presentation by benoit laplante and richard paton
Post on 09-Jan-2016
45 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Effective Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: Assessing the Resource Gaps of
Environmental Agencies
Presentation byBenoit Laplante and Richard Paton
Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network
AECEN Annual ConferenceNovember 26, 2008
Outline of Presentation
3) Capacity indicators in South East Asia
4) Assessing environmental agencies resources gaps
5) Lessons and next steps
1) Monitoring and enforcement: What do we know?
2) Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
Outline of Presentation
3) Capacity indicators in South East Asia
4) Assessing environmental agencies resources gaps
5) Lessons and next steps
1) Monitoring and enforcement: What do we know?
2) Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
M&E: What do we know?
What is the impact of M&E on firms’ environmental performance?
Question 1:
Or more generally:
What creates incentives for pollution control?
Magat and Viscusi, 1990 (US, Pulp and Paper)Laplante and Rilstone, 1996 (Canada, Pulp and Paper)Pargal and Wheeler, 1996 (Indonesia)Nadeau, 1997 (US, Pulp and Paper)Dasgupta, Laplante, Mamingi, Wang, 2001 (China)Doonan, Lanoie, Laplante, 2004 (Canada)Lin, 2007 (China)Montenegro, 2008 (Philippines)Nguyen, 2008 (Viet Nam)
M&E: What do we know?
Empirical literature (still limited):
The role of inspections:
Funded by Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia (EEPSEA)
Konar and Cohen, 1996 (USA)Dasgupta, Laplante and Mamingi, 2001 (China)Foulon, Lanoie and Laplante, 2002 (Canada)Wang et al., 2004 (China)Dasgupta, Hong, Laplante and Mamingi (Korea, 2005)Garcia, Turner and Afsah, 2007 (Indonesia)Bennear and Omlstead, 2008 (USA)Powers, Blackman, Lyon, and Narain, 2008 (India)
M&E: What do we know?
Empirical literature (still limited):
The role of information:
• Inspections reduce pollution;
• Inspections reduce the probability of non-compliance with regulatory standards;
• Inspections reduce the amount of time a firm spends in violation of regulatory standards;
• Inspections significantly increase the probability of self- reporting by firms;
• Information (public disclosure) has significant impact on pollution discharges.
M&E: What do we know?
Stylized results:
M&E: What do we know?
What is the impact of M&E on firms’ environmental performance?
Question 1:
Or more generally:
What creates incentives for pollution control?
Question 2:
What determines inspections?
Or more generally:
How does the regulator behave?
Deily and Gray, 1991 and 1996 (USA)Brooks and Sethi, 1997 (USA)Dion, Lanoie, and Laplante, 1998 (Canada)Helland, 1998 (USA)Dasgupta, Laplante and Wang (China, 2003)
M&E: What do we know?
Empirical literature (very limited):
• The potential for damages appears as a key determinant of inspections (the higher the damages, the higher the probability of inspections);
• Firm characteristics such as size and ownership also impact probability of inspections;
• Citizens complaints trigger inspections;
• Regional economic circumstances (e.g. unemployment rate) and community characteristics impact inspections.
M&E: What do we know?
Stylized results:
Outline of Presentation
3) Capacity indicators in South East Asia
4) Assessing environmental agencies resources gaps
5) Lessons and next steps
1) Monitoring and enforcement: What do we know?
2) Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
All environmental agencies in SE Asia:
Common perception: Not enough resources, staffing and expertise to implement effectively environmental regulations.
Is this true?
Question 1:
Question 2:
If true, what is then the extent of the resource gap?
The purpose of this work is to attempt addressing these two questions.
Outline of Presentation
3) Capacity indicators in South East Asia
4) Assessing environmental agencies resources gaps
5) Lessons and next steps
1) Monitoring and enforcement: What do we know?
2) Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
Capacity indicators in SE Asia
Methodology:
• Detailed survey templates were sent to:
• Chonqing, Indonesia, LLDA, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand.
• Additional request for information was sent to:
• Chonqing, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand.
• In-person interview was conducted with LLDA and Viet Nam.
Capacity indicators in SE Asia
Group of data requested:
• Pressure faced by environmental agencies:
• Number of regulated facilities;• Legal permitting and monitoring requirements.
• Response by environmental agencies:
• Capacity: Number of staff, Number of inspectors, Budget, Number of laboratories, Number of vehicles, etc.
• Activities: Number of permit issued, Monitoring activities (e.g. number of inspections), Enforcement activities (e.g. number of violation notices issued).
Capacity indicators in SE Asia
Indicators:
• Staffing indicators:
• Budget indicators:
• Number of staff per 100 sq.km.; • Number of inspectors per 100 sq.km.;• Number of staff per 1,000,000 people;• Number of inspectors per 1,000,000 people; • Number of staff per 100 regulated facilities;• Number of inspectors per 100 regulated facilities.
• Budget per 100 sq.km.; • Budget per 1,000,000 people;• Budget per 100 regulated facilities.
Capacity indicators in SE Asia
Warning:
• While it is tempting to compare one agency with another, we cannot say anything about performance. The analysis so far focuses only on inputs (staffing and budget), not on output (performance);
• This analysis is still preliminary, data needs to be verified.
• Indicators tell A story, not necessarily THE story;
Staffing indicators in SE Asia
Number of staff per 100 square kilometer
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LLDA Sri Lanka Philippines Chonqing Indonesia Thailand
Singapore: 472.10
Number of inspectors per 100 sq.km.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Singapore LLDA Philippines Chonqing Sri Lanka Indonesia Thailand
When using ‘area’ (sq.km.) as a normalization factor, perhaps small geographic areas (Singapore, LLDA) cannot be compared with large areas since even in large areas, economic activity maybe concentrated in small areas.
Staffing indicators in SE Asia
Number of staff per 1,000,000 people
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Sri Lanka LLDA Philippines Indonesia Thailand Chonqing
Singapore: 719.17
Staffing indicators in SE Asia
Number of inspectors per 1,000,000 people
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Philippines Singapore LLDA Chonqing Indonesia Sri Lanka Thailand
Staffing indicators in SE Asia
Number of staff per 100 enterprises
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sri Lanka LLDA Philippines Thailand Indonesia Chonqing
Singapore: 41.81
Staffing indicators in SE Asia
Number of inspectors per 100 enterprises
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Philippines LLDA Thailand Indonesia Singapore Sri Lanka Chonqing
Staffing indicators in SE Asia
Budget indicators in SE Asia
Total budget per 100 square kilometer
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Vietnam Indonesia Sri Lanka Thailand Philippines
Singapore: 47,250,599LLDA: 170,680
Again, sq.km. may not work so well when comparing small areas with large areas.
DONRE budget per province square kilometer
0.00
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
Ho Chi
Minc
h City
Ha Noi
Ba Ria
Vung
Tau
Hai P
huon
g
Da Nan
g
Vinh
Phuc
Hung
Yen
Hai D
uong
Bac N
inh
Binh
Duong
Can T
ho
Nam D
inh
Thai B
inh
Ha Tay
Dong
Nai
Ha Nam
Vinh
Long
Tien G
iang
Qua
ng N
inh
Thua
Thien
Hue
Ninh
Binh
Khanh
Hoa
An Gia
ng
Bac L
ieu
Phu T
ho
Ben T
re
Thai N
guyen
Tra V
inh
Tay N
inh
Dong
Thap
Bac G
iang
Long
An
Soc T
rang
Thanh
Hoa
Ca M
au
Ninh
Thua
n
Binh
Thuan
Binh
Dinh
Ha Tinh
Qua
ng N
gai
Kien
Gian
g
Phu Y
en
Nghe
An
Hoa B
inh
Binh
Phuoc
Bac K
an
Yen B
ai
Qua
ng T
ri
Lam
Dong
Lao
Cai
Cao B
ang
Qua
ng N
am
Ha G
iang
Tuyen
Quang
Dak L
ak
Lang
Son
Qua
ng B
inh
Dak N
ang
Kon T
um
Gia
Lai
Son L
a
Lai C
hau
Dien
Bien
This is also illustrated in the case of Viet Nam where we have provincial level data.
Ho Chi Minh City; Hanoi
Budget indicators in SE Asia (Viet Nam)
Budget indicators in SE Asia
Total budget per 100 enterprises
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Viet Nam LLDA Thailand Indonesia Philippines Sri Lanka
Singapore: 4,185,019
Summary indicators in SE Asia
Staffing indicators
Budget indicators
Outline of Presentation
3) Capacity indicators in South East Asia
4) Assessing environmental agencies resources gaps
5) Lessons and next steps
1) Monitoring and enforcement: What do we know?
2) Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
Assessing resources gaps
Which indicators to use to assess resource gaps?
3.1 Benchmark against another environmental agency in SE Asia;
3.3 Benchmark against legislative requirements.
3.2 Benchmark against environmental agencies outside SE Asia;
Assessing resources gaps
Which indicators to use to assess resource gaps?
3.1 Benchmark against another environmental agency in SE Asia;
3.3 Benchmark against legislative requirements.
3.2 Benchmark against environmental agencies outside SE Asia;
Resource gaps using LLDA as benchmark
Assessing staffing and inspectors gaps
Resource gaps using LLDA as benchmark
Assessing staffing gaps
Resource gaps using LLDA as benchmark
Assessing inspector gaps
Resource gaps using LLDA as benchmark
Assessing budget gaps
Resource gaps using LLDA as benchmark
Assessing budget gaps
Resource gaps using LLDA as benchmark
Overall Results
Using LLDA as a benchmark: Using LLDA as a benchmark:
• The number of staff and the number of inspectors of environmental agencies in SE Asia (except for Singapore) should be approximately 2.5 to 5 times larger than what they currently are.
• The budgetary resources available should be approximately 1.5 to 4.5 times larger than what they currently are.
Assessing resources gaps
Which indicators to use to assess resource gaps?
3.1 Benchmark against another environmental agency in SE Asia;
3.3 Benchmark against legislative requirements.
3.2 Benchmark against environmental agencies outside SE Asia;
Budget of environmental agency per state population
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
MEAN: 51.64 USD per capita;STDEV: 44.46
In the United States
In the United States
Staffing of environmental agency per 1,000,000 people
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
MEAN: 261.8 Staff per 1 million people;STDEV: 1.92
In the United States
Budget per square kilometer
0.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
30,000.00
35,000.00
40,000.00
45,000.00
Delawar
e
New Je
rsey
Florida
New Y
ork
Mas
sach
usett
s
Califor
nia
North
Caroli
na
Mich
igan
Verm
ont
Miss
ouri
Wisc
onsin
Tenne
ssee
Louis
iana
Kentu
cky
Georg
ia
Main
e
Texas
South
Dak
ota
Alabam
a
Nevad
aIo
waId
aho
Mon
tana
North
Dakota
MEAN: 3,924 USD per sq.km.;STDEV: 7,879.03
Staffing per 100 square kilometer
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
MEAN: 2.17 staff per 100 sq.km.;STDEV: 4.29
In the United States
Budget of environmental agency per regulated facilities
0.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
70,000.00
MEAN: 11,911 USD per facility;STDEV: 11,421.27
In the United States
Staff per 100 regulated facilities
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
MEAN: 6.29 Staff per 100 facilities;STDEV: 5.51
In the United States
Resource gaps using USA as benchmark
• We use state averages in the USA to estimate resource gaps experienced by environmental agencies in the SE Asia.
• However, US state averages are adjusted to account for relative differences in GDP per capita between the USA and respective countries (measured at PPP).
• We first look at staffing of environmental agencies, and then look at budget resources.
Resource gaps using USA as benchmark
Assessing staffing gaps
Resource gaps using USA as benchmark
Assessing budget gaps
Resource gaps using USA as benchmark
Overall Results
Using US states as a benchmark:
• The number of staff of environmental agencies in SE Asia (except for Singapore and Sri Lanka) should be approximately 2 to 10 times larger than what they currently are. This staffing gap is only slightly larger than when using LLDA as a benchmark.
• The budgetary resources available should be approximately 15 to 45 times larger than what they currently are. This gap is considerably larger than when using LLDA as a benchmark.
• The budgetary resources gap would appear to be more important than the staffing gap.
Assessing resources gaps
Which indicators to use to assess resource gaps?
3.1 Benchmark against another environmental agency in SE Asia;
3.3 Benchmark against legislative requirements.
3.2 Benchmark against environmental agencies outside SE Asia;
Inspectors gaps against legislative requirements
In 2007, the 25 LLDA inspectors have completed approximately 2,700 inspections of regulated enterprises.
This amounts to approximately 110 inspections per year per inspector.
Monitoring requirements vary between 1 inspection per year(for small firms) up to 4 inspections per year (for large firms).
Assume:
• On average, each inspector can conduct 110 inspections per year;
• On average, each enterprise must be inspected twice per year;
Inspectors gaps against legislative requirements
Inspectors gaps against legislative requirements
Inspectors gaps against legislative requirements
Inspectors gaps against legislative requirements
Inspectors gaps against legislative requirements
Broad conclusion: The staffing of environmental agenciesappears to leave not enough space for monitoring and inspections functions.
To the extent that inspections are a resource intensiveactivity (equipment, trucks, fuel, laboratory analysis, etc.), thisresult in fact supports earlier finding that budgetary resourcegaps appear to be more significant than overall staffing gaps.
Outline of Presentation
3) Capacity indicators in South East Asia
4) Assessing environmental agencies resources gaps
5) Lessons and next steps
1) Monitoring and enforcement: What do we know?
2) Institutional capacity: What we don’t know
Lessons and next steps
We start to have a better understanding of the extent ofthe staffing and resource gaps experienced by AECEN members.
We believe these results can be of great interest to AECEN members as such information can empower environmentalagencies in their request for additional resources.
Lessons and next steps
Lessons:
• This type of work is better done with sub-national levels of environmental agencies as national figures mask important differences across states or provinces;
• In most situations, environmental agencies do not have precise information on the type and number of facilities which should be regulated within their areas of jurisdiction.
Lessons and next steps
Next steps:
• Need more detailed information at provincial level.
• Need more information about other input variables such as equipment, vehicles, laboratories, etc.
• Need more information about environmental agencies’ performance indicators (output) such as number of inspections, violation notices, legal actions, and ultimately compliance and pollution.
• Need to understand the functional relationship between environmental agencies’ resources (inputs) performance (output) in order to better determine the nature and extent of the resource gaps.
• This can be done only with the full support and collaboration of AECEN members.
Thank you very much
Presentation byBenoit Laplante and Richard Paton
Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network
AECEN Annual ConferenceNovember 26, 2008
top related