Decision-making in turbulent times:

Transport policy and governance in

Ireland during and after the ‘Celtic

Tiger’

Barbara Heisserer, Michael Hynes and Henrike Rau

Earth System Governance Conference 2012

18-20 April 2012, Lund, Sweden

Presenter: Dr. Henrike Rau, School of Political Science and Sociology, NUI, Galway, Ireland

Date: 19 April 2012

Trinity

College

Dublin

Overview

1. Introduction

2. Project and methodology

3. Transport policy and governance in the Republic of Ireland – key features, processes and actors

4. Predict and provide: Transport policy during the 'Celtic Tiger' era (1995-2007)

5. On the road to sustainability? Transport policy after 2008

6. Concluding remarks – paradigm shift or business as usual (more or less)?

Introduction • From boom to bust – Republic of Ireland’s rapid and uneven

social and economic development reflected in its transport policy – High spending on transport infrastructure from late 1990s until mid-

2000s but lack of coherent transport and land use policies

– Since late 2000s transformation of transport sector due to recession and shift towards more sustainable transport policy

• E.g. emissions-related motor taxation since 2008 has increased share of cars with lower emissions

• BUT:

– Transport remains among top three emitters of GHGs

– ‘Celtic Tiger’ legacy of car dependency and increasing ‘consumption of distance’ difficult to reverse

– Recent moves towards ‘smarter travel’ – short-term response to financial woes or real commitment to sustainability?

Target 2020: 20% reduction (2005 baseline)

Transport - fastest growing sector with regard to GHGs

Source: EPA 2011

Project Overview Consumption, Environment, Sustainability

(ConsEnSus)

• Interdisciplinary collaboration between Trinity College Dublin and NUI, Galway

• Largest Irish project on Sustainable Consumption (4 years, funded by EPA-STRIVE, >€1m)

• Aims: – Produce baseline data for Ireland: transport, energy, water and food

– Address key issues in sustainable consumption: measurement, evaluation, behavioural analysis, quality of life, governance

– Develop policy recommendations and action plans for sustainable lifestyles

ConsEnSus - Work Package 3 Transport, Mobility and the Consumption of Distance

• Sociological institutionalist analysis (Vigar 2002) of transport policy change in the Republic of Ireland during and after the ‘Celtic Tiger’ (1995-2007)

• Relational view of the social world that focuses on institutions and organisations as well as informal networks and “established way[s] of addressing […] social issues” (Healey et al. 1999)

• Changes of what and by whom? - focus on 1) policy discourses and practices and 2) existing and newly emerging actor networks

• Data sources: • Key documents - Transport 21 (2006-2015), Smarter Travel – A Sustainable

Transport Future (2009)

• Coverage of transport policy and controversial decisions in the media and public debates

• Selection of An Bord Pleanála inspector’s reports about transport-related planning appeals

• Unstructured interviews with various transport actors since mid-2000s

Transport policy in Ireland

in the late 20th and early 21st centuries

Key features

• Irish transport policy since 1990s dominated by desire to facilitate individualised (auto)mobility (‘predict and provide’ paradigm) reflected Ireland’s rapid social and economic modernisation and created highly unsustainable travel and land use patterns

• Culture of cost overruns and ‘strategic misrepresentation’ (Flyvbjerg 2005) during early 2000s

• Recent shift in policy focus towards more sustainable transport linked to wider European and global sustainability debates

• BUT: • Language of cost savings and austerity has dominated

sustainable transport policy discourse since late 2000s • Institutional and cultural context of transport policy slow to

change – hope to return to ‘business as usual’?

Transport policy and governance in Ireland

Processes and actors

• How? – Predominantly top-down (central government) indicative of

persistently weak local government

– Reaction to perceived economic needs and infrastructural gaps

– Few links between transport and social policy

– Limited opportunities for citizens, local campaigns and NGOs to influence transport policy

– Predominantly adversarial relationship between state and civil society actors opposed to dominant development paradigm (cf. Flynn 2007)

• By whom? – Multitude of (un)elected policy actors

• Department of Transport

• (Semi-)state authorities, agencies and ‘QUANGOs’

• Various lobby and partnership groups (e.g. AA, business interests, trade unions)

Main actors in the transport sector

• Transport infrastructure development as source of conflict

• Consultation and oral hearings - dominant forms of citizen involvement in transport decisions

– e.g. N6 Ballinasloe-Galway, GCOB hearings

• ‘No real argument takes place’ (Garavan 2008)

• Emphasis on technical-pragmatic solutions and ‘the practical’ (Rau 2008)

• Anti-road protests challenges to conventional politics, economistic thinking and the ‘hegemony of the practical’

• Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006 reduced power at local level and favoured large-scale hearings (but full effects of legislation not yet known due to recession)

Transport policy during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ Collisions, conflicts and (limited) consultation

Transport policy during the ‘Celtic Tiger’

Transport 21: Progress in Motion

• Transport 21: Progress in Motion - ten-year capital investment framework of €34bn (2006-2015)

• Key aims: • increased accessibility • economic and environmental sustainability • expanded capacity • increased use of overall network and public transport • improved quality of services

• Reaction to a) social and economic changes and b) pressure from various interests

• Lack of coherent policy framework and limited consultation and public involvement in development of Transport 21

• Language of growth and progress

Transport policy during the ‘Celtic Tiger’

Transport 21: Progress in Motion

• Emphasis on road construction, regional airport development and PT

• Patterns of expenditure resemble pre-Transport 21 spending (2000-2005)

• Roads: €6.65 billion (exchequer)

• PT: €2.5 billion (exchequer and EU)

• Social and environmental considerations remain marginalised

– e.g. Rural Transport Programme (RTP) and Smarter Travel Initiative located outside Transport 21

On the Road to Sustainability?

Recent developments in transport policy

• Smarter Travel (2009) – the end of ‘predict and provide’ (Transport 21)?

• Emphasis in ST on public consultation, participation and involvement of civil society

• Wider trends in transport policy reveal strong emphasis on short-term low-cost solutions but limited evidence of long-term sustainability goals – stop gap before return to ‘better times’?

• Partial ‘de-quangoisation’ to cut costs but limited changes in overall governance structure

• ‘Low-cost agenda’ also adopted by anti-roads campaigners

On the Road to Sustainability? Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future

• Changes in four key areas: • Reduction in distance travelled by car and

suppressed journeys

• Alternatives to the car

• Improved efficiency of motorised transport

• Changes in institutional arrangements

On the Road to Sustainability? Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future

• Consultation document in 2008

• 500+ submissions by individuals and organisations

• Launch of policy document in 2009

• Smarter Travel area bids by local authorities in April 2010;

decision in February 2012

• Dramatic drop in spending already envisaged in original

document emphasis on ‘low cost’ transport solutions

• Limited attention to infrastructure maintenance

• Few explicit proposals to change how transport policy is made

and implemented

The end of ‘predict-and-provide’?

Concluding remarks

• Smarter Travel policy signals departure from ‘predict-and-provide’ mindset and increases opportunities for participation

• e.g. extensive consultation during production of policy; improved local authority input in some areas

BUT: • Commitment to ‘smarter travel’ against backdrop of firmly

established institutional structures and processes decision-making power remains largely in the hands of DoT and selected agencies and interest groups

• Technical-pragmatic framework for public consultation largely unchanged

• Deteriorating public finances, prioritisation of economic goals and ‘value for money’ and language of austerity dominate transport policy debates sustainability as cost-cutting measure

• Social and cultural aspects of sustainability remain marginalised limited connectivity between transport planning and social policy

Click here to start again

www.consensus.ie consensus@nuigalway.ie

Thank you for listening.

Your comments and suggestions are welcome!