Pathways+ to+ impact+ in+ local+ government

Pathways to impact in local government: the mini-Stern review as evidence in policy making in the Leeds City Region Anna Wesselink Phone +31-534-874237 Email a.j.wesselink@utwente.nl Un

Pathways to impact in local government: the mini-Stern review as evidence in policy making in the Leeds City

Region

Anna Wesselink Phone +31-534-874237 Email a.j.wesselink@utwente.nl University of Twente

7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands

Andy Gouldson Phone +44-113-3436417 Email a.gouldson@leeds.ac.uk Sustainability Research Institute University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT UK

Abstract

Although in recent years great emphasis has been placed on global agreements and national commitments on climate change, ultimately action on mitigation and adaptation must take place at the local level Many local authorities have to face questions of whether they should develop policies on climate change, and if so on what evidence should policies be designed and delivered This paper describes how academic research on the economics of low carbon cities (the 'mini-Stern review') helped create such an evidence base for the Leeds City Region and its constituent local authorities We describe how the response to the evidence and the pathways to impact were different in the individual local authorities and what this means for our understanding of evidence in local policy making In terms of Weiss’ (1991) classification, the study was mainly useful as argument and idea rather than being used instrumentally We find that the policy and political context in each authority determines to a large extent whether such an academic study is useable as evidence Contents and timing of the study need to align with existing policy and/or political agendas: is climate change on the agenda at all, with what priority and how is it framed We find confirmation for a relationship between the policy problem type and the role of evidence as argument, idea or data The mini-Stern study itself was only a small contribution to wide-ranging processes of informing, convincing, pressurising, etc., not just within the different councils but also within the wider communities Other contextual factors are therefore composition, agenda and activities of local civil society and the local business community Finally, it depends on the expertise of policy officers in the councils what use is made of evidence Making policy takes (much) time, translation and negotiation across levels and sectors Policy work describes how policy officers bring their diverse forms of knowledge to bear on policy questions; how this work is done is something that is learned from practice rather than from study

Keywords: climate change, low carbon policy, local government, evidence-based policy making, policy work

AUTHORS' COPY

1 Introduction

Although in recent years great emphasis has been placed on global agreements and national commitments on climate change, ultimately action on mitigation and adaptation must take place at the local level Local authorities – and perhaps cities in particular – are well placed to take action on climate change for a range of reasons As major concentrations of population and economy, they are also major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and many of them are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (UN Habitat 2011) However, as major employers, as service providers and policy makers, with responsibilities in areas such

as planning, housing, transport and economic development, and as the tier of government closest to the public, they clearly have potential to make a substantial contribution to the global response to climate change (Dodman 2009; OECD 2010; Gouldson et al 2012a; CCC 2012)

As in many other countries (Bulkely 2010), in the last decade many local authorities in the

UK have started to develop policies and take action on climate change Their ability to act is shaped by national policy in a range of ways Nationally, the UK is committed under the Climate Change Act (2008) to 80% emissions reduction in 2050 on 1990 levels, and it has legislated five-year carbon budgets covering the period to 2027 that are compatible with this long-term target These budgets set a target of a 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

by 2022 and a 50% reduction by 2027 against the 1990 baseline A national Low Carbon Transition Plan (HM Government 2009) provides guidelines to how and where the UK will achieve these emission reduction targets The national plan is based on information on the performance of a wide range of different low carbon options collated by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) The CCC is the independent, expert body that advises the UK government on climate change issues, e.g on the level of carbon budgets and where cost effective savings can be made

It is hoped – but it is neither required nor guaranteed - that local authorities will develop and deliver plans that will contribute to the realization of these national targets In 2008, the Labour government introduced a performance framework for local authorities to encourage and monitor progress in local authorities on a wide range of tasks (DCLG 2008) This framework included National Indicators (NI) for mitigation of climate change directly by the local authorities themselves (NI185) and indirectly in the buildings, industry and transport systems within the localities that they help to govern (NI186) Local authorities could choose which indicators to adopt and measure; two-thirds of authorities in England chose to sign up

to NI186 (CCC 2012; Pearce in prep.)

Since then the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has abolished the

NI, and at present there is no requirement for local authorities to set or negotiate targets to reduce their own or area-wide emissions Nonetheless, their direct emissions are regulated by other policies that seek to reduce emissions in large public and private sector organisations through incentive-based measures for developing energy management However, at the same time funding from central to local government is steadily being reduced, and councils are encouraged by the government to cap local council tax increases (CCC 2012) In some areas local governments are being given more powers and freedoms through a localism agenda that has seen devolution of some powers from national to local government, e.g through what have become known as 'city deals' (HM Government 2011) Together this means that local authorities have the opportunity (but not the obligation) to do more on climate change, but they have substantially less money with which to pursue any of their objectives Some

authorities are now struggling to do much beyond their statutory obligations, others are exploring new ways of working with private and civic actors to achieve public interest objectives

In this context, many local authorities have to face questions of whether they should develop policies on climate change, and if so on what evidence should targets be adopted and policies designed and delivered This paper describes how academic research on the economics of low carbon cities (nicknamed a 'mini-Stern review') helped create such an evidence base for the Leeds City Region (LCR) The LCR is a cluster of eleven local authorities defined by the functional economic area surrounding the city of Leeds in the north of England It has a population of 3 million people and an economy worth £52bn (roughly 5% of the total UK economy) The paper considers the way in which the evidence was co-produced by a range of actors, and the ways in which the evidence has been used by the local authorities in the LCR Before focussing on this particular case, we will first explain our understanding of the relation between evidence and policy and the work required to establish such a relationship (Section 2) Then we will describe the general policy context in which the mini-Stern study was done (Section 3) and the way in which the mini-Stern study was co-produced by academics and local policy makers (Section 4) We then explore through interviews how pathways to impact differed in the individual local authorities in the LCR (Sections 5,6) and what this means for our understanding of evidence in local policy making (Sections 7,8)

2 An interpretivist understanding of policy work and evidence

The dominant view portrays policy making as a rational cycle of selecting the effective choice (and evaluating the impact of past choices) for ‘evidence-based policy’ This depiction assumes that goals are shared amongst actors and that principles for selection, action and evaluation are agreed and can be made explicit, and preferably quantified This may apply to an area such as medical practice (Sheldon et al 2004) where goals and evaluation criteria are generally agreed However, such agreement is rare in policy making Organisations such as local authorities do not have single purposes, but are traversed by multiple rationalities, which are drawn upon by the participants in constructing agreement on courses of action to be followed In these circumstances evidence is 'good' not because of its inherent qualities, but because of its utility in 'making sense together' of real world complexity (Hoppe 1999) 'In a system of government by discussion, analysis - even professional analysis

instrumentally has less to do with formal techniques of problem solving than with the process of argument' (Majone 1989, p.7) This paper therefore follows the ‘interpretive turn’ in policy sciences to challenge the notion of a rational policy cycle In interpretative policy analyses, the object of attention (policy) is not considered an artefact, clear, fixed and created by ‘policy makers’(Freeman and Maybin 2011) but a process, a continuing attempt by a range of actors

to stabilize shared understandings and practices about issues of collective concern to allow action to take place Concurrently, extensive research has shown that knowledge is used in policy making in different ways, not only instrumentally (as data) as assumed in this rational cycle, but more often conceptually, with science introducing new ideas, or as strategic ammunition in political arguments (Weiss 1991) A key issue is then to understand what makes something ‘evidence’ One definition could be that evidence is ‘usable knowledge’ (Lindblom and Cohen 1979), but what makes knowledge useable? And how does policy work achieves this goal? With this paper, we contribute to answering the resulting empirical question 'under which conditions research gets on stage at all, and when it does what consequences it has for the resulting action' (Weiss 1991, p.308)

The 'contextual principle' formulated by Lasswell (1948) refers to these conditions It posits that 'the meaning of any detail depends upon its relation to the whole context of which it is a part' (Lasswell 1948, p.217) 'Context' is thus a central concern in the study of the use of evidence in policy making Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated that processes of

‘knowledge use’ are highly dependent on different contextual factors, exactly which ones depending on the authors' theoretical framing and the empirical scale (Steelman and Wallace 2001; Radaelli 2005; Lejano et al 2007; Fiorino 2011; Wesselink et al 2009; Lejano and Shankar 2013; Lundin and Öberg in press) Ultimately, at a macro scale everything matters, from history to technology to psychology (Goodin and Tilley 2006) However, the empircal research shows that the most salient factors are related to the political-institutional context Weiss (1991) hypothesised the conditions under which research becomes data, ideas or arguments (Table 1) These conditions are mostly part of the policy-political context, more particularly, 1) where the problem is positioned along the axis of (dis)agreement on goals and values, 2) how clearly or unambiguously the problem is formulated or framed, and 3) whether

it is on the political agenda at all

research as data research as ideas research as arguments

in situations of consensus on

values and goals

at the early stages of policy discussion

when conflict is high

when two or three

alternatives are sharply posed

when existing policy is

when decision makers (or

their staffs) are analytically

sophisticated (B)

Note: (B) denotes a bureaucratic factor (I) denotes an institutional factor (authors' interpretation of Weiss 1991)

Table 1 Weiss' hypotheses on research uses as depending on conditions (Weiss 1991)

Weiss' hypotheses therefore relate to other efforts to explain the character of evidence from problem typology and problem structuring processes: Ezrahi (1980) and Hisschemöller et al (2001) who both propose a problem typology defined by (dis)agreement on goals/values and

on means (Figure 1) Translating Figure 1 into Weiss' (1991) terminology, we interpret 'science as problem solver' and 'science as analyst' to mean 'research as data'; 'science as problem recogniser' as 'ideas'; 'science as advocate' and 'science as mediator' as 'argument' It

is important to note that moderately structured problems with agreement on goals can lead to two types of evidence use: as data or as argument Any move from top to bottom and left to right Figure 1 means a process of problem recognition and structuring, whereby the character

of evidence changes

In addition to these policy-political factors, Weiss (1991) recognises factors of bureaucratic competency (cell labelled B) and institutional set-up (cell labelled I) Through comparing the local authorities addressed in the study, we will show which (other) elements of the political, bureaucratic and societal contexts determine the character of the evidence, i.e whether the mini-Stern research became data, ideas or arguments The fact that the national context is the

same for all councils simplifies the comparison, although some councils are more connected

to, and influenced by, national developments (cf impact statement for Leeds, Section 6)

Note: UP=unstructured problem, MSP(g)=moderately structured problem (agreement on goals); MSP(m)=moderately structured problem (agreement on means); SP=structured problem

Figure 1 Problem typology and the role of science (Hisschemöller et al 2001) and

typology of evidence (Weiss 1991)

Lastly, we investigate the processes of turning research into evidence Firstly, the mini-Stern was co-produced between academics and policy officers in order to make it fit for purpose Subsequently, the mini-Stern was introduced to relevant actors inside and outside local authorities by policy officers In the study of policy making as practice (Colebatch 2005, 2006) the policy worker negotiates among the disparate players to achieve an appropriate outcome, having to deal with partial, overlapping and conflicting agendas, divided authority, political and institutional context, and fluid and ambiguous outcomes The notion of policy work captures this diversity of skills As several case studies show, this state of affairs has implications for the way in which knowledge (of any source: professional, scientific, ‘lay’) is generated and mobilized as ‘evidence’, for the relationship between knowledge, practice and organisational setting, and for the way that participants relate different forms of knowledge to one another in doing policy work (Hoppe 2005; Hoppe 2009; Colebatch et al 2010; Howlett and Wellstead 2011; Wesselink et al 2013) Crucially, policy work is political work since

‘policymaking civil servants negotiate complex streams of puzzling and powering, in which expert advice is but one parameter in a fuzzy set of undefined equations’ (Hoppe 2010, p.110) ‘Making sense together’ requires the ability to ‘to help solve the problems or realize the opportunities of diverse clients, patients, and others through the application of appropriate knowledge and skills in particular contexts' (Brunner 2006, p.135): a non-transferable skill or craft (Majone 1989) which has been referred to as phronesis (Flyvbjerg 2001) or practical

wisdom As well as substantive knowledge of the subject and of legal constraints and funding mechanisms, this requires political sensitivity and facilitation skills

After presenting the case study, we will use the above questions to discuss how this case contributes to our understanding of the ways in which evidence influences policy making at sub-national levels This is an undervalued subject in science-policy studies and in academic impact assessment where the focus tends to be on international and national policy making1 However, it is ultimately at the local levels that international and national policies are operationalized, and so it is important to understand better how policy processes work at this level and how evidence can play a role therein A possible explanation for this lack of attention is the dominant (and top-down) view that international agreements become national policies that only need to be ‘implemented’, a view which denies the need for local agenda setting and ‘contextualisation’ (Lejano et al 2007) if anything is to happen Through contextualisation, ‘as local actors get increasingly involved, the form and function of the program itself grow into greater coherence with the place’ (Lejano et al 2007 2) These processes of local policy ‘implementation’ require similar but different forms of policy work

as at the international and national levels Although this paper looks at government at a local level, it does not concern the ‘street level bureaucrats’ made famous by Michael Lipsky (Lipsky 1980) who are working on practical tasks rather than helping to make policies

As with any such study, the boundaries drawn around the co-production and impact process described here are artificial Many other developments relevant to low carbon transitions were on-going in parallel and involving many other actors: new studies, new organisations, changes

in policies and funding mechanisms, etc It is not possible to mention all of these in the short space of a paper but when interviewees indicated they were significant they are discussed After a brief outline of the national institutional context related to climate change policy, we introduce the LCR mini-Stern study and describe its co-production process To assess whether and how the mini-Stern study was used as evidence, we conducted two rounds of semi-structured interviews with local authority officers tasked with climate change issues: prior to and after the publication of the mini-Stern study These give in-depth insight into the policy making processes these officers are involved in The interviewees are referred to generically

as ‘PO’ (policy officer) to protect anonymity

3 Governing climate change in city-regions in the UK

At the local level, the government of the UK is organised into different kinds of local authority In the LCR these are (metropolitan) boroughs, cities and districts (Table 2) Part of the LCR is organised as two-tiered system, with the North Yorkshire County Council fulfilling some of the tasks of local government (Table 2) The Leeds City Region partnership was officially established in 2009 by the then Labour government in response to activities in the Core Cities Network aimed at defining the character and selling points of the big cities outside London For Leeds, the political leaders felt that one of its characteristics is that the regional connections drive development, not just the city itself The LCR is a joint committee

of the ten local authorities, with a board constituted by business leaders who work alongside

1

The latter is evidenced e.g in the current UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), the system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions to be completed in 2014 Evidence of impact on international policy attracts the highest scores, while sub-national impact scores lowest

the political leaders of the constituent authorities Some previously national decision-making

is devolved through the city-regions as ‘the government would allow those city regions that wished to work together to form a statutory framework for regional activity, including powers over transport, skills, planning and economic development’ (HM Treasury 2007)

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Policy Development Manager

Bradford Metropolitan District Council Environment & Climate Change Manager Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Climate Change Lead

Craven District Council* Carbon Reduction Officer

Harrogate Borough Council* Environmental Strategy Manager

Kirklees Metropolitan Council Head of Environment

Selby District Council* Environmental Protection Team Leader Wakefield City Council Environmental Management Officer

City of York Council Sustainability Officer

Leeds City Region Regional Policy Officer responsible for

LCR & LEP

* These local authorities have a two-tiered local government system and are part of North Yorkshire County Council

Table 2 List of principal interviewees

Until March 2012 all local authorities that now form the LCR were part of the Yorkshire and Humber Region; this covered a much bigger area than the LCR, indeed it incorporated two other city regions For many local authority officers, this was the primary network for exchange of information and collaboration, e.g to bid for funding from national government and the EU (interviews PO) At this regional scale, the Regional Development Agency (RDA)

‘Yorkshire Forward’, a non-departmental public body, was established in 1998, primarily for the purpose of economic development However, immediately after the 2010 elections the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat government abolished the Regions as administrative tier Future economic development would have to be stimulated by new Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) which were to be private-sector led but include local government representatives The LEPs would not receive any funding from central government, in contrast to the substantial budgets administered by the RDAs The Leeds LEP covers the same area as the LCR

The LCR is charged with developing an integrated economic strategy and objectives for the whole city-region However, there is a wide diversity between the different local authorities in the LCR: some are big cities regenerating with more or less success after the general industrial decline in the region (e.g Leeds, Bradford), others are mostly rural with commuter links defining their connection with the LCR (e.g Craven), in others still these two extremes are found within the same authority (e.g Calderdale) Rather than having a single powerful centre like the Manchester City Region, which has a single identity as ‘Greater Manchester’ and where there is a history of collaboration and pooling resources, in the LCR there is rivalry between the main centres for example when they compete for investment (interviews PO) Because of LCR’s economic focus, ‘the relevance of low-carbon transitions for the city region will always depend on its relevance to the economy’ (interview PO) Indeed, the mini-Stern helps to re-frame climate change concerns by focussing on the economic value of potential investments The LCR was proactive in developing this link, e.g by applying for funding for the mini-Stern study from the Local Carbon Framework Pilot Programme run by the

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Focused on local government, this programme sought to ‘look at different approaches to tackling climate change by reducing carbon emissions from homes, businesses and transport’ It is one of the ways in which the national government endeavours to ensure that the emission reduction targets are achieved The funding application was coordinated by a LCR policy officer in collaboration with policy officers from the LCR local authorities

4 The LCR mini-Stern study: co-produced in context

After receiving this funding in 2010, a policy officer of the LCR approached one of the authors of this paper, Andy Gouldson, to commission a ‘Low Carbon Economic Analysis’ for the LCR (Gouldson et al 2012) The substantial aim of this analysis was to see if an economic, business or social case can be made for investing in a low carbon economy, and if

so, how major scale investments in low carbon technologies at the local level could be stimulated, secured, structured and delivered (Gouldson et al 2012, Gouldson et al forthcoming) The study would compare the technical feasibility and the economic desirability of different pathways towards a low carbon economy at both the city-region and local scales The study was nicknamed ‘mini-Stern’, with reference to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (Stern et al 2007) Other regional ‘mini-Sterns’ had already been conducted, e.g for the Manchester City Region (Deloitte 2008) and Liverpool City Region (Regeneris Consultants, 2009) Echoing the Stern Review, these studies concluded that it pays to promote a transition to a low carbon economy, since investing now could avoid higher costs later For example, in the Manchester City Region there could be ‘a potential loss of £20bn to the economy [ ] if it fails to adopt [a low carbon policy] However,

it is also clear that this agenda could present a significant economic opportunity for the City Region if it takes early action’ (Deloitte 2008 5)

These previous studies had attracted a lot of media attention They had reinforced the importance of environmental concerns, and especially low carbon transition issues, on the respective political agendas: for the UK, the Stern Review had provided an economic rationale to support the adoption of the Climate Change Act (2008), and in Manchester ‘the approach provided the platform for successful partnership working, with council leaders often pointing to the Manchester mini-Stern as providing the confidence and context for bold ambitions’ (LCR, 2010 2) The LCR hoped that the mini-Stern for the Leeds City Region would provide similarly compelling evidence to the business community as well as economic policy makers for tackling climate change through investment in low carbon measures

In their turn, the academic researchers felt that they could improve on the previous mini-Stern studies to develop a better method for analysis at the city scale in various contexts (Gouldson

et al, forthcoming) The improved method uses data and models from the Committee on

Climate Change and other government datasets to identify and evaluate the performance of different interventions It considers the scope for deploying any particular measure in the domestic, commercial, industrial and transport sectors of the LCR by ranking them into league tables of the most cost-effective and carbon-effective measures that can be deployed in the area under study Since the publication of the LCR mini-Stern, the same approach has been or is being used for other city regions around the UK such as Hull, Sheffield and Birmingham, and internationally with pilots run in Asia and Latin America

The headline findings of the study for the whole LCR are presented as follows:

- £5.4 billion (10% of GDP) left the LCR economy in 2010 through payment of the energy bill This figure is forecast to grow to £7.24 billion by 2022

- There is a commercially attractive opportunity to bring £4.9 billion of investment into the LCR economy to exploit cost effective low carbon and energy efficient options

- Such investments would pay for themselves in 4 years, cutting LCR energy bills by £1.2 billion a year

- They would also create 4,443 jobs and an extra £211 million in GDP every year

- When combined with the decarbonisation of electricity, and the response to higher energy prices, exploiting the cost-effective measures would lead to a 36% reduction in CO2 emissions from the city-region by 2022

As a direct result of suggestions from local authorities, these headline figures and the league tables of cost-effective and carbon-effective measures were broken down to produce a report for each of the local authorities within the LCR in order to facilitate local recognition

For the LCR the strategic aim of the study was to put the low carbon economy on the LEP agenda and to provide a convincing framework and direction for the choices that would have

to be made (mini-Stern Steering Group 14-1-11) The funding proposal to the Local Carbon Framework Pilot Programme states that:

‘Any investment decision taken, in both the public and private sector, needs to be based on a firm economic business case, backed up with locally relevant data Particularly in the current financial context, it is vital to demonstrate the cost benefit analysis of inaction and various policy/implementation responses selected Only in this reasoned manner will we be able to secure wide engagement and commitment to the Local Carbon Framework and wider activities As the city region moves towards a Local Enterprise Partnership, the private sector will also need to have confidence that investment in low carbon infrastructure is an efficient use of funding that can provide jobs and increase the bottom line.’ (LCR 2010, p.1)

From the start, the research process of the mini-Stern study was aimed at producing 'usable knowledge' (Lindblom and Cohen 1979) The mechanisms to ensure this were twofold: a Steering Group was established with members from the LCR, two local authorities, industry and pressure groups, and there was regular contact between the LCR policy officer and the principal researcher Choices in the research methods and presentation were discussed in these interactions In addition, a communications consultancy was hired to design the output and advise on ways of presenting the outcomes in an accessible form, a high profile event was organised to present the report, and the report was reported extensively in the local media The representation from two local authorities on the Steering Committee suggests that these councils (or more precisely the relevant officers in these councils) believed the mini-Stern study was important After the publication of the study, the research team was invited to present the results to various local authority committees and panels both within and outside the LCR, and to a number of external events such as industry panels, public consultations and neighbourhood groups We will now focus on the resulting impacts of the mini-Stern study in different local authorities

5 Policy work for low carbon transitions in the Leeds City Region

The aim of the research presented in this paper is not just to assess whether the mini-Stern report had been used as evidence, but also how it was used, and why it was (not) used As we

argued above, answering these questions requires an understanding of the political,

bureaucratic and societal context in which policy officers achieve objectives, and of the role evidence plays in their work To elucidate this context, prior to the release of the mini-Stern

we conducted interviews with officers tasked with climate change issues in the LCR and in each of the ten local authorities within it (Table 2) Contact names in each local authority were provided by the LCR In one local authority, a scrutiny officer was interviewed as well; this provided a useful ‘second opinion’ sketching other details of policy making in that local authority but yielding the same overall picture In some cases, the officer contacted had invited a colleague whom (s)he felt would be able to add information, resulting in a double-interview The interviews were loosely structured around the main questions listed in Box 1 (see Annexe 1 for details) The interview structure was pared down to resemble a conversation rather than a list of questions; the questions were woven into the conversation at moments when they logically fitted Interviews lasted between 1 and 2 hours and were fully transcribed We will summarise findings of these interviews across the local authorities

What is the goal of your organisation regarding the low carbon economy?

How does it achieve this?

What are your own tasks in this?

How do you achieve these?

Where can you see your organisation’s climate change agenda going?

What key factors influence this? What impact do you think the mini-Stern study will have?

Box 1 Baseline interview questions (for details see Annexe 1)

Approximately 3 months after the publication of the mini-Stern the same officers were approached for a telephone interview to discuss the impact of the study; out of 11 officers interviewed previously 6 responded to this request These non-responses are discussed in Section 6 The second interviews were semi-structured with four leading questions (Box 2) and took between 30-45 min Follow up visits to their workplace were organised in three local authorities where the impact process was relatively complex in order to draw pathways to impact (Figure 2 to Figure 4) The results of these interviews are presented for individual authorities to enable a closer look at factors that determine whether, how and why the mini-Stern was used as evidence

What impact did the mini-Stern report have?

How did this happen (processes)?

Why did it (not) have impact?

What else needs to be done for it to have more impact, if appropriate?

Box 2 Post-publication interview questions

From the first round of interviews it is apparent 1) that the objectives and relative priority of the low carbon agenda is different in each local authority, and 2) that it is often not explicitly labelled as such An indication of the way in which councils frame this issue can be glanced from the different job titles of the officers interviewed: they work on ‘sustainability’,

‘environmental protection’, ‘carbon reduction’ etc (Table 1) Most councils adopted carbon reduction targets for their area that are similar to those set for the UK as a whole in the Climate Change Act, a few have only internal carbon reduction targets originating in NI185, one has no explicit targets According to interviewees in some authorities, the rhetoric exists but there is no budget beyond statutory duties, in yet other authorities much was being done and the issue was high on the political agenda across parties In one case (Kirklees) this has

been the situation for many years: this is one of the well-known UK’s forerunner councils in environmental matters

The main factors contributing to a high priority for environmental matters that were identified

by the interviewees are high level leadership from elected Members (the Leader of the Council, the environment portfolio holder) and/or the Chief Executive, statutory obligations

to act, and peer pressure from other authorities Although the National Indicator system was abolished, many authorities continue to gather the data and pursue the targets set at the time The current statutory obligation affecting most authorities in LCR is the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a legal obligation with a range of incentive measures that applies to all large energy users in the public and private sectors2 However, officers generally feel that the amounts payable under the CRC were not sufficient to act as a driver for change, although it raises consciousness about energy bills and possibilities to reduce them An example of peer pressure is the so-called 10-10 commitment to cut CO2 emissions by 10% implemented in

20103 Although this raised the issue of carbon reduction on the political agenda, in many authorities the effect had been to interrupt on-going well-planned projects in order to achieve the short term 10-10 goals The short-termism is generally most pronounced in councils where the balance of power can swing with every election: councillors felt they needed to produce highly visible results, which were often not in the environmental domain, rather than work on longer term programmes

The relative importance of environmental issues in general, including climate change, is evident from the fact that all but one local authority is not reducing staffing on this issue in a time of severe budget and personnel cuts However, at the time of the interviews many local authorities were reorganising and in several cases the officer interviewed in round 1 was not sure who would be responsible for the low carbon agenda in 6 months' time Interviewees felt this would set back development and implementation of policies even if the political commitment would remain the same Whether the environmental agenda is weak or strong, implementation of environmental measures nearly always depends on collaboration with other departments responsible e.g for schools, roads or planning, so environmental officers have to

be good networkers; hence the detrimental effect of re-organisation In addition, even if environmental issues are high on the political agenda, this does not mean that budget is available for concrete measures Whether the environmental agenda is strong or not, economic and financial arguments therefore need to be convincing as this is the only way to persuade other departments or external parties to change their practices Prior to the publication of the mini-Stern, most interviewees felt that the study would help to make this financial and economic case for investment in low carbon measures to other departments, to politicians, and to the wider community We now turn to their post-publication assessment of the usability of the study

6 The mini-Stern as evidence

The mini-Stern uses models and data that have been developed for/by highly credible national bodies (the Committee on Climate Change) to generate locally specific projections However,

2

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (formerly known as Carbon Reduction Commitment), a mandatory scheme aimed at improving energy efficiency and cutting emissions in large public and private sector organisations through allocation of carbon emission allowances and fines when these are exceeded

3

http://www.1010global.org/uk

does this mean that the mini-Stern is ‘usable knowledge’ (Lindblom and Cohen 1979) for policy and action at local and regional levels? From the second round of interviews, it appears that the answer is positive in approximately half of the local authorities and in the LCR itself However, the ways in which the study was used (as data, ideas or arguments) and the pathways along which it travelled from its entry points were different in each of the authorities This reflects the fact that different authorities have different structures, priorities, and ‘ways of working’ For example, formal scrutiny panels are important in Calderdale, while stakeholder engagement is more institutionalised in Leeds and York The six individual cases described below show how the use of the mini-Stern as evidence varies between authorities

We reiterate that we were not able to extract information about the reception of the mini-Stern from five local authorities Although we cannot know the exact reasons, the first round of interviews with councils that did not respond in the second round indicates that the mini-Stern would probably be irrelevant to policy developments, either because 'environment' has a low priority and only statutory duties are attended to, or, as in the case of Selby, because climate change was framed primarily as an adaptation problem because of the increased occurrence of flooding, so the mini-Stern’s emphasis on mitigation meant it was not useful It is likely that these officers felt they had no story to tell and therefore did not respond The mini-Stern reframes 'climate change' from an environmental to an economic issue and should therefore

be of interest to all councils, but this has apparently not been communicated enough In addition, in some of these local authorities re-structuring and budget cuts meant that the interviewees in round one were unsure who would be responsible to take the mini-Stern forward It is therefore likely that the report did not land on the right desk when it was finally published, and if combined with a low priority, no one else would take the initiative to do this Finally, Craven presents in interesting case No formal climate change targets are set here, yet much funding and effort is put into implementing concrete measures This can be interpreted

as a structured problem (SP), where no arguments are needed, and the mini-Stern does not provide any data to help activities

Impact statements

The six ‘impact statements’ below are summarised from the second round of interviews and checked by the interviewees Our interpretation of the character of evidence in [square brackets] intersperses the statements to facilitate analysis As explained by several interviewees, the detailed findings of the mini-Stern are never used because though they act as

a useful guide they could not be used as the basis for micro-level decision making When they indicate that the report provides 'evidence' this therefore means that general proof was provided that a low carbon economy is feasible Therefore we have assessed their statements

on 'providing evidence' to mean the mini-Stern was used as 'argument' since it reinforces the case for low carbon investments, rather than as 'data'

Leeds City Region The purpose of the mini-Stern was to provide a robust and credible

business case for the LEP and it has achieved this Before the mini-Stern report, the LCR agenda was focussed exclusively on the economy The study put climate mitigation on the agenda: it showed that a low carbon economy might be a win-win proposal to advance both climate mitigation and economic objectives [reframing: mini-Stern as idea] Getting funding for the mini-Stern meant that money, i.e support, was now available for climate change work, which in turn raised its political profile within the LCR [mini-Stern as argument] The framing of the mini-Stern outcomes in economic and investment terms meant that it seamlessly fits into the main LCR concerns Another reason for a higher profile was the