Renewing the Governance of innovation in Zuid Holland
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•856 views
This presentation describes a process of dealing with the issues of the governance of Innovation, and a process of Communication & Coordination: knowledge valorization & dissemination
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (8)
Ähnlich wie Renewing the Governance of innovation in Zuid Holland
Ähnlich wie Renewing the Governance of innovation in Zuid Holland (20)
Mehr von EIP Water
Mehr von EIP Water (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Renewing the Governance of innovation in Zuid Holland
- 1. Renewing the Governance of Innovation Ine Neven Province of Zuid- Holland Rachida Ftachi AnteaGroup
- 2. Energy and Water Works Action Group Renewing the Governance of Innovation Ine Neven Province of Zuid- Holland Rachida Ftachi AnteaGroup
- 3. Energy and Water Works Action Group Content 1. Evaluation: What can we learn from the 2 way process to achieve the goals of EIP-water AG EWW? 2. Confronting practice with theory What we can learn from theory? 3. Reflection: AG’s added value to the renewal of the governance of innovation? 4. Dispute: RoundTableTalk with audience: exchange of ideas and arguments for the renewal of the governance of innovation
- 4. Energy and Water Works Action Group Goals & Ambitions evaluation and reflection on a two–way - process 1. Process of dealing with the issues of the governance of Innovation 2. Process of Communication & Coordination: knowledge valorization & dissemmiation
- 5. Energy and Water Works Action Group Lessons learned Process of dealing with the issues of the governance of Innovation Pavel Misiga (EC-DG Envi HoWU)“The European Commission aims to develop laws and regulations that stimulate innovation, in order to promote systemic change and wants to improve the governance of innovation to be appropriate to sustain change and not to excite extra barriers and bottlenecks” (Milan, 2015).
- 6. Energy and Water Works Action Group Lessons learned Process of dealing with the issues of the governance of Innovation 1. to apply new governance models in practise 2. to co-create better (integrated) regulations for better results in line with improved communication and coordination 3. to involve a (duo) ambassador / governmental leader, who is policy-& market oriented ass well 4. to raise a joint, cooperative and all- inclusive multi–level governance platform with representatives from all AG-involved MSs PM said: the EC cannot attend platforms of the individual MSs To be successful in the implementation processes of cross-over innovations depends on our ability EC officials were involved in al 7 AG-partner meetings They showed their interest, commitment and loyalty to our work
- 7. Energy and Water Works Action Group What can we learn from theory? About AG meetings dealing with the issues of the governance of innovation • Confrontation with theory • Proceeding actions for renewal the governance of of innovation •Experiences shared in direct interaction between EIP- Water AG EWW & & EC •Lessons learned in AG-meetings Action Groups practice Tales from the field reflection Decide to renew
- 8. Energy and Water Works Action Group What can we learn from theory? Sayings made in direct interaction between EIP-Water AG EWW & EC-officials (PM) “The EC aims to develop laws and regulations that stimulate innovation, in order to promote systemic change and wants to improve the governance of innovation to be appropriate to sustain change and not to excite extra barriers and bottlenecks” The barriers that still hamper the implementation of water innovations are not impossible to take away. The knowledge is there, but how to address these barriers systematically is still the problem (Milan, 2015) (PM) “ we need an integral (holistic) approach to EIA-assessments of energy from water (demonstration) projects, whereby the positive effects are weight appropriately against the negative impacts, such as generation of clean and sustainable energy, avoided CO2 emissions, clean water, protection against flooding, combatting sea water level rise etc.”
- 9. Energy and Water Works Action Group What can we learn from theory? Sayings made in direct interaction between EIP-Water AG EWW & EC-officials (PM, 25 Jan’16 ) ” to generate data for the different DG’s streamlining to EIA can help. The methodology for potential significant negative impacts of a project is to find alternatives and to mitigate the potential negative impacts. However, offsetting negative impacts with positive impacts (at EU level) is very complicated, because this becomes a political or even ethical discussion. It is up to Member states to find the balance, not the EU (PM, 25 Jan ‘16) “Mind that relevance of dealing with the issues of the governance of innovation, differ between the different EC-DG’s. For DG Environment rules and procedures are relevant; Within the rules you can talk about: what is flexibility; what is early innovation PCP/ PPP; under what conditions can risks be controlled? Relevant for EC DG research is: What can be done to speed up innovation implementation?
- 10. Energy and Water Works Action Group 2a. What can we learn from theory? Consensus about relevant norms and values low high (lack off) certainty about relevant Knowledge for judging and tackling problems low Ill-structured or ‘wicked’ problems Administrative sollution Policy as learning Moderate structured problem Administrative solution Policy as negotiation high Moderate structured problem Administrative solution is depolitisation of the problem Policy as pacification (ethical issues) Structured problem Administrative sollution is formal and informal regulation Policy as a rugulating strategy
- 11. Energy and Water Works Action Group What can we learn from theory? Operational level Tactical level Strategic official level Strategic political, steering level • Instrumental accomodation, within existing frames • Adjustments in goals • Discussion about norms • Ideological adjustments of policy • paradigm shifts • Adjustments of policy strategies • Rules of the game
- 12. Energy and Water Works Action Group Reflex theory <> practice Questions? How to accommodate roles to new governance practices? Addressing barriers systematically is still the problem. Is relating them to the different levels of policy – learning a way out? Should we aim a position in special EU-working groups and / or REFIT Platform?
- 13. Energy and Water Works Action Group lessons learned on communication Multipurpose process strategy 1. Influencing (lobby) European Environmental Policy 2. Influencing European Common Strategic Framework > working program(s) Horizon 2020 3. Improving networking and cooperation 4. Improving visibility and exposure
- 14. Energy and Water Works Action Group Lessons learned 1 Influencing (lobby) European Environmental Policy requires a multilevel approach • Policy-making responsibility is shared among a variety of actors at European, national and subnational levels. As an AG we need to target all three levels. So far we have succeeded to address the barriers encountered in projects at the EU and and MS level.
- 15. Energy and Water Works Action Group Lessons learned 2 Influencing European Common Strategic Framework and the working programmes of H2020 • Influencing the content of the WP can be done at different stages in the drafting process. The further you get in the process, the more difficult it is to influence the content. So far we have influenced the WP2016-2017 to a limited extent.
- 16. Energy and Water Works Action Group Lessons learned 3 Improving networking and cooperation • There is strength in numbers: by cooperating as an EU AG we can create a shared vision and joint strategies to address concerns that go beyond the MS level (e.g. EU environmental legislation). • We need to look more into alignment or formal cooperation with other groups and networks (e.g. Ocean Energy Forum).
- 17. Energy and Water Works Action Group Lessons learned 4 Improving visibility and exposure • Communicate on our results and achievements through different channels and mediums is essential to increase the AG visibility. However, it remains difficult to fully engage the wider AG network, especially across Europe.
- 18. Energy and Water Works Action Group Conclusion In order to effectively contribute to EU-policy making we need to anchor our joint AG vision and ensure that we act as one common AG to pursue common goals and objectives on a European level.
- 19. Energy and Water Works Action Group Discussion Should we go for a green deal experiment or a real life learning process in policymaking?
- 20. Energy and Water Works Action Group Discussion Who should take the lead in the development of a joint, cooperative and all-inclusive multi–level governance platform including public-private- partnerships, non-governmental organisations and the general public (AG in the lead and/or align / incorporation in OEF (DG Mare?)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Good afternoon, Welcome to this public meeting of the EIP_Water Action Group EWW working at energizing sustainable delta’s I am Ine Neven working as a senior policy advisor at PZH in the Netherlands and I am involved in the EIP-water sinds its establishment in 2013 I present this presenttion together with Rachida Ftacht from Achema Group The European Innovation Partnership on Water facilitates the development of innovative solutions to address major European and global water challenges and at the same time, supports the creation of market opportunities for these innovations, both inside and outside of Europe. Furthermore the EIP Water aims to remove barriers & bottlenecks to innovation by advancing and leveraging existing solutions.
- In this presentation we will raise a few question for the discussion 1----2----3----4- The EIP-Water is set up to initiate and promote public-private partnerships for change and innovation in the water sector. Innovations that are intended to provide long-term solutions for the major challenges facing our society today – climate change, energy, food safety or water and yet require an effectively tailored policy framework in the short term. We need such a framework to speed up the practical implementation of innovations
- In order to contribute to the end goals of the EIP-Water, namely Smart Sustainable Inclusive Growth, OUR EIP- Action Group has initiated collaborative processes for change and innovation in the water sector across the public and private sector, non-governmental organisations and the general public ( at PROJECTS-level). The main aim of our AG is to enhance European interest in innovative crossovers between energy and water in the development of policy, markets and knowledge and to further the relevant industrial policies; to provide integrated and multipurpose ecosystem services for dynamic and valuable coastal areas (this means providing in innovative concepts, demonstration & test sites); to provide huge export potential of European knowhow and services worldwide to Delta’s around the World’s metro poles (this means building home market, international sales market). In this short presentation we are not going to focus on the lessons learned of the EIP-water AG EWW with respect to content (challenges and goals), but with respect to the process to achieve these goals. Regarding this process, we resolved a two way intertwined process strategy In order to achieve these goals: For the first process we organized several AG- partner meetings in which partners addressed issues related to the governance of innovation; That’s where I am going to talk about For the second process we developed a communication and coordination- strategy on behalf of the project leaders responsible for the international conferences and workshops wherein knowledge and experience of the projects are shared and disseminated. That’s where Rachida is going to talk about
- See attached word doc lessons learned A4- uitdelen eventueel - 2013 in Brussels with Robert Schröder :(champion of EIP-Water) Inventory of innovation barriers arranged along the phases of the innovation cycle 2014 in Brussels with Robert Schröder: innovation barriers related to the first phase of innovation cycle; Valley of Death: how to bridge the gap to real market introduction? 2014 in Brussels with Robert Schröder : EC asked AG-EWW for recommendations for prioritising themes and topics within the 2016/2017 Programs of Horizon 2020 (H2020) 2015 in Brussels with Pavel Misiga: EC asked for a test case: regulatory innovation barriers & bottlenecks, due to EU regulations 2015 in Milan with Pavel Misiga: dialogue about new governance for new economy: first AG-meeting together wit Dutch and Italian national, regional and local authorities 2016 in Brussels with Pavel Misiga Water UNIT and DG Envi Nature-Unit and Legal unit We talked about dealing with environmental legislation and consenting procedures (EIA/SEA) for ocean energy being the key challenges for the sector for obtaining a social license to operate, including problems of proportionality, lengths of these processes and the conflicts between the positive (Energy), the negative impacts (tidal range, seabed transport of sand and fish mortality) and alignment with Ocean Energy Forum. Furthermore, about reducing developers/commercial risks 2016 in Leeuwarden: Pavel Misiga not attending our meeting. But he reacted positive to the proposal of Action Group EWW, to compose a multi-actor/multi-level working group / task force with representatives of relevant EC-DG’s, MS-DG’s, RG-DG’s and CEO’s of Industry. He gave us some advise and insights about his few on how we can or should work further on the issues of governance of innovation
- I ‘ve summarized the lessons learned from this 7 AG-meetings about the issues GoI for which we invited several officials of the EC . And each time some of them To be successful – as an Action Group - in the implementation processes of cross-over innovations is dependent of our ability to apply new governance models in practise That appeals to the ? should we go for a green deal experiment or real life learning process in policymaking ? to co-create better (integrated) regulations for better results in line with improved communication and coordination That appeals to the ? should we work on further along the 2 way process of AG OR should we aim at a position in the REFIT-PLATFORM to involve a DUO-ambassador /governmental leader (who is policy-& market oriented ass well) and who is able to (a) persevere on the need for sustained systemic change being of utmost importance to build the novel green infrastructure policy (b) and help us with pre-commercial procurement to create the optimal requirements for the implementation of innovation and delivering a wide range of eco system services That appeals to the ? At what Level? EU: Pavell Misiga and/or DG R&I (or EP or Ci of the Regions?) (MS govn leaders / industrial leaders) to raise a joint, cooperative and all-inclusive multi–level governance platform with representatives from AG-involved MS That appeals to the ? Who should take the lead ? a European Industrial Initiative for Ocean Energy could be established as a follow-up to the OEF to implement the Strategic Roadmap.
- Toelichting In the last two meetings Pavel Misiga said important things, that awakened me and made me aware again of the automatic reflexes and dilemma’s of governments and policymakers involved in complex collaborative policymaking processes including public-private partnerships I have taken the following sayings made in our AG-meetings and confronted them with theoretical notions
- First I will explain the automatic reflex of (re) structuring problems and setting targets for the short term; This is done by making agreements & appointments with actors directly involved with the problems Hisschemuller & Hoppe, 1989-1993 conceptualised this as technical rationality and instrumental steering strategy This automatic reflex is mend to minimise uncertainties easily, to reduce the number of involved actors and to increase the manageability of the decision-making process. Choosing for structuring problems, implies that the problems can be solved with standardized policy-instruments and procedures (policy as rules). Furthermore, competencies and tasks of involved departments are clearly delimited and one can take advance of the suitability of optional solutions within existing policy programs. In short a structured problems pave the way to an efficient approach within a clear described time path. Government’s automatic reflect is often a non-deliberate unconscious process, despite the fact they know that to promote systemic change requires an integrated and holistic approach and that innovations are intended to provide long-term solutions for the major water & energy – challenges The political scientist Schattschneider pinpointed this reflex already in 1960 as “The supreme instrument of power” in which “some issues are organized into politics while other issues are organized out’. He described several / two patterns of this single sided approach of the policy-problem. The first pattern shows a restriction or avoidance of he number of involved actors participating in the political process. The problem is formulated in such a way that it is only solvable, by qualified experts (often the executives themselves). This becomes a problem in case some layman don’t feel respected in their expertise and integrity The second pattern shows a restriction of the number of political acceptable arguments (that are negotiable options for political choice) within assessment frames, involved actors put effort in maximizing their revenues at individual and at collective level as well. (this is a characterisation of a policy process, dominated by economic rationality). If one discusses this frame and in fact try to discuss the policy goals, one takes the risk to be set offside. This pattern is well-known from environmental problems expressed in dilemma’s like the tragedy of the commons, the prisoner dilemma , the free-rider dilemma
- Secondly I wil explain the dilemma’s that go hand in in hand with the change from government to governance in practice ; Governments have to change their roles too from setting directions , frames and priorities, and effective & efficient maintanance at a distance and at the same time offer room to maneuvre (policy space- interpretion space) for all horizontal en vertical relations, to take that responsibility themeselves (Selnes en Aalders, 2005). Finding themselfs in this transition –phase calls for questions about assumpitions and requirements of the feasability of the implementation processes. The steering at a distance strategy seems to be positioned in between the rational and instrumental steering strategy (like a mentioned before) and network steering, in which one accounts for the open ness, safe feeling for the central interests and values of participants in the process . This kind of steering strategy refers to a combination of problems and solutions, creating alliances of pro and contra ‘s, the wish to negotiate with some involved actors, the identification of hindrance-causing power and planning deciscion making processes. The choices made to mutual solutions is a result of interaction between involved partners and the eloquence of polititians.
- Third I will explain the coming up and meaning of governance as a modern steering strategy, in which talking about responsibilities and tasks is not the case any more. At present we talk about mutual understanding and taken responsibilities together in a cooperative learning process: Governance –practises developed as a consequence of 2 trends Horizontalisation of steering our society i.o.w: multi-actor, multi-sector governance (triple helix cooperation as we do in our Action group Verticalisering of steering our society i.o.w multi-level-governance . This refers to the development that decisionmaking is spread over different levels of adminitration as a consequence of globalisation, euopeanisation, regionolisation and decentralisation. Decisionmaking will not be restricted to the formel public institutions, but NGO’s and industry can manifest themselfs too at these different levels. Consequence of this governance strategy is that more organisations are involved in decision making at different levels >>>> the problem structuring and problemdefinition processes wil become more complex. In these complex situations – where it is not clear wat the problem is, policy making by learning can help. Meaning that involved actors- from multi levels – work in interaction together at structuring the complex problem and bring as much as conflicting information. As a consequence new insights for policymaking and new ways of governance will come about In one of our first AG-Partner meetings – 2014 - we concluded already that To be or not be successful in the innovation processes is not only dependent on the ability to solve the technological, economic or financial barriers, but more than anything else, the ability to apply new governance models in practise and bring about connectivity between public and private actors in de water en energy sectors. New governance is about competent decision-making and simultaneously managing and balancing the processes of fact-finding (legitimate support for decisions), image building (constructed interpretation frames) and decisive willpower (harmonising goals and ambitions). In 2014 We (AG) didn’t question the multi-level complexity yet. But in 2015 and 2016 we did; I hope we can elaborate on that in our discussion this afternoon 2015 (test case) Institutional set up to complex: too much authorities involved // lack of governmental coordination (alignment processes) 2016 Our AG Leader Hans van Breugel proposed in our last meeting with PM to compose a working group / task force with representatives of relevant EC-DG’s, MS-DG’s, RG-DG’s and CEO’s of Industry. This group could meet 2-3 times a year to discuss progress of large energy from water projects to remove barriers and align policy making. The initiative and the lead has to come from the sector/industry.
- Finally Me and my collegues at Alterra Wageningen University executed a study (Neven e.a., 006) called: directions for directives: Interactions between The Netherlands and the EC in the implementation of European Environmental directives. MS do have certian amount of freedom to interpret EU Environmental and nature conservation directives, offering them a certain room to maneuvre . This study explored the way Dutch Governemnet has taken advantage of this room to maneuve, which can be found in the content of the directives themselves as well as in the procedures and rules of the implementation processes of these directives . The outcome of a comparative analyses of these interactions in the implementation of theze directives and the outcome of reflection with peers , scientists and policymakers about the conditions to improve strategies to utilize this room to maneuvre. Recommandations among others: Try to enter the interaction – space as proactive and as soon as possible Be aware that policy learning is a cumulative and iterative process to be worked out at all (interaction) levels Build on thrustfull relations in these interactive meetings at all levels Be focused on the switching between europe and the regions and the switching fuction between expert of the content and experts in politics at different levels Bring in facts and figures from the region into european policy processes (Better regulation for better results ). sHOUD WE AIME A POSITION IN REFIT PLATFORM???
- HOW TO MAKE PROGRESS WITH THE prolongation of our AG- group process and the RENEWAL OF GOVERNQANCE OF INNOVATION? First Vice-President Timmermans, who chairs the REFIT Platform, said: "To deliver what citizens expect from us, reviewing and improving existing EU rules is just as important as making new proposals. The body of EU law must remain fit for purpose, up to date and as simple as possible. To ensure this, we need to hear the views of those who really know: the citizens, the small entrepreneurs, the public administrators who are faced everyday with the advantages but also sometimes the inefficiencies of our laws and the way they are implemented by Member States. The REFIT Platform is there to collect their views, assess them and turn them into pragmatic and operational suggestions to the European Commission."
- Influencing (lobby) European Environmental Policy through active participation in European political- and policy events, European consultations (working) conferences and dialogues with prominent politicians; (MEPs) and members of the European Commission Influencing European Common Strategic Framework > working program(s) Horizon 2020 through building up public and investor confidence in the developments of Action Group’s business cases, and subsequently the support from EIB and EC. Improving networking and cooperation by joining / connecting with EC Ocean Energy Forum, stimulation of direct involvement of European Partners and looking for linkages with national governements and topsectors 4Improving visibility and exposure by executing our communication & Coordination plan, activation of EIP’s Marketplace and showcasing our demonstration projects: projects at the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney (UK), a dam integrated RED Stack Salinity Gradient Energy project on the Afsluitdijk (NL), Tocardo’s 100kW tidal stream project (NL) and the Mutriku breakwater wave plant (S). However, large-scale exploitation is still lagging behind.