Planning, policy and regulations are the key

Energy policy and regulation are such diverse topics that many definitions have been used to try and frame them. A host of descriptions exist and a number will be drawn on here as relevant for Myanmar. As defined by Renn in The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions, energy policy can be considered a subset of “economic policy, foreign policy, and national and international security policy”12. Further, Renn envisions policies as embedded in a socio-technical system formed through the interactions of technical, economic, political and social factors13. The subject matter energy policy deals with are the perspectives and factors related to energy growth and usage, including energy production, distribution and consumption14. Zhenya Liu describes energy policy as the regulator and controller of energy development, as the driver of innovation in energy technology, and as a tool for guidance at the macro level and for management at the micro level15. This encompasses and allows for the adjustment of relationships between the private and public sectors and their surrounding systems, as well as the people who are the critical end users.

Energy is one of the most fundamental resources in modern society16 – yet one which has a global impact. Energy supply accounts for around 60 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, with renewables currently only providing 17 per cent of energy supply; IPCC warns that 85 per cent needs to come from renewable by 205017 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It’s clear that climate change avoidance must be a key policy driver and that roadmaps and targets for meeting SDG 7 by 203018 should be foremost in policy makers’ minds. Foran et al19 undertook a policy analysis specific to the hydropower sector in Myanmar. This highlighted how important the World Commission on Dams 200020 strategies prioritizing “gaining public acceptance” were, and that most policies being used in Myanmar were failing. They observed that earlier policy failures had opened the way for more legitimate policy regimes and approaches. The extensive consultations in the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Hydropower Sector in Myanmar21 have already provided much of the information necessary to guide what future hydropower projects should look like for successful policy acceptance.

Spectrum’s experience shows that Myanmar policy perspectives must include:

z Gender aspects, due to women’s higher risks of energy poverty and due to women bearing a larger burden of work both as a result of inadequate energy access and their time not being appropriately valued22 , 23 z Equity and access issues for rural / urban developments z Context factors and particularly the energy resource availability z Massive global changes in renewable markets and Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) pricing z Status, expected operating life and limitations of existing infrastructure z Externalities and environmental impacts on river basins of hydropower z Anti-corruption, transparency and accountability z Integration of responsible business practice

12. Kohl, W.L. 2004. National Security and Energy. In: Encyclopedia of Energy. 13. Renn, O. 2020, Introduction. In Renn,O., Ulmer,F. and A. Deckert. The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions, Academic Press, 2020. 14. Islam,M.M and Hasanuzzaman, M. 2020. Introduction to energy and sustainable development. In: Energy for Sustainable Development. 15. Zhenya Liu. 2015. Global Energy Interconnection. 16. The role of the electric grid in Switzerland’s energy future, blog, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-power-and-gas-blog/therole-of-the-electric-grid-in-switzerlands-energy-future. Tamara Grünewald, Diego Hernandez Diaz. 17. https://www.cdp.net/en/policy-and-public-affairs/sustainable-development-goals 18. https://www.unescap.org/resources/energy-transition-pathways-2030-agenda-sdg7-roadmap-indonesia# 19. Foran, T., Kiik, L., Hatt, S., Fullbrook, D., Dawkins, A., Walker, S., and Y. Chen. 2017. Large hydropower and legitimacy: A policy regime analysis, applied to Myanmar. Energy Policy (Volume 110, November 2017) pp 619-630. 20. World Commission on Dams 2000. 2000. Dams and development. A new framework for decision-making. In: The Report of the World Commission on Dams, Earthscan, London. 21. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Hydropower Sector in Myanmar, https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/industry_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/ hydro+advisory/resources/sea+of+the+hydropower+sector+in+myanmar+resources+page, updated December 2020. 22. Sunikka-Blank, M. 2020. In: Inequality and Energy. 23. Spectrum. 2019. Gender Analysis for the Promotion of Rural Electrification in Myanmar, Report for GIZ Promotion of Rural Electrification (RELEC) Project, Myanmar.

How such complexity can be included in the planning and policy process also needs careful consideration. A range of planning types are needed for such complexity and it is suggested that a blend of four types will function best – no single process can cover all of the needs. Each type offers benefits and this publication can contribute significantly with critical modelling information to help the integration of every one of these planning approaches.

z Comprehensive Rationalism24 – a more traditional centralized planning approach z Disjointed Incrementalism25 – an approach that deals better with uncertainty / risk z Mixed Scanning26 – an intentional system for including multiple approaches z Communicative Planning27 – a blended approach recognizing critical social aspects

Valentine et al28 examine policy rationales, theory and logic, and the rationale for governments to intervene in policy. They argue that because of the imperfections of energy markets, governments should get involved in altering market and consumer behaviour. Seven market force imperfections described are: “Imperfect and asymmetric information, high transaction costs, limited cognitive abilities, imperfect competition, external costs and benefits, excludability and limits to monetization”. These forces can inhibit investment in clean energy technologies and retard the market development of cheaper technologies and money-saving ideas.

Valentine et al employ the well-used policy tool framework NATO (Nodality, Authority, Treasure, Organization) to describe the types of policies that have been utilized to influence behaviour in the energy sector and also describe various policy instruments that governments can use to change market dynamics. Yet policy instruments are not designed as stand-alone tools and they suggest that adopting a portfolio approach to policy planning – which combines multiple policy instruments – has much merit to help fit complex contexts. They conclude that while there is evidence to support bundling different policy instruments, at the end of the day “applying policy depends on an accurate understanding of the problem, the behaviour of stakeholders, underlying motives, and a host of social, technological, economic, environmental and political factors that evolve over time and largely frame the eventual effectiveness of any given policy mix”. Further, they suggest drawing “on consumer behaviour and routes by which consumption processes can be modified: studies of innovation, of science and technology, sociology and psychology, and also consideration of the barriers that inhibit change”.

Taking into account the complexity of factors, it is apparent that a holistic systems approach drawing on the wide range of factors and a combination of planning techniques are what will be most beneficial for policy formulation in Myanmar. The scenario and modelling presented in this publication makes an enormous and timely input into the process.

Figure 1: Examples of different types of energy policy instruments

David Allan, Spectrum Sustainable Development Knowledge Network

24. Olugbenga, E.O. 2017. Applicability and Adaptability of Some Public Policy Models to African Countries. International Journal of African and Asian Studies www.iiste.org ISSN 2409-6938 An International Peer-reviewed Journal (Vol.30) pp 55-62. 25. Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review (Vol. 19, No. 2) Spring 1959, pp 79-88. 26. Etzioni, A. 1967. Mixed-Scanning: A “Third” Approach to Decision-Making. Public Administration Review, (Vol. 27, No. 5) December 1967), pp 385-392. 27. Bolton, R. 2005. “Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of Social Capital”. Paper read at meeting of Association of American Geographers. (Original Habermas papers in German.) 28. Valentine, S.V., Brown, M.A. and B.K. Sovacool. 2019. Empowering the Great Energy Transition, Policy for a Low-Carbon Future, Columbia University Press, New York, with figure 6.1 from p 152 and quotes from pp 176 and 178.