Pattern-Heu Forum - Recent Posts

The FORUM moved on LinkedIn!

Simona Boselli — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:48:52 +0000

The FORUM has moved to LinkedIn! Stay updated on project activities by following our LinkedIn PAGE. https://www.linkedin.com/company/86955899/admin/page-posts/published/ 📢 Want to engage in discussions and share insights? Join our LinkedIn GROUP: Evaluating Environmental & Climate Policies: Methods & Practice and be part of the conversation! https://www.linkedin.com/groups/10019074/

Current evaluation practices and related challenges of policy evaluation and bridging ex-post and ex-ante in Europe

Kelsey van Maris — Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:32:44 +0000

In the context of economic evaluations for environment and climate policies, there is a need to understand the current practices and challenges in conducting ex-ante and ex-post policy evaluations and in bridging both. This study can allow to understand the challenges in bridging ex-post and ex-ante as only a few practices currently exist and identifying ways how bridging can be improved. This is illustrated by the Repository of current evaluation practices ex-post and ex-ante, and combining both, published in the Pattern website, where the study, which involves policymakers and policy evaluation practitioners, sheds light on current practices of linking ex-post and ex-ante assessments to create information flows in both directions. With this purpose, we developed a meta-analysis of relevant ex-ante, ex-post and combined evaluations, together with literature review. At hand it’s about sharing experiences on ex-post/ex-ante and bridging both, by giving an overview of existing practices so that policymakers and practitioners can learn from these. In addition D1.1 gives suggestions on areas for improvement, describing the meta-analysis, challenges and areas for improvement on bridging-ex-post and ex-ante and gives the results we can see in the previous document Excel already published. We have to admit that, during the work, we found a lack of practices on bridging ex-post and ex-ante. Indeed, multiple areas for improvement are identified for each economic appraisal process. These needs include having a link between ex-ante and ex-post experts and practitioners, promoting open data access, improving communication on complex ex-ante models and reducing uncertainty at data collection/monitoring stage and when selecting the evaluation approach. To this end, “guidelines on bridging” for policymakers and practitioners are being developed along the project. These guidelines will include the PATTERN cases along with an example of a comparative analysis, where ex-ante and ex-post data from the Belgian and Dutch building sector are compared to understand deviations in hindsight. In conclusion, this repository and D1.1 were the first step we made in PATTERN to start drafting guidelines for bridging ex-post and ex-ante. It would be good to initiate discussions with policymakers and stakeholders, to see what they expect from bridging, what they can learn from it, and what hampers them in applying this. Later on in the project, we can then have a follow-up discussion based on the guidelines we are further developing and a practical example on comparative analysis (applied to emissions in the built environment).

Forum Suggestion Box

Lorenzo Vigevano — Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:42:11 +0000

Hello there, fellow members!

Our community of practice seeks to offer relevant insights in environmental and climate policymaking; the participatory approach is the moving force of our knowledge exchanges, and your perspective is truly valuable: no one is more up-to-date on the state of the art than you!

As such, let us hear your voice to keep the Community of Practice the best meeting point it can be: if you have thoughts, suggestions, comments, or constructive feedback you'd like to share with us and the rest of the community, write your thoughts down here, in reply to this discussion.

We'll make sure to take any feedback to heart, and steer the Community of Practice accordingly. Please, do not hold back!

Thank you for you cooperation and take care!

RE: Implementation of climate mitigation policies in the aquaculture sector in Trøndelag (Norway)

Lorenzo Vigevano — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 10:28:39 +0000

Thank you for this contribution, Paolo!
You conveyed very well the centrality of the acquaculture industry in the region and the need to have a carefully balanced approach to its management; It got me thinking: with this many primary stakeholders (you mention local aquaculture businesses, traditional fishing communities, and the tourism sector) potentially having conflicting interests, what are the strategies to engage these groups in the policy-making process and mitigate potential conflicts?

Thank you!

Implementation of climate mitigation policies in the aquaculture sector in Trøndelag (Norway)

Paolo Pisciella — Tue, 28 May 2024 18:20:29 +0000

This study focuses on balancing economic development and environmental sustainability in the context of the aquaculture industry in the Norwegian county of Trøndelag. Striking a balance between these two aspects is of essence: fish farming represents an important source of income for company owners and for the host municipalities; indeed, salmon farming constitutes an average of 60-70% of the export income of the region. However, aquaculture does not come free of risks: it poses a threat to traditional fishing communities and to tourism, as the wild fish stock, particularly wild salmon, is exposed to risks of contamination from the fish farms. To tackle these challenges, the Traffic Light policy has been instituted, a system employing color-coded zones (green, yellow, red) to regulate the industry based on environmental conditions and their impact, and prescribe specific behaviours such as the expansion, reduction, or maintenance of fish farming activities. The issue raises the interest of a number of primary stakeholders, such as local aquaculture businesses, traditional fishing communities, the tourism sector, and local governmental bodies, but a far more sizable group of secondary stakeholders is affected; as previously mentioned, salmon farming constitutes an average of 60-70% of the export income of the region, hence the multiplier effects of the sector are high. Fish farms also drive one of the largest capital accumulations in the region, and a substantial industry of suppliers (particularly in the maritime sector) relies on contracts from fish-farming companies. Balancing the scales between environmental preservation and economic prosperity requires careful consideration of potential risks. Key among these are the displacement of traditional fishing communities and the potential escalation of production costs. Moreover, the transition to greener policies requires a nuanced understanding of the social implications, potential conflicts between industry and society, and the cascading effects that might stifle growth in certain sectors. To comprehensively evaluate the economic and environmental implications of policy changes in aquaculture, quantitative modeling tools like REMES-Norway and LC-IMPACT are deployed. These models allow us to analyze diverse scenarios, considering the impacts of climate policies on various socio-economic and environmental indicators. So far, the economic analysis is still ongoing; we have managed to gather preliminary results from a pilot test in the agricultural sector first. Initial results assume varied levels of productivity restoration in the sector and, as a consequence, indicate potential economic development and job creation in several industries due to ripple effects. These begin with a decrease in production costs in the agriculture sector linked to improved productivity; as such, a general increase in demand follows, which in turn leads to an increase in the demand for capital and labor whose wage rate and required return increase, ultimately leading to higher economic growth, but with a consequent price of materials. Some sectors that are mainly linked to demand for investments, with a large share of the costs allocated in materials and with important internal spiral effects (much of the input used in the sector is produced by other firms in the same field), such as the building sector, see its demand decreasing. These production areas diminish in value, while the rest of the economy benefits from the increase in productivity of the agricultural sector. While the economic analysis is still in progress, preliminary results from a pilot test in the agricultural sector suggest promising outcomes; the restoration of productivity in agriculture has a domino effect, reducing production costs, increasing demand, and ultimately boosting the economy. However, it is important to note that the direct effects and the subsequent domino effects resulting from the application of the TLS in the aquaculture sector are anticipated to be less significant than those identified in the pilot case involving the agricultural sector, due to its smaller scale. Nevertheless, our monitoring and adaptation of policies based on evolving environmental and economic conditions will continue, and we are eager to provide updates as our study unfolds.

Two financial tools (ISDE and NHF) aimed at aiding home owners in the process of making their homes more sustainable in the Netherlands

Lucia Zwart — Tue, 28 May 2024 13:54:19 +0000

This case study targets the issue of fossil energy use and associated CO2 emission from residential buildings and the need to save energy in order to lower energy bills, reduce import dependency and to meet (European) climate and energy targets. The social, economic and political context of the policy measures is as follows: • 7% of home owners in the Netherlands has difficulty to pay the energy bill and does not have the means to take the necessary, expensive sustainability measures. • With the war between Russia and Ukraine, the fossil energy prices have risen. • The Dutch government needs to meet the sustainability goals agreed upon in the EU and national climate targets as defined in the national Climate act, which has been translated into sectoral targets including the build environment. The two policy measures examined in the study aim to reduce fossil energy use in residential buildings by raising the number of renovations (insulation and installation) carried out by home owners. The first policy measure, Investment Subsidy Sustainable Energy (ISDE), is an investment subsidy by which home owners can get a return of approximately 30% on their made investment for sustainable heating systems or insulation materials. The second policy measure, the National Heat Fund (NHF), is a loan at low interest rate focused on similar sustainable measures. Without these policy interventions, the Netherlands will not meet their CO2 targets. The baseline is that residential buildings in the Netherlands used 293 petajoules of natural gas in 2021 (temperature corrected) and this needs to be zero by 2050. Both policy measures are being implemented. All home owners can apply for the ISDE through the governmental website and for the NHF there is a specific website. However, the granting process of both the subsidy and the loan are subjected to conditions. In all cases an offer from the installer or (sub)contractor for the renovation measure(s) is necessary, the measure or used heating technology needs to be pre-approved (based on an existing list), and, specifically for the NHF, the home owner needs to be in a “healthy” financial situation. The home owners need to be aware of the existence of the PAMs themselves, they are not actively approached by the government. However, in most cases the installer/contractor or mortgage advisor will inform the home owner. Up until summer of 2023, over 140.000 heat pumps in residential buildings have been subsidized through the ISDE subsidy since 2016 and more than 16 million square meters of insulation material in residential buildings have been subsidized through the ISDE since 2021. According to the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, or TNO), this has resulted in an approximate energy saving of 760 terajoule per year as a result of the measures taken in 2021 and almost 2.300 terajoule for those taken in 2022 (see figure). Incidentally, we have to specify that for both the ISDE and the NHF the number of applied applications and granted amount decreased significantly in 2021 and then increased to numbers higher than those in 2020 for the year 2022. The drop in applications is most likely due to the peak of the corona-pandemic. The subsequent peak is most likely the result of sparking energy prices due to the war between Russia and Ukraine and the bann on Russian gas. In addition, it might be related to people spending more time at home, working from home, and therefore wanting to increase their living comfort and lower their energy use. These reasons are hypothetical and have not been verified for the ISDE and NHF specifically. That said, it is unclear what percentage of these taken measures were a direct result of the subsidy. An ex-post evaluation of the ISDE subsidy (SEO, 2019) concludes that the additionality of the policy measure is most probably limited and that many of the home owners would have made the investment without the subsidy. On average, the number of home-owners that applied for an ISDE subsidy after having bought a heat pump is 23% over the last 7 years. For the National Heat fund (NHF), the number of applications from 2014 to 2019 is over 39.000. The corresponding energy savings have not been estimated in this study. The resulting energy savings would also (partially) overlap with the energy savings estimated for the ISDE. However, the number of applications and granted amount in loans has steadily increased since the start of the state funded loan. Through the last years, changes have been made to improve both policy measures in order to increase the number of applications. Examples are: simplifying the application process, using easier-to-meet criteria in application, increasing the percentage of the investment covered, altering the type of measures that are covered by the subsidy, raising familiarity with the policy measure through marketing campaigns, and lowering the interest rate of the loan. However, to what extent these changes have been attributed to the increase in number of applications is difficult to assess due to a changing context. It seems that the influence of the specific configuration of a policy measure on its effectiveness is limited in comparison to the influence of external variables such as energy prices, technological developments and familiarity with the subject due to attention in the media. Furthermore, interactions between different policy measures make it difficult to monitor the effectiveness of a single policy measure. To conclude this contribution, as soon as the study moves forward, we are going to involve policy makers to divulge the details.

G1.png

RE: Forum Rulebook

Nele Renders — Thu, 23 May 2024 17:04:51 +0000

Thanks for the information

Forum Rulebook

Lorenzo Vigevano — Thu, 23 May 2024 09:31:47 +0000

Hello and welcome to the Community of Practice!
Our international community gathers environmental policymakers, experts, researchers, and representatives from all backgrounds, personal and academic. While it is our hope and certainty that everyone will be profoundly enriched by sharing perspectives and joining discussions, it is essential to follow a few rules of common sense while engaging with one another.

Here are our 10 essentials:

Engage in Respectful and Courteous Discussions: Encourage critical thinking and diverse viewpoints, but always maintain professionalism and considerate language, even in disagreements.

Prioritize Evidence-Based Contributions: Enhance the quality of discussions by backing statements with reliable sources, data, and research. Provide citations for studies, reports, or data referenced to ensure credibility and facilitate further exploration.

Embrace Diverse Viewpoints and a Solution-Oriented Approach: Foster open dialogue by valuing differing opinions that can lead to meaningful insights. Propose actionable ideas and strategies that contribute to effective environmental policies and initiatives.

Utilize Questions and Engage in Active Reading: Enhance comprehension by practicing active reading. Carefully consider others' contributions before responding to encourage meaningful interactions and reduce misunderstandings.

Recognize our global community: Be mindful of how your words may be perceived by individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Consider the global nature of environmental issues and how your insights and recommendations may apply to various regions and cultures.

Contribute to an orderly and pleasant experience: Support forum moderators in maintaining compliance with these rules and the integrity of the forum. Follow their instructions and lead by example.

Avoid disruptive or offensive behaviour: Refrain from insulting language, hate speech, or any content that promotes violence, illegal activities, or harmful behaviour. Avoid spamming, unsolicited advertising, and irrelevant messages.

Respect Intellectual Property Rights: Do not post or share copyrighted material without necessary permissions. Notify forum administrators or moderators if you believe your intellectual property rights have been infringed.

Focus on Concepts, Not Individuals: Keep discussions centred on challenges, ideas, insights, and opinions. Redirect conversations that become personal towards content rather than individuals. Respect the diversity of sensitivity levels among members.

Exercise Care and Common Sense: While we strive to create a secure environment, we cannot guarantee the security of your personal information or content posted on the forums. Be cautious when sharing sensitive or confidential information and avoid disclosing personal details publicly.

Be warned that by participating in our forums, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to comply with these rules. Failure to adhere to these rules will result in disciplinary actions, so please, be considerate with your contributions.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding these rules, please contact the forum moderators, Silvia Rosei (rosei@ismerieuropa.com) and Lorenzo Vigevano (vigevano@ismerieuropa.com).

We hope you have a grand time with our community!
Cheerio!

RE: Agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) and eco-schemes within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the Flanders region

Lysander Fockaert — Thu, 16 May 2024 10:04:19 +0000

We, as a policy administration instution, would like to further reflect on this topic and more specifically on whether and how socio-economic evaluation methods can take the detailedness and heterogeneity of these policy measures into account.

What methods and models would be most suited for the evaluation of AECMs at the member state level?
What are the limitations of commonly applied methods and models with regards to the detailedness and heterogeneity of such policy measures?
How could we overcome these limitations within those methods and models or are there any more promising alternatives?

Could the new eco schemes replace the long-known agri-environmental measures in Flanders?

Soukaina Anougmar — Thu, 02 May 2024 13:44:43 +0000

Agricultural intensification has noticeably increased food production over time. Yet, it burdens natural resources, giving rise to environmental impacts that necessitate careful consideration. Therefore, European agricultural policies have been undergoing significant transformations to address these and other emerging challenges and promote sustainable practices. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), launched in 1962, aims to establish a European common market for agricultural products and to provide income support for farmers, amongst others, through regulation of prices and increasing agricultural productivity. The latest reform of the CAP entered into force in January 2023 and will end in 2027. The CAP's new "green architecture" includes both enhanced conditionality and places more emphasis on voluntary measures for farmers and land managers. These voluntary measures include both agri-environment-climate measures (AECMs, which already existed in previous CAP versions) and newly introduced Eco-schemes. The well-known AECMs are multi-annual (most often 5-year) contracts between farmers (or land managers) and the government. Eco-schemes are instruments in the form of 1-year ecological engagements between farmers and the government. Because of the voluntary nature of both AECMs and Eco-schemes, farmers' adoption of these measures plays a crucial role in advancing sustainable agricultural practices and addressing environmental challenges. Identifying farmers' viewpoints and preferences regarding voluntary schemes is paramount to informing local policymaking and designing more effective interventions. Therefore, within the agricultural case study of PATTERN, we aim to generate insights into the diversity of perspectives and preferences among farmers concerning the AECMs and Eco-schemes. Two different scientific methodologies are applied in the PATTERN project on the Flemish agricultural case study by the University of Antwerp in collaboration with the Flemish Land Agency (VLM): the Q methodology and Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). The Q methodology is applied to analyze perceptions regarding the voluntary measures designed for farmers and land managers in Flanders in the previous CAP. By employing the Q methodology, diverse viewpoints of farmers on the AECMs can be captured and explored. This sheds light on the barriers and motivators for adopting voluntary agri-environmental measures in the future. The unique contribution of the case study lies in its dedicated exploration of the ex-post dimension within the context of AECMs. By concentrating on farmers who have previously engaged with AECMs, the analysis sheds light on how these experiences shape attitudes toward the measures over time. Practically, the Q methodology performs an analysis of sorted 'statements'. These statements should reflect diverse opinions on multiple aspects of a specific topic. After selecting statements, they are sorted by the target group (i.e., farmers in this case) on a grid. The sorting grid is a table with a quasi-normal distribution in which participants rank the statements. More detailed information on the Q Methodology can be found in D1.2 of the PATTERN project; check the Library to download and read the full document. In the Flemish agricultural case study, we also employ Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) to explore the preferences and choices of Flemish farmers regarding the newly introduced Eco-schemes and revised Agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) in the context of the recent reform of the CAP. The findings shed light on the potential impact of these policy changes and provide valuable insights for policymakers aiming to enhance sustainability and address environmental challenges in agriculture. The Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is a survey-based methodology designed to assess people's preferences and the trade-offs they are willing to make when faced with (hypothetical) choice situations. We conducted a two-staged DCE, a stated preferences method, on a sample of 390 farmers in Flanders. A labeled DCE design was used, giving farmers the option of choosing between three labeled options: an “AECM contract,” an “Eco-scheme contract,” and a “no contract” option. A set of attributes and levels were selected, which correspond to the different elements of these contracts. After data collection via a survey, choice data is analyzed using choice models. More detailed information about the DCE methodology can be found in D1.2, available for download in the Library. The Q methodology resulted in the identification of four distinct types of farmers based on their attitudes and perceptions toward agri-environment-climate measures (AECMs): the ecological optimists, the government-aligned supporters, the erosion control beneficiaries, and the hesitant implementers. In summary, there was unanimous agreement among all types regarding the negative impact of AECMs on land value and farm production. At the same time, a collective consensus emerged regarding the measures’ positive influence on biodiversity, the measures being more attractive for farmers with a proactive stance towards environmental objectives, and the provision of and need for sufficient compensation. The ecological optimists (Factor 1) believe in the positive environmental impact but harbor pragmatic reservations. The government-aligned supporters (Factor 2) value government support and professional guidance. The erosion control beneficiaries (Factor 3) prioritize AECMs for soil erosion prevention, influenced by their regional context. The hesitant implementers (Factor 4) acknowledge practical benefits but have reservations about sanction risks and government involvement. Results of the DCE suggest that, overall, farmers are reluctant to take up voluntary measures. However, they are more likely to choose Eco-schemes over AECMs, especially when result-based. Farmers exhibit a strong negative preference towards restrictions for both fertilizers and herbicides. Flexibility attributes related to contract termination and control do not exert a significant influence for action-based contracts. Yet, for result-based AECMs, farmers show a strong preference for flexibility in control. In conclusion, the identified factors in the Q study offer valuable insights into the diversity among farmers and can be harnessed in several ways to inform policy, interventions, and research. As AECMs are voluntary measures, understanding farmers' perceptions by applying ex-post policy evaluation is vital to improving the measures' design and implementation to increase policy adoption. Overall, the DCE results contribute to the ongoing discourse on agricultural policy reforms, offering empirical insights into farmers' decision-making and preferences. The identified patterns and factors influencing the adoption of voluntary measures can inform future policy adjustments, ensuring the effectiveness and acceptance of sustainable agricultural practices in Flanders.