Discussion

Environmental policy in NSW went through a transition from formative phase to mature between 1979 and 2010. The formative phase reflects a time in which systems are established (EIA, regulation, planning), roles identified, laws enacted and land protected. In the mature phase, other policy instruments, in particular, education, strategies and incentives became much more important. Overall, the continuing importance of regulation is surprising given the rhetoric about moving away from this type of policy instrument (Althaus, et al. 2007). These results are consistent with the suggestion from Osborn & Anjan (2006) of the use of a strategic cocktail of instruments rather than rushing to a single instrument type to replace regulation. However, this is not resulting in an increase in the number of instrument types being used in combination over time to support policy goals, as found in this paper.

The rise in the importance of education, incentives, strategies, targets and programs in part reflects a move towards voluntary arrangements (Gunningham 2009). The importance of education shows attempts to influence the behaviour of individuals as a way of achieving environmental outcomes. It can also be a relatively low cost environmental policy. Given its rise to

prominence, the effectiveness of education-based policy instruments should be evaluated. However, as pointed out in Taylor, et al. (2012), measuring the impacts of these instrument types can be challenging as the effects are slow to materialise and difficult to attribute to a specific policy intervention.

The rise in the importance of incentives (and direct action) reveals willingness by governments to fund environmental policy outcomes. At the same time, the public’s willingness to pay to address environmental problems has declined, which perhaps reflects the mainstreaming of environmental issues within government (Ivanova & Tranter 2008). These instrument types, along with programs, show the government is seeking to take practical action to address environmental problems. Incentives are generally used when more coercive mechanisms would be too harsh (for example, in relation to households) and to compensate or as a positive reward for those affected by a policy change. An overall decline in the coerciveness of environmental policy has been observed, except in relation to toxic waste (Macdonald 2001). The rise of education and incentives appears to reflect the preferences of those impacted by policy (Bryan & Kandulu 2010, Cocklin, et al. 2007, Hatfield-Dodds 2006), and the willingness by government to tailor policy design to address their concerns. Further, Cocklin et al. (2007) suggest that the success of a policy is contingent on a dialogue with stakeholders about policy tools.

Because of the big increase in the number of environmental policies being produced by government, two instrument types have become necessary to focus attention: strategies and targets. Strategies have been used as a way of making the government’s policy clear to the public, including, as a way of communicating election commitments. This type of instrument has also been used to link a number of actions, which is important given the complex nature of environmental policy in NSW. Strategies can be relatively quick to produce if there is little tension with other policies or priorities.

Targets have been used to communicate a clear goal and signal a willingness to be held accountable. This has become important in order to send a clear message given the overall intensity of policy making. Most targets have been set

when government commits to a program of target setting (for example, natural resource management targets in 2004 and as part of State Plans) rather than being common practice in stand alone policies. The use of targets reflects the move towards evidence-based policy, as identified in Althaus, et al. (2007). Overall, these trends suggest environmental policy in NSW has undergone a transition. Foundation policies dominated early, providing the significant structural components of the policy system, including reserving land, setting up organisations, assigning roles and responsibilities and laying down rules. In the second phase more sophisticated policies built on earlier policies (secondary policies). These policies could not have been adopted without the foundation pieces. Programs, incentives and schemes are examples of secondary instrument types dependent on existing regulation and governance structures. Where policies are independent, they are more nuanced and targeted, addressing smaller gaps left by the foundation policies. Incentives, education and schemes provide a means of achieving outcomes not possible through traditional regulation. Strategies also become necessary as a way of tying together various actions. Targets are used to focus effort on an issue.

However, Cohen, et al. (1972)’s description of policy-making as a garbage can in which problems and solutions are dumped obscures the mechanics of decision- making within governments that preference certain instruments over others. When faced with a problem at a given time, there are some instruments that a government is more likely to use than others. For example, in relation to conflicts over urban development, environment groups have sought the use of environmental protection zones and protection of ever more land in the reserve system, but governments have consistently used EIA and planning instruments as a mechanism for conflict resolution.

The data does not show Labor governments preferring more coercive instruments as might be expected (Varone & Aebischer 2001). Other factors influencing the selection of instrument types could include the increasing sophistication of the field and professionalisation of the workforce, exchange of ideas with other jurisdictions, resourcing and the influence of economic theory.

The data reflects how the types of instruments available to policy makers are often restricted by previous choices, fads and other cultural factors. Policy makers must respond to a host of social, political, economic and administrative concerns when selecting a particular technique (Howlett 1991), and must also consider the way the problem is framed, political ideology and disciplinary preferences (Dovers 2005). Acceptability of an instrument further depends on broader issues including challenges posed by interest groups (McConnell 2010). It also depends on the politics, for example, the type of message the government wants to send: regulation indicates government is taking a firm line on the issue, whereas a financial incentive or education campaign send a much softer message (Dovers 2005).