Coherence in energy efficiency governance

Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Energy for Sustainable Development Coherence in energy efficiency governance Laurence L. Delina ⁎ University of New South Wales, Institute of Environmental Studies, Rm. 133A, Vallentine Annexe, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 19 February 2012 Revised 5 October 2012 Accepted 5 October 2012 Available online 24 October 2012 Keywords: Energy efficiency Governance Motivation Capacity Intervention Institutions a b s t r a c t Increasing the efficiency by which energy is extracted or captured, converted, and utilized not only requires the improvement of current technology and the development of new transformative ones, but also paying much more attention to improving coherent governance of energy efficiency institutions. I am suggesting that the transformation of energy systems is unlikely to succeed without the transformation of the way these institutions are designed. The paper proposes a framework that builds on concepts encompassing three principal identifiers of coherent institutional governance – motivation, capacity, and interventions – to respond to the questions: What institutional arrangements emerge at different governance levels to promote energy efficiency as a policy? What are the challenges to achieve coherent governance in institutions? I used a case analysis method to test these identifiers at selected energy efficiency institutions that are perceived to display enabling conditions necessary for coherent governance. © 2012 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction Increasing demand for energy, volatility in oil pricing, continuing energy-driven economic growth, and heightened concerns about climate change require governments to provide adequate energy policy, instruments and programs. Among these policies is the pursuit of energy efficiency aimed at reducing energy wastage. Energy efficiency has long been acknowledged as a win–win solution, but the implementation of an effective energy efficiency intervention requires strong institutions 1 to inform and coordinate the actions of various strategic actors in the energy industry including consumers, producers, and local and national public authorities alike (World Bank, 2008). The understanding of coherent governance is hence necessary for energy efficiency to successfully thrive as an important element of energy and climate policy. A wealth of literature is available with regard to resource based institutions. Writings on the role of institutions especially those dealing with the commons and common property institutions have a long history of impressive theoretical pedigree (Agrawal, 2001; Ostrom, 2010, and many others). Similar to these resource-based and common property institutions, those that are energy efficiency-focused also take several forms, structures and placements inside and outside the bureaucratic system. With tasks, objectives and aims that are ⁎ Tel.: +61 421441125. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 While the formal distinction between an “institution” and an “organization” is understood (the former being an organization that has become an accepted part of the social fabric), the two terms are interchangeably used in this paper. usually diversified, some energy efficiency institutions carry out energy efficiency interventions on their own while others create the conditions which allow projects and programs to be executed. Some more have been conducting energy efficiency activities in parallel with other energy-related actions. Regardless of their multiplicities, energy efficiency institutions, just like their common property counterparts, are expected to create arrangements and management regimes that help users allocate benefits equitably over long time periods at higher efficiency (Agrawal, 2001; Ostrom, 1992) by providing maximum impact in terms of technical, economic, social, and environmental efficiency. Energy efficiency institutions could do this by promoting, supporting, facilitating, and sustaining the introduction of more energy efficient technologies and strategies. Notwithstanding the above, the capacities of energy efficiency institutions are also diverse. For instance, in the more developed countries, public energy efficiency bodies do exist, are well-organized and function well. However, in many developing countries, such bodies are usually weak, unsystematic and cumbersome. This paper seeks to address the fragile structural conditions of these institutions by presenting good practices and case studies from countries where institutions are perceived to be strong with the end view of locating alternatives and replicable practices for developing countries to learn from and adopt. Nine institutional case studies were compiled across different geographies – national and regional – to provide examples of the varying degrees of success at different locations. While the case studies mention nationally created institutions, we do not forget to accentuate regional conglomeration based on the growing prominence of cooperation initiatives in international and global governance. The institutions showcased here have been selected to cover the different aspects of coherent governance among energy efficiency 0973-0826/$ – see front matter © 2012 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.10.004 494 L.L. Delina / Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 institutions and elucidate the global situation. The objective is to generate observations and ideas for policymakers regarding the institutional methodologies for the implementation of energy efficiency practices to improve and strengthen energy efficiency institutions for a sustainable energy future. The case studies can be used as a guide in identifying issues and collecting information that will be helpful in devising strategies for coherent institutional governance and ensure maximum performance. The target users, therefore, are policymakers and institutional leaders and managers in either a new institution or one at a turning point wanting to take stock and formulate a plan for addressing its weak areas or gaps by learning from the experiences of the institutions selected. Possible applications may range from internal self-assessment of every aspect of institutional functioning to the assembling of a few key impressions for others, especially those from developing countries, to learn from. This paper is primarily descriptive in nature (rather than analytical) and tries to capture the major structural and organizational elements of institutional governance for promoting energy efficiency. Because of the uniqueness of each institution, the paper has used a conceptual framework that is not meant to be analytical or prescriptive. Methodology, framework, and limitations The process of evaluating institutions is usually based on the concepts and methods from the social and behavioral sciences to assess current practices and find ways in order to maximize their performance. An ideal evaluation goes beyond the usual summative approach to dealing with a measurement of the total impact of an organization's programs, products and services ideally conducted in tandem with the subject institutions. This necessitates a study that considers both the macro and micro elements of institutional governance. While it is acknowledged that this indeed should be the ‘right’ way to do things, inadequate resources limit or restrain us from doing so. Institutions are normative structures. They are socially constructed, and thus can be hardly understood outside of their contexts. For this reason, there can be no specific method for conducting institutional evaluations. Moreover, each institution is unique, grounded in a particular history, and housed in a distinctive culture (Agrawal, 2001). While almost all energy efficiency institutions deal with the same energy efficiency issues, some institutions carry an oftentimes exclusive mission designed to serve the complex and unique needs of its own and distinct stakeholders. Dynamics is also a factor since circumstances and needs are continuously evolving. Institutions, therefore, are never static entities. These dynamics and unique features justify the adoption of a framework that will harness existing knowledge in order to yield a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach. The relative importance given to the various factors in the framework used – and the way they are presented and assessed – will depend on the particular contexts in which they are utilized. Unlike other resource-based institutions (such as irrigation and forestry), the social science literature dealing with the constructs of organizational performance is quite scanty as pertains to energy efficiency institutions. In this paper, therefore, concepts that are appropriate and similar to those used by other resource-based institutions are extensively utilized. These are, however, adapted and adjusted to fit the purposes of this paper. The paper's framework encompasses the following three principal identifiers and the accompanying conditions for coherent governance which were adapted from various works of the World Bank (2008), and those of Ostrom (1990, 1992, 1997, and 1999), Wade (1988), and Baland and Platteau (1996, 1999) as summarized by Agrawal (2001): • Motivation: This paper posits that for institutional governance to be coherent, institutions should be established based on the context of the country where they are located. This identifier looks at how a country puts primary importance on energy efficiency as evidenced by enactment of decrees and legislation that provide for the overall intentions, policy and strategies for energy efficiency. Statutes enable the institutional frameworks and implementation to carry out energy efficiency programs and outlines resources for these programs. • Capacity: This identifier involves a dynamic and on-going process by which people and systems in the institution develop, operate and implement strategies to meet their objectives for increased performance. As such, the following facilitating conditions, in terms of institutional capacity, for coherent governance are explored: technical and management capacity, leadership, and funding mechanism. • Interventions: This identifier allows the reporting and evaluation of the programs and the set of activities conducted, promoted and implemented by the institution. Types of programs and activities, and their integration with other clean energy initiatives are the two institutional conditions for coherent governance explored in this paper. Our a priori interest in this paper is to see clear-cut results from the selected institutions and thus identify good practices. As such, the natural tendency is to intersect an organization at the level of its “performance”, made visible through its interventions. Performance, which is of central importance in assessing organizational health, can be conceived as falling within three broad areas: performance in activities that support the mission (effectiveness), performance in relation to the resources available (efficiency), and performance in relation to long term viability or sustainability (adaptability and relevance). Appraisal of organizational performance, however, is beyond the current scope of this paper. In sum, the thesis of the paper is therefore: maximum performance could only be ensured and achieved through coherent energy efficiency institutional governance that is satisfied by the presence of enabling conditions that pan over the identifiers of institutional motivation, organizational capacity, and agency interventions. This is conceptually modeled in Fig. 1. Collectively, the governance characteristics could be expected to influence performance indicators. Based on the above framework, it can be inferred that performance is a function of interplay between an institution's unique motivations, organizational capacity, and institutional interventions. However, we are not discounting key forces in the external environment which have a bearing on the institution's performance. These forces have long been discussed in the literature as important vignettes in discussing resource use management but up to now scholars have yet to reach a framework for coherent governance structures that form an exhaustive set of critical enabling conditions (Agrawal, 2001). In the case of national energy efficiency institutions, these external forces could be identified to include the host country's science and technology policy, the level (or lack of) basic infrastructure services, pressing social problems in that country, demography, and existing social apparatuses. While it is interesting to delve on these obvious external factors, our current methodology prevents us from going deeper into these forces as it would take robust field observation to come up with a thorough assessment as to how performance is driven from outside the organization. Forces – not only outside but also inside the institution – also affect performance. These forces (although of varying degrees but perpetually present) include culture and norms internal to the institution. The importance of experimental findings as they relate to the theory we use to explain human behavior should, therefore, not be discounted (Smith, 2010, in Ostrom, 2010: 68). Although there is a scarcity of policy literature built around the importance of behavioral considerations L.L. Delina / Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 495 Fig. 1. The framework: enabling conditions for coherent governance in energy efficiency institutions. when designing institutions (Ostrom, 2010), it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve on these core relationships. The choice of case studies in this paper has another important methodological implication. As with other studies employing purposive sampling method in picking which institution to study, this paper contains an element of subjectivity since the requirements of a random or representative selection of cases are typically very hard to satisfy even when the universe of cases is narrowed geographically (Agrawal, 2001). Generally speaking, macro-level tests of the effects of these institutional measures and identifiers on institutional performance have been almost exclusively limited to cross-section studies. As such, there is no guarantee that any of the results obtained from such studies would apply to individual countries over time. Indeed, it is the potentially dynamic character and comprehensiveness of governance characteristics that give the concept of coherent institutional governance such relevance and importance for assessing institutional performance. Yet, for these reasons, the various characteristics have to be tested collectively and in a context in which they may have changed considerably over time (Campos and Nugent, 1999). Moreover, it is important to note that the issues inherent in each profile are institution-specific and do not mean to encompass similar institutions. Making judgments about the available data – especially when passing judgment as to whether a performance is “good” – is a difficult, oftentimes subjective, task. Acknowledging this, this paper opted not to go beyond the intricacy of judging institutional performance. Importantly, although due diligence was exercised to collect as much data to cover the three principal identifiers mentioned in the framework, there are several instances when data are simply absent. Institutional arrangements In this paper, seven national and two regional institutions that dealt with energy efficiency promotion were selected and studied. These include: • Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie (ADEME) or the Environment and Energy Management Agency in France • Beijing Energy Efficiency Center (BECon) in China • Energy Conservation Center (ECCJ) in Japan • Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) in the Republic of Korea • Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) in New Zealand • Energy Efficiency Programme Office (E2PO) in Singapore • Energy Savings Trust (EST) in the United Kingdom • Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Expert Group in Energy Efficiency and Conservation (APEC EGEE&C) in the Asia-Pacific region, and • Club EnR in Europe. Institutions emerging at different levels of governance to promote energy efficiency as part of energy and climate policy The World Bank (2008) has observed that most, if not all, energy efficiency institutions at national level are patterned after seven distinct institutional models (see Table 1). The World Bank classification has been found applicable to the seven national institutions surveyed in this paper. ADEME exhibits Model 2, while ECCJ, EECA and E2PO mirror Model 3. KEMCO is a typical Model 5, BECon a Model 7, and EST a Model 4. However, this paper did not find any institution patterned after Models 1 and 6. ECCJ is the oldest, in terms of age, of the seven institutions having been founded in 1978. It could also earn the title of the first ever government agency focused exclusively on energy efficiency (Model 3). KEMCO, established in 1980, on the other hand, should be the first ever independent corporation (Model 5) with a special function of promoting energy efficiency. Three of the institutions (ADEME, BECon and EST) were all established in early 1990s. EECA was founded in 2000 while E2PO is the youngest institution having been established only in 2007. Interestingly, while the six other institutions were created distinctly from the beginning, E2PO was created as an office composed of representatives from several pre-existing government entities. While most energy efficiency-related issues in the past have been considered largely at the national level, the emphasis has shifted to include transboundary cooperation in the context of the rapidly growing globalized world; thus, the move beyond national independent energy 496 L.L. Delina / Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 Table 1 Institutional models for energy efficiency implementation (World Bank, 2008). Model Type Brief description 1 Agency with broad energy-related activities 2 3 4 5 6 7 Government agency Government agency Government agency Independent statutory authority Independent corporation Public–private partnership Nongovernmental organization Agency focused on clean energy technologies (energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable energy, global climate change) Agency focused exclusively on energy efficiency Finally, although these characteristics are institutionalized (meaning, they are derived from institutions, the rules and how well they work), their relevance and importance for performance depend on the degree to which a given institution implements its energy efficiency interventions over time. While improvements in governance may be reinforcing, institutional decay and loss of capacity, motivation, and interventions may also ensue when the governance conditions in a country become averse. This is where the underlining of energy efficiency policy was of utmost importance. Independent authority created by a statute to promote energy efficiency or clean energy Government-owned independent corporation Generally in the form of a corporation with ownership by government and nongovernment entities Nonprofit or nongovernmental organization policies to inter-country interdependent policies. Strategic and collaborative policies at the regional, subregional, and global levels are expected to ensure a rapid sharing of technology and knowledge in the inter-country settings. This provides the rationale to also examine and understand the “nesting of tiers within tiers” (Ostrom, 2008:249). In this paper, two regional energy efficiency organizations are studied: APEC EGEE&C and Club EnR. APEC EGEE&C was established in 2000 by APEC's 21 member economies through the framework of cooperation in energy efficiency in the Energy Group Meeting in Peru that year. Club EnR, on the other hand, was founded earlier in 1991. Membership in the Club remains voluntary. Identifiers of a coherent institution The attention given to the concept of governance by both academicians (Agrawal, 2001; Baland and Platteau, 1996, 1999; Ostrom, 1990, 1992, 1997, 1999, 2010) and international agencies (e.g., the World Bank, 2008 and the IEA in Jollands et al., 2009) provides an excellent example of the recognition of institutional factors in supporting economics of development in general and energy efficiency promotion, development and implementation, in particular. This paper posits that for an institution to perform effectively and efficiently, it has to have the characteristics that define a coherent institution. To do so, institutions require governance to be defined and identified through its capacity, motivation, and intervention (see Fig. 1). Under these three lie several characteristics. Several other inferences can be drawn from their set-up. First, the notion that they should be jointly satisfied to assure success (measured in terms of performance) implies that these three identifiers complement one another. The satisfaction of any one component increases the probability that another identifier will be satisfied and/or its effects on institutional performance will be raised. Second, several characteristics (if not all) branching out from the three identifiers are clearly multidimensional. For instance, in the capacity identifier, both technical and management capacity matter, so do leadership, and availability of sustained funding. In motivation, not only inherent laws are required but also the context of the country where the institution is placed is potent in realizing coherent institutional governance. Country context is multidimensional in its own respect as it encompasses population and demography, geography (including climate type), level and structure of the economy, infrastructure for energy production and consumption, level of economic development, lifestyle, governance, existing policies, consumer behavior, and types of markets among others. Institutional identifier 1: motivation When studying the institutional framework of a country's energy efficiency policy, the country's motivation towards it has to be well understood. This involves knowing the host country's political context. In Table 2, one can distinguish, rather simply, political structures in the institutions studied vis-à-vis the countries where they are situated. All institutions studied have at least developed in countries where political structures exhibit centralized administration. Central governments developed their own agencies and their own system of energy efficiency promotion. Western governments (France, United Kingdom and New Zealand) with centralized states have initiated their own energy efficiency institutions after having a statute creating them. Same is true with the industrialized countries of Asia (Singapore, Republic of Korea, and Japan). In a diffused, highly complex structure such as China, BECon was established by a research institute (China's Energy Research Institute) in cooperation with American laboratories (the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) and an environmental organization (the World Wildlife Fund for Nature). All institutions studied are hosted by national governments. However for ADEME, a double structure – national and regional – can be found. ADEME and its 22 regional delegations compose the national structure, whereas at the regional level, regional energy agencies dependent on regional councils exist. In this case, an agency such as ADEME having regional branches could be challenging to manage. It is important to ensure a good link between regional objectives and national goals. Overlapping could be another consequence in case of having two regional agencies. Partnerships are one important ingredient exhibited by two institutions studied. EST was formed with energy suppliers while E2PO by several government agencies. Interestingly, almost all energy efficiency institutions were born in response to sudden increase of fuel prices. After the oil shock in 1974, France was the first country in Europe to create an energy efficiency agency with a specific budget, the Agency for Energy Savings which was the precursor of ADEME. KEMCO was also established in the context of the oil shock in 1979 (Kim, 2010). Literatures agree that good governance needs an appropriate legal framework designed as per the circumstances and adhered to by members of both the public and private sectors (Campos and Nugent, 1999; World Bank, 2008). Thus, a primary measure of coherent governance Table 2 Political contexts of the institutions studied. Structure Country Centralized states with decentralization of certain power Diffuse, complex and at times highly competitive (Martin, 2010) Centralized with local governments having few administrative powers Centralized state France, United Kingdom, New Zealand China Republic of Korea, Japan, Singapore 497 L.L. Delina / Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 Table 3 Statutory basis for selected institutions studied. Institution Statutory basis ADEME ECCJ Environment code (legislation livre 1, titre III, Chapter 1, section 1) Energy Conservation Law (1979, amended thereafter): “Law Concerning the Rational Use of Energy” Rational Energy Utilization Act of December 1979 New Zealand Energy and Conservation Act of 2000 Act of British Parliament, 1992 KEMCO EECA EST involves the factor of motivation that includes statutory basis for the creation of an institution overseeing energy efficiency policy. The presence of an enabling statutory basis for the establishment of energy efficiency institutions, mostly in the form of Acts of Parliaments is important. Such pieces of legislation can enable the institutional frameworks and implementation arrangements to carry out the energy efficiency interventions including budgets and other resources. Table 3 lists the statutory basis for the institutions studied except for E2PO, BECON and the two subregional entities. Apparently, legislations stating the government's overall intentions, policy and strategies for energy efficiency have been highlighted in the World Bank (2008) report. The importance of energy efficiency as stated in the directional objectives of each institution is also well supported and stated in the organizational mission. Table 4 summarizes these. Institutional identifier 2: capacity Coherent institutional governance requires strategic capacity. Strengthening capacities can be considered under four headings: technical capacity, management capacity, leadership, and funding mechanism. The most important factor influencing the success of coherent institutional governance to date has been engagement (or not) by the top political leadership. In situations where political leaders have taken an active interest, matters have moved forward (Meadowcroft, 2009). However, leadership is not just an individual question, but also an institutional one. Establishing leadership capacity in the energy efficiency Table 4 Institutional directions of institutions studied. Institution Institutional direction BECon ADEME ECCJ KEMCO EECA E2PO EST APEC EGEE&C Club EnR To become China's first class agency in research on energy conservation theory, policy and methodology, information dissemination, and technological extension To be the point of reference and privileged partner for the general public, companies and local authorities, acting as tool for France to generalize the good practices designed to protect the environment and energy saving To promote the efficient use of energy, protection against global warming, and sustainable development To create an “Enertopia” by placing a high priority on conservation and efficiency To encourage, support, and promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the use of renewable sources of energy in New Zealand To develop a holistic energy efficiency strategy for Singapore To help in reducing carbon dioxide emissions by helping people take action to reduce carbon in their homes and lifestyles To promote energy conservation and the application of energy-efficiency practices and technologies through ‘advancing the application of demonstrated energy-efficiency practices and technologies, to develop and enhance trade between APEC Economies in products and services and energy-efficiency practices and technologies, to contribute to international efforts to reduce the adverse impacts of energy production and consumption, and to improve the analytical, technical, operational and policy capacity for energy efficiency and conservation within APEC Economies’ To strengthen cooperation between member agencies and other European actors on all issues relevant to sustainable energy (energy efficiency, sustainable transport and renewable energy) area is a necessity. Table 5 presents the management structure and staffing capacity in the institutions studied. Technical capacity is another important aspect especially in terms of knowledge and provision of expert advice. Increased understanding of energy efficiency and the transmission of sound scientific and technical advice are essential for coherent institutional governance. Issues here include support to the continuing development of technical knowledge on energy efficient systems and the establishment of a system to provide advice to various stakeholders, public and private, to increase the perceived public importance of energy efficiency. The potential, however, of each country to develop activities under these issues is linked to the maturity of the national scientific, academic, technical and economic infrastructure (Meadowcroft, 2009). Public funds are often provided especially for energy efficiency promotion. As such, majority of funding, if not all, of the institutions studied comes from government coffers. This is not, however, the usual case. EST for instance which is an organization dedicated to the financing and the promotion of energy efficiency in the residential and public sector in the United Kingdom operates as an independent authority with budgetary allocation not only from the British Government but also from contributions of energy companies. A summary of funding mechanism for the institutions studied in this paper as well as the size of their budgets is shown in Table 6. Table 5 Management and leadership structure in the institutions studied. Institution Management and leadership structure Staff size BECon Consultative group (senior Chinese officials in charge of energy conservation), a council (senior experts), and support staff 12 in 2009 ADEME Board composed of 23 representatives (7 are from ministries) 820 in 2009, 930 (300 for energy efficiency) in 2010 ECCJ Chairman, President, 3 Managing 122 in 2009 Directors, 25 Directors, 2 Auditors, 30 Councilors KEMCO Government-appointed Board of Directors, Chief Director and 4 teams EECA Not publicly 8 Board Members appointed by the Minister of Energy. The Board then appoints the available chief executive. E2PO Not publicly A committee composed of several agencies: National Environment Agency, Energy available Market Authority, Economic Development Board, Land Transport Authority, Building and Construction Authority, Housing and Development Board, Infocomm Authority of Singapore, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, and Ministry of Trade and Industry EST Board of Directors (chairman, executive director, and nine non-executive directors (four elected and five independent)) Not publicly available APEC EGEE&C Under the APEC Energy Working Group. The APEC ESIS, the Expert Group's flagship initiative, is managed by a Steering Committee made up of contributing economies and organizations. Not publicly available Club EnR Voluntary membership. Management is held by a Troika Management Committee (with a yearly rotating Presidency and Secretariat). Eight working groups Depending on which country/agency the Secretariat is Not publicly available 498 L.L. Delina / Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 Institutional identifier 3: intervention This paper identifies interventions in EE policy to congregate into three types (Table 7). The World Bank (2008) has observed that certain institutional models are appropriate to perform a particular set of energy efficiency interventions. These are summarized in Table 8. For the institutions studied, Table 9 presents the sets of energy efficiency interventions and whether these interventions are integrated with other clean energy activities in the institution. Key institutional challenges to achieve coherent governance National governments assume the responsibility for representing the collective interests of their citizens, but the understanding of what constitutes the national interest is contested and changes over time (Meadowcroft, 2009). Obviously, governments should approach energy efficiency from the perspective of a rigorous assessment of their own national interest. This means that policy stance is established based on the overall appreciation of the risks, costs and benefits of adopting, promoting and instituting energy efficiency interventions. National interest should, as Meadowcroft (2009) posited, be considered in a multi-dimensional way that includes long-term considerations based on a detailed scientific, economic and political assessment. Coherent institutional governance on energy efficiency requires a redefinition of national interests in the light of energy security and climate change. On the basis of this effort, therefore, governments should be able to formulate an overall perspective on the significance of energy efficiency. The parameters of this strategic perspective should include specification of the country's overall energy efficiency perspective, their objectives, institutions responsible for promoting and implementing energy efficiency policy, major interventions (in terms of policy approaches, programs and activities), funding mechanisms, and expectations from stakeholders. This has been put forward as enabling environment in all institutions studied in this paper. Most institutions studied in this paper pursued an option where energy efficiency is the responsibility of a particular organization (e.g. KEMCO, ECCJ and EST), if not wholly as a subsidiary function of a larger agency (e.g. ADEME) or a conglomeration of various governmental bodies (e.g. E2PO). Prima facie there is no reason to prefer one of these patterns over another. Energy efficiency permeates and extends across sectors — building, transport, industry, residential, Table 6 Funding sources in the institutions studied. Institution Funding sources Budget size ADEME French Government ECCJ Government of Japan KEMCO EECA Government of Republic of Korea New Zealand Government E2PO Government of Singapore EST Although an independent company, EST receives funding support from UK Government and the private sector (including a number of energy companies) Annual contribution from APEC member economies, and other international agencies (CLASP and USAID for the ESIS project) ‘In kind’ staff time and resources volunteered by member-agencies. €1073 M in 2010 ($1537 M) JPY1.68 billion (operation expansion fund) in 2009 ($18.4 M) $820 M in 2009 Not publicly available Not publicly available €73.6 M in 2005 ($102.8 M) APEC EGEE&C Club EnR Not publicly available Not publicly available Table 7 Typologies of institutional interventions in energy efficiency. Type Description 1 2 3 Includes those programs and activities that seek to overcome information and technology availability barriers (such as awareness building technology transfer, technology development and demonstration, conferences and workshops) Involves regulatory interventions (such as standards and labeling programs, development of new policies, and certification or accreditation) Consists of collaborations and partnerships such as voluntary agreements appliances, lighting, and so on. On the other hand, depending on the concrete politico-administrative context in a given country, the energy efficiency institution can be structured in a variety of ways (such as those identified by World Bank (2008)). It is still too early to say, however, whether any of these models has a decisive advantage over the others. The key is that, according to Meadowcroft (2009), wherever it is located, the lead institution must enjoy appropriate resources, political support from the top, and authority to engage with other groups. Conclusions Increasing the efficiency with which energy is extracted or captured, converted, and utilized not only requires the improvement of current technology and the development of new transformative ones, but also paying much more attention to improving the management and coordination of energy efficiency institutions — be they public, private or mixed enterprises. In the context of climate change mitigation, energy systems need to be examined and reshaped. This includes an open opportunity to ensure that efficiency improvement should be at the forefront among the responsibilities of all countries, rich and poor alike. In this context, it is important that the management and structure of existing and new energy efficiency institutions are improved, better aligned and enhanced to ensure optimum performance. That said, the hypothesis is maintained, if not strengthened: the transformation of our energy systems is unlikely to succeed without the transformation of our institutions and of the way in which policymakers think about their design. It is here that the right motivation and adequate capacity are deemed necessary for change to happen. The institutions responsible for the task of catalyzing this change should learn the right lessons from the history of managing such efforts. Perhaps the initiatives exhibited by BECon (China Green Lights Project), ECCJ (Top Runner Programme), KEMCO (e-Standby Programme), EECA (ENERGYWISE) and EST (local advice networks) had manifested such efforts. Each had provided a different yet specific example of the values of remarkable streams of products, programs, and initiatives that promote energy efficiency. Although we recognize the heterogeneity of energy efficiency institutions and the ever-changing nature of their initiatives, it is still possible to identify elements essential to create and run a successful energy efficiency institution. Against the framework used to draw lessons from efforts made by some of the world's energy Table 8 Institutional models and their appropriateness to specific type of intervention. Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Type Government agency Government agency Government agency Independent statutory authority Independent corporation Public–private partnership Nongovernmental organization Interventions Type 1 Type 2 x x x x x x x x x x x Type 3 x x 499 L.L. Delina / Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012) 493–499 Table 9 Energy efficiency interventions at institutions studied. Institution Types of Intervention Energy efficiency interventions Integration with other clean energy activities BECon 1 China Green Lights Project (initiated in 1996, started in 2001, concluded and expanded on a nationwide scale in 2005) to save energy and protect the environment by reducing lighting energy use in China in 2010 by 10% relative to a constant efficiency scenario, and establishing a vibrant, self sustaining market in efficient lighting products and services. Project cost: US$26.20 M (funded by the Global Environment Fund with counterpart from Chinese Government and enterprises) No. Focused exclusively on energy efficiency ADEME 1 and 2 Support on research (economical transport systems, energy efficiency in buildings, and new technologies, data collection, teaching and development programs, demonstration of new technologies, consulting, provision of financial and technical assistance to enable developers to deploy more efficient energy solutions, public information through Espaces Info'Energie (Energy Info Points)) Yes. ADEME is involved with the measurement of atmospheric emissions from fixed sources. ECCJ 1 and 2 Industry: energy conservation audits, education and training, state examination for energy managers, dissemination through conferences, technological development and spillover; residential, commercial and transport: energy conservation audits, ranking catalog for efficient appliances (Top Runner Programme), promotion of energy labeling system, ESCO research and development No. Focused exclusively on energy efficiency KEMCO 1 and 3 Energy audits, R&D, demonstration and dissemination of technologies on energy resources, energy efficiency promotion, commercialization and diffusion of higher-efficient energy appliances, energy savings program by sector, climate change mitigation efforts Yes. EECA 1and 2 Products and appliances, lighting, MEPS, Home Energy Rating Scheme (ENERGYWISE: EECA consumer program that provides information and funding for householders so that they can make the most of energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy) Yes. E2PO 1 and 2 The 10% Energy Challenge, Energy Smart Building Labelling Programme, The Green Mark Scheme, Fuel Economy Labelling, ESCOs Accreditation Scheme No. Focused exclusively on energy efficiency EST all types Policy analysis; program design and implementation; independent information, accreditation, evaluation; consumer marketing; partnerships APEC EGEE&C 1 APEC Energy Standards Information System (ESIS) which provides (1) up-to-date information on energy standards, (2) links to experts, and (3) regular news updates. Yes. Cleaner vehicles and small-scale renewable energy (solar and wind) No. Focused exclusively on EE Club EnR 1 Communication and exchange of information on the experiences gained from EE policies Yes. Renewable energy efficiency institutions, the following institutional identifiers could be considered keys to coherent governance: motivation, capacity, and interventions. As is clear from examples of the institutions studied, a clearlydefined institutional mission statement that is based on, and linked to, a larger system perspective is very important to create a productive environment. This said, a well-defined mission enables an institution to reach its objectives more effectively and to significantly achieve the overall integration and coordination of its activities. Moreover, an inspiring and clear mission facilitates the design of an appropriate organizational structure and programs for the institution. Institutions, however, should be sufficiently flexible and adaptive to reflect the needs, information and context of the times. Adapting quickly to new technologies and complying with new regulations are important in ensuring resilience, relevance, and long term sustainability. A roster of managerial and scientific/technical people charged to carry out the functions of the institution is a must to allow it to deliver its activities, projects and programs well. As such, leaders of energy efficiency institutions also need an additional and exceptional understanding of the role of their institution under the complex energy system, and the ability to integrate their activities not only within but also outside their respective institutions. The importance of steady flow of funds can never be overstated. For an organization to function well and for initiatives to deliver maximum outputs, robust supply of financial resources needs to be injected to keep the institution afloat. This has been an essential lesson learnt in previously failed energy centers which were no longer self-sustaining. References Agrawal A. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 2001;29:1649–72. Baland J-M, Platteau J-P. Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities? New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. Baland J-M, Platteau J-P. The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Dev 1999;27:773–88. Campos N, Nugent J. Development performance and the institutions of governance: evidence from East Asia and Latin America. World Dev 1999;27:439–52. Jollands N, Gasc E, Pasquier SB. Innovations in multi-level governance for energy efficiency. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2009. Kim S-W. Experience and historical perspectives from KEMCO. Presentation at the Regional Workshop on Strengthening Energy Efficiency Institutional Arrangements in Asia, March 24–26. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand; 2010. Martin M. Understanding China's political system. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41007.pdf. Meadowcroft J. Climate change governance. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4941. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2009. Ostrom E. Frameworks and theories of environmental change. Glob Environ Change 2008;18:249–52. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. Ostrom E. Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies; 1992. Ostrom E. Self governance of common-pool resources. W97-2. Indiana University: Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis; 1997. Ostrom E. Self governance and forest resources. Occasional Paper No. 20. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research; 1999. Ostrom E. Revising theory in light of experimental findings. J Econ Behav Organ 2010;73:68–72. Wade R. Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in South India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. World Bank. An analytical compendium of institutional frameworks for energy efficiency implementation. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group; 2008.