterer Forschungsbedarf hierzu auf der lokalen Ebene besteht

Harder soft governance in European climate and energy policy: exploring a new trend in public policy

While various forms of soft governance have been long in the making, there is a growing introduction of new policy elements in order to ‘harden’ soft governance arrangements. These new forms of ‘harder’ soft governance (HSG) vary in the degree of hardness in different settings. This special issue aims to derive lessons for climate and energy policy on HSG by looking across other policy fields and institutions where such ‘hardening’ has emerged, including in climate policy monitoring, the EU Energy Union, the UNFCCC, the OECD, the Open Method of Coordination, the European Semester, and policy surveillance in transnational city networks. Bringing the contributions together, this introduction reviews soft governance approaches, including their hardening. It then develops a framework for diagnosing HSG, including indicators such as obligations, justification, precision, ‘blaming and shaming’ opportunities, the role of third party actors, bundling, enforcement by policy field coupling, and sanctions. The introduction then identifies driving factors of HSG, including the role of the EU Member States, a strong need for coordination, policy entrepreneurs and institutional opportunities. The lessons from this special issue provide a useful yardstick for the future development of climate and energy governance, and the use of HSG in other policy fields

What motivates and hinders municipal adaptation policy? Exploring vertical and horizontal diffusion in Hessen and Finland

Municipalities across the globe are seeking to adapt to increasing climate change impacts, such as heavy rainfall, drought, heat waves, and floods. An important question is how to support the diffusion of innovations in local adaptation policy-making. Responses often lack consideration of the diversity of municipalities and their varying needs and capacities. This article addresses this gap by analysing how internal and external motivations for and barriers to adaptation policy and diffusion vary across municipalities of different sizes in the federal State of Hessen in Germany and in Finland. Hessen and Finland have comparable population sizes and settlement structures, but their municipalities are embedded in different multilevel governance architectures and climatic geographies. The analysis builds on quantitative data from two independent surveys among Hessian and Finnish municipalities. The results show that while there are similarities and some differences among the motivations, with municipalities in Hessen focusing more on extreme weather events and Finnish municipalities more on well-being, the barriers are strikingly similar, focusing on lack of resources as well as unclear responsibilities of different governance levels and within municipalities. Size is an important factor determining the adaptation needs and capacities of municipalities in both surveys. The findings highlight the need for a clearer adaptation governance framework, support from the closest governance level and more resources, but also context-sensitive policy support that has been discussed in theory and practice

The challenging paths to net-zero emissions : insights from the monitoring of national policy mixes

To achieve its ambitious climate targets, the European Union (EU) must adopt new policies, increase the impact of existing policies and/or remove dysfunctional ones. The EU has developed an elaborate system to monitor national policy mixes in order to support these challenging requirements. Data that member states have reported to the EU over the last ten years reveal that the average expected per-policy-instrument emission reduction has declined, while national policy mixes have remained generally stable over time. This is strikingly discordant with the EU’s ambitious commitment to become carbon neutral by 2050 (‘net zero’)

The challenges of monitoring national climate policy: learning lessons from the EU

One of the most central and novel features of the new climate governance architecture emerging from the 2015 Paris Agreement is the transparency framework committing countries to provide, inter alia, regular progress reports on national pledges to address climate change. Many countries will rely on public policies to turn their pledges into action. This article focuses on the EU’s experience with monitoring national climate policies in order to understand the challenges that are likely to arise as the Paris Agreement is implemented around the world. To do so, the research employs – for the first time – comparative empirical data submitted by states to the EU’s monitoring system. Our findings reveal how the EU’s predominantly technical interpretation of four international reporting quality criteria – an approach borrowed from reporting on GHG fluxes – has constrained knowledge production and stymied debate on the performance of individual climate policies. Key obstacles to more in-depth reporting include not only political concerns over reporting burdens and costs, but also struggles over who determines the nature of climate policy monitoring, the perceived usefulness of reporting information, and the political control that policy knowledge inevitably generates. Given the post-Paris drive to achieve greater transparency, the EU’s experience offers a sobering reminder of the political and technical challenges associated with climate policy monitoring, challenges that are likely to bedevil the Paris Agreement for decades to come

The politicisation of evaluation: constructing and contesting EU policy performance

Although systematic policy evaluation has been conducted for decades and has been growing strongly within the European Union (EU) institutions and in the member states, it remains largely underexplored in political science literatures. Extant work in political science and public policy typically focuses on elements such as agenda setting, policy shaping, decision making, or implementation rather than evaluation. Although individual pieces of research on evaluation in the EU have started to emerge, most often regarding policy “effectiveness” (one criterion among many in evaluation), a more structured approach is currently missing. This special issue aims to address this gap in political science by focusing on four key focal points: evaluation institutions (including rules and cultures), evaluation actors and interests (including competencies, power, roles and tasks), evaluation design (including research methods and theories, and their impact on policy design and legislation), and finally, evaluation purpose and use (including the relationships between discourse and scientific evidence, political attitudes and strategic use). The special issue considers how each of these elements contributes to an evolving governance system in the EU, where evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in decision making

Policy monitoring in the EU: The impact of institutions, implementation, and quality

Policy monitoring is often seen as a crucial ingredient of policy evaluation, but theoretically informed empirical analyses of real-world policy monitoring practices are still rare. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on climate policy monitoring in the European Union, which has a relatively stringent system of greenhouse gas monitoring but a much less demanding approach to monitoring policies. It explores how institutional settings, policy implementation, and the quality of information may impact the practices and politics of policy monitoring. Drawing on quantitative regression models and qualitative interviews, it demonstrates that policy monitoring has evolved over time and is itself subject to implementation pressures, but also exhibits learning effects that improve its quality. In further developing both everyday policy monitoring practices and academic understanding of them, there is a need to pay attention to their design—specifically, the impact of any overarching rules, the institutional support for implementation, and the criteria governing the quality of the information they deliver. In short, policy monitoring should be treated as a governance activity in its own right, raising many different design challenges