The background
The Dutch Cabinet is aiming for more homes and a transition of rural areas. The Government of the Netherlands uses both ecological and social policy goals and instruments. They often manage this independently of one another. Copper8 is supporting the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) in setting up an exploration of the effects of policy instruments. On this basis, we’re advising them on integrated management, bundled in the Sustainable Living Environment Transition Strategy (link in Dutch), which contributes to policy harmonization.
Context
The Netherlands faces major challenges. The country needs to do a lot by 2030, in the areas of housing construction (+100,000 homes per year) as well as climate (55% CO2 reduction) and circular economy (50% less consumption of primary materials). At first glance, these objectives seem incompatible, but they are all greatly important – it is not an option not to solve the housing shortage or fail to achieve sustainability goals.
The question
Support us in setting up the Sustainable Living Environment Transition Strategy. Help us by providing insight into how ecological and social (housing) objectives are currently being managed and outline possible solutions for harmonization of instruments. To do this, conduct a systemic analysis of policy instruments for future-proof housing and rural areas.
Current situation and future
In order to better manage the different tasks, it’s important to know which goals and instruments reinforce each other and which are contradictory. This provides insight into how management could be made more effective government-wide. A systemic view of current policy and the relationship between housing and other themes for a sustainable living environment is therefore crucial.
The process
To analyze the current policy instruments, we interviewed policy officials from various departments who are involved. Based on system dynamics, we then created a system sketch, in which we visualized which goals were being managed and what impact this was having, including any indirect impacts and side effects. Finally, we described solution paths, in which we involved a broad group of civil servants.
The results
The results of the exploration were presented to the interdepartmental Living Environment Steering Group, comprising directors and director generals (DGs) from various ministries. This group recognized and acknowledged the insights and solutions that came from the analysis. Among other things, the analysis showed that ‘soft’ management instruments are mainly used. One important insight was that steering towards policy objectives can also have (negative) secondary objectives for other policies.
