id,collection,dc.contributor.author,dc.contributor.contact,dc.contributor.firstReferee,dc.contributor.furtherReferee,dc.contributor.gender,dc.date.accepted,dc.date.accessioned,dc.date.available,dc.date.issued,dc.description,dc.description.abstract[de],dc.description.abstract[en],dc.format.extent,dc.identifier.uri,dc.identifier.urn,dc.language,dc.rights.uri,dc.subject,dc.subject.ddc,dc.title,dc.title.subtitle,dc.title.translated[de],dc.title.translatedsubtitle[de],dc.type,dcterms.accessRights.dnb,dcterms.accessRights.openaire,dcterms.format[de],refubium.affiliation[de],refubium.mycore.derivateId,refubium.mycore.fudocsId "4403f991-4b2e-4088-951c-f30c1c7fb1b0","fub188/14","Ferretti, Johanna","Johanna.Ferretti@thuenen.de","Prof. Dr. Thurid Hustedt","Dr. Klaus Jacob","w","2017-11-17","2018-06-07T15:46:52Z","2017-12-15T12:35:11.865Z","2017","SUMMARY 1 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 2 FIGURES, TABLES, ABBREVIATIONS 7 Figures 7 Tables 7 Abbreviations 8 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Policy Impact Assessments and the Environmental Dimension 9 1.2 Entry Points for Environmental Consideration 11 2 PROBLEM DEFINITION, RESEARCH QUESTION, AND STATE OF RESEARCH 13 2.1 Problem Definition and Research Question 13 2.2 State of Research 15 2.2.1 Evidence on the Consideration of the Environmental Dimension in IA 15 2.2.2 Factors Shaping the Consideration of the Environment Dimension 17 2.2.2.1 IA System 17 2.2.2.2 Organisational Context 19 2.2.2.3 Actors and Use of IAs 19 2.2.2.4 IA Process 20 2.2.2.5 Methodological-Technical Issues 21 2.2.2.6 Underlying Logic of IA 22 2.2.3 How Can Environmental Consideration in IA Processes be Improved? 22 2.2.3.1 IA system 22 2.2.3.2 Institutional Context 23 2.2.3.3 Actors and use of IA 23 2.2.3.4 IA process 24 2.2.3.5 Methodological-Technical Issues 24 3 METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION 26 3.1 The Comparative Method 26 3.1.1 Selection of Case Studies 27 3.2 Data Collection and Structuring 30 3.2.1 Process-Tracing 30 3.2.1.1 Structure of the IA Processes Analysed 31 3.2.2 Document and Content Analysis 32 3.2.3 Semi-Structured Interviews 33 4 THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK – OPERATIONALISING IA PROCESSES 35 4.1 Introduction to Actor-Centred Institutionalism 35 4.2 Institutional Context 36 4.2.1 Operationalisation 37 4.2.1.1 Political system 37 4.2.1.2 IA system 38 4.3 Actors 40 4.3.1 Capabilities 40 4.3.2 Action Orientation 40 4.3.3 Operationalisation 42 4.3.3.1 Capabilities 42 4.3.3.2 Preferences of IA Actors 42 4.3.3.3 Interaction Orientation 43 4.4 Actor Constellation 44 4.4.1 Form of Interaction 44 4.4.2 Operationalisation 45 4.4.2.1 Provisions for Coordination 45 4.4.2.2 Departments’ Decision-Making Autonomy 45 4.5 Non-Institutional Context 46 4.5.1 Operationalisation 46 4.5.1.1 Problem Structure 46 4.5.1.2 Origin and Maturity of the Policy 48 4.6 Level of Environmental Consideration 48 4.6.1 The Environmental Evidence-Base 48 4.6.2 Operationalisation 48 4.6.2.1 Environmental Evidence-Base 48 4.6.2.2 Transparency of the Analysis 49 4.6.2.3 Coherence 50 4.7 Brief Critical Account of Using Actor-Centred Institutionalism for Studying IA Processes 51 4.8 Overview of the Research Design 53 5 THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS OF THE IA PROCESSES 55 5.1 Policy- Making in Great Britain 55 5.1.1 Political System 55 5.1.2 Interaction Patterns 57 5.2 The UK IA System 57 5.2.1 Institutionalisation 57 5.2.2 Provisions for Environmental Consideration 58 5.2.3 Guidance and Methods 59 5.2.4 Transparency 59 5.2.5 Provisions for Involvement 60 5.2.6 Quality Control Mechanisms 61 5.3 Policy-Making in Germany 62 5.3.1 Political System 62 5.3.2 Interaction Patterns 63 5.4 The German IA System 64 5.4.1 Institutionalisation 64 5.4.2 Provisions for Environmental Consideration 65 5.4.3 Guidance and Methods 66 5.4.4 Transparency 66 5.4.5 Involvement 67 5.4.6 Quality Control Mechanisms 68 6 THE FOUR CASE STUDIES 69 6.1 The Biofuels Directive and the Energy Taxation Directive 69 6.2 The IA Process on the UK 2007 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation 70 6.2.1 Introduction to the Policy field – Biofuels Policy and Production in the UK 70 6.2.2 The IA Process 73 6.2.2.1 Overview of the IA Process 73 6.2.2.2 Level of Biofuels Quota and Duty Incentives 75 6.2.2.3 Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Under the RTFO 87 6.2.2.4 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Draft Post-Implementation Review (December 2013) 92 6.2.3 Conclusion – Role of the IA Process for Environmental Policy Stringency 93 6.3 The IA Process on the German 2004/06 Mineral Oil/ Energy Tax Act and the 2006 Biofuels Quota Act 96 6.3.1 Introduction to the Policy Field – Biofuels Policy and Production in Germany 96 6.3.2 IA Process 97 6.3.2.1 Overview of the IA Process 97 6.3.3 Financing Biofuels Production 98 6.3.3.1 The Conflict and Actor Constellation 98 6.3.3.2 The 2002 Mineral Oil Tax Act – Tax Exemptions for Biofuels 101 6.3.3.3 IA and Wider Evidence- Base 101 6.3.3.4 The 2006 Energy Tax Act – Taxes on Biofuels 106 6.3.3.5 IA and Wider Evidence-Base 108 6.3.3.6 IA in the Decision-Making Procedure 109 6.3.4 Level of Biofuel Quota 111 6.3.4.1 The Conflict and Actor Constellation 111 6.3.4.2 IA and Wider Evidence-Base 116 6.3.4.3 IA in the Decision-making Procedure 117 6.3.5 Conclusion – Role of the IA Process for Environmental Policy Stringency 117 6.4 The Waste Framework Directive 121 6.5 The IA Process on the 2011 (England and Wales) Waste Regulations 123 6.5.1 Introduction to the Policy Field – Waste Management and Policy in England 123 6.5.2 IA Process 125 6.5.2.1 Overview of the Actor Constellation 125 6.5.2.2 Overview of the IA Process 127 6.5.2.3 Separate Collection 130 6.5.2.4 Implementing the Waste Hierarchy 137 6.5.2.5 Household and Demolition Waste Targets (50% and 70%) 142 6.5.3 Conclusion – Role of the IA Process for Environmental Policy Stringency 148 6.6 The IA Process on the German 2012 Circular Economy Act 151 6.6.1 Introduction to Waste Policy and Management in Germany 151 6.6.2 IA Process 153 6.6.3 Overview of the Actor Constellation 153 6.6.3.1 Overview of the IA Process 155 6.6.3.2 Overview of the IA 156 6.6.3.3 Separate Collection of Waste, Recycling Bin, and Return Obligations 159 6.6.3.4 Household and Demolition Waste Targets (50% and 70%) 169 6.6.3.5 Waste Hierarchy and Heating Value Criterion 172 6.6.4 Conclusion – Role of the IA Process for Environmental Policy Stringency 176 7 DISCUSSION 178 7.1 Relevance of Institutions, Actors, and Non-Institutional Factors for Environmental Consideration 178 7.1.1 Institutional Context 178 7.1.1.1 Political System – Veto Players 178 7.1.1.2 IA System 180 7.1.2 Non-Institutional Factors 183 7.1.2.1 Problem structure 183 7.1.2.2 Origin of the Policy 186 7.1.3 Actors 187 7.1.3.1 Resources and Assertiveness of the Actors 187 7.1.3.2 Organisational Background 188 7.1.3.3 Departments’ Work-Profile 190 7.1.3.4 Interaction Orientation 190 7.1.3.5 Involvement of Environmental Actors in IA 192 7.1.4 Actor Constellation 192 7.1.4.1 Provisions for Coordination and Departments’ Decision-Making Autonomy 192 7.2 How do Factors and their Interaction Shape the Level of Environmental Consideration and Environmental Policy Stringency? 193 8 CONCLUSION 198 9 ANNEX 205 9.1 Interview Partner 205 9.1.1 UK 205 9.1.2 Germany 207 9.2 Interview Guide 208 10 REFERENCES 210","The consideration of environmental issues in policy impact assessments is usually found to be weak, notably when compared to the analysis of economic aspects. At the same time, impact assessments are conceived as an instrument to promote environmental policy stringency. Against this background, this thesis examined to what extent policy impact assessment processes support the consideration of environmental aspects (extent of assessment of environmental impacts in impact assessments) and thus contribute to environmental policy stringency. The contribution of impact assessment processes to environmental policy stringency was ex-plored by means of four comparative case studies and Actor-Centred Institutionalism. The four processes were reconstructed using a process-tracing approach which was based on a content analysis of documents and scientific literature relevant for the IA processes as well as interviews with experts and actors involved in the IA processes. The following four processes were analysed: the IA processes in England and Germany on the transposition of the EU Waste Frame-work Directive (2008) – in England the 2011 Waste Regulations and in Germany the 2012 Circular Economy Act; and the IA processes in the UK and Germany on the transposition of the EU Biofuels Directive (2003) – the UK 2007 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation and the German 2004/06 Mineral Oil/ Energy Tax Act and the 2006 German Biofuels Quota Act. The following questions were addressed to the case studies: \- What is the relevance of institutions, actors, and non-institutional factors for the level of environmental consideration? \- How do factors interact in shaping the level of environmental consideration and stringency? \- How do IA processes and environmental consideration therein contribute to environmental stringency? Four key findings were derived from the analysis. First, the problem structure, so far undervalued in the analysis of impact assessments, could be identified as central factor shaping to what extent IA processes contribute to environmental policy stringency. The problem structure strongly determines to what extent actors and processes are open and allow for evidence and knowledge to inform decision-making. Second, the problem structure shapes the mode in which actors use the IA (learning, strategic, or symbolic mode) and the form of the IA analyses (e.g. used in a learning mode, IA analyses may take the form of coherence studies). Third, a high level of environmental consideration does not necessarily lead to more stringent policies - the level of environmental policy stringency continues to be determined by the preferences of actors. And fourth, impact assessments may appear in different guises and venues within one policy process. If just formal impact assessment analyses are considered, environmental consideration may appear to be weak. When however the wider policy processes and analyses are taken into account, this observation must be revised to the benefit of oftentimes comprehensive assessments with appropriate or even high levels of environmental consideration.","Der Grad an Umweltberücksichtigung in Politikfolgenabschätzungen ist gewöhnlich schwach, insbesondere im Vergleich zu der Analyse von ökonomischen Aspekten. Zugleich werden Politik-folgenabschätzungen als Instrumente zur Beförderung von Umweltpolitikstringenz verstanden. Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde in der vorliegenden Dissertation untersucht, inwieweit Politik- folgenabschätzungsprozesse die Berücksichtigung von Umweltaspekten befördern und damit Umweltpolitikstringenz unterstützen. Der Beitrag von Politikfolgenabschätzungsprozessen zu Umweltpolitikstringenz wurde anhand vier vergleichender Fallstudien und akteurszentriertem Institutionalismus untersucht. Die Prozesse wurden in einer Prozessanalyse rekonstruiert, basierend auf Inhaltsanalysen von relevanten Dokumenten und wissenschaftlicher Literatur sowie Interviews mit ExpertInnen und Akteuren der Prozesse. Die vier Fallstudien waren: die Folgenabschätzungsprozesse zur Transposition der EU- Abfallrahmenrichtlinie (2008) in England und Deutschland – in England die 2011 Waste Regulations und in Deutschland das 2012 Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz; die Folgenabschätzungs-prozesse in Großbritannien und Deutschland zur Transposition der EU-Biokraftstoffrichtlinie (2003) – die 2007 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation in Großbritannien und das 2004/06 Mineralöl/Energiesteuergesetz und das 2006 Biokraftstoffquotengesetz in Deutschland. Die folgenden Fragen wurden an die Fallstudien gestellt: \- Was ist die Relevanz von Institutionen, Akteuren und nicht-institutionellen Faktoren für den Grad der Umweltbetrachtung und Umweltpolitikstringenz? \- Wie ist das Zusammenspiel von Institutionen, Akteuren und nicht-institutionellen Faktoren für den Grad an Umweltberücksichtigung und Umwelt \- Wie tragen Folgenabschätzungsprozesse und Umweltberücksichtigung zu Umweltpolitikstringenz bei? Die Analyse hat vier wesentliche Ergebnisse hervorgebracht. Erstens konnte die bislang unterschätzte Problemstruktur als wesentlicher Faktor für Umweltpolitikstringenz identifiziert werden. Die Problemstruktur hat einen starken Einfluss auf die Offenheit von Akteuren und Prozessen und inwieweit diese erlauben, dass Evidenz und Wissen die Entscheidungsfindung informieren. Zweitens ist die Problemstruktur entscheidend für den Modus, in dem Akteure die Folgenabschätzung nutzen (lernend, strategisch, symbolisch) und für die Form der Folgenabschätzungen (im Lernmodus können Analysen z.B. die Form von Kohärenzstudien annehmen). Drittens muss ein hohes Maß an Umweltberücksichtigung nicht zwingend zu umweltstringenteren Politiken führen – Stringenz wird weiterhin von den Präferenzen der Akteure bestimmt. Viertens können Folgenabschätzungen in unterschiedlicher Gestalt und an unterschiedlichen Orten in Erscheinung treten. Wird ‚nur‘ die formale Folgenabschätzung betrachtet, kann Umweltberück-sichtigung schwach erscheinen. Werden jedoch der weitere Politik- und Analyseprozess einbezogen, muss diese Beobachtung korrigiert werden zugunsten von Folgenanalysen mit oftmals ‚angemessenen‘ oder umfassenden Graden an Umweltberücksichtigung.","230 Seiten","https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/1596||http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-5798","urn:nbn:de:kobv:188-fudissthesis000000106070-7","eng","http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/refubium/rechtliches/Nutzungsbedingungen","process-tracing||actor-centred institutionalism||case studies||waste||biofuels||environmental policy integration||IA","300 Sozialwissenschaften::320 Politikwissenschaft","Do Policy Impact Assessment Processes Promote Stringent Environmental Policy?","A Comparative Analysis between Great Britain and Germany","Befördern Politikfolgenabschätzungsprozesse zu Umweltpolitikstringenz?","Eine vergleichende Analyse zwischen Großbritannien und Deutschland","Dissertation","free","open access","Text","Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften","FUDISS_derivate_000000022896","FUDISS_thesis_000000106070"