Does size matter? Comparing the party politics of climate change in Australia and Norway
In: Environmental politics, Band 28, Heft 6, S. 997-1016
ISSN: 1743-8934
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Environmental politics, Band 28, Heft 6, S. 997-1016
ISSN: 1743-8934
In: Environmental politics, Band 23, Heft 6, S. 1096-1100
ISSN: 1743-8934
In: Environmental politics, Band 32, Heft 4, S. 732-742
ISSN: 1743-8934
In: Environmental politics, Band 26, Heft 6, S. 1152-1156
ISSN: 1743-8934
For decades Norwegian climate policy has largely ignored the agricultural sector and focused on cost-effective emission reductions abroad. Yet in June 2020, Norway decided to ban the cultivation of peatlands to protect critical carbon sinks, and the issue became 'high politics'. We explain this radical policy change by combining an adapted version of the Multiple Streams framework with the Punctuated Equilibrium model of agenda-setting. We argue that the two models combined can provide a holistic explanatory framework, albeit with two revisions. Firstly, the window of opportunity or punctuation was in our case of a longer duration than both models anticipate. Secondly, we find that multiple complete couplings can take place within the opening of a policy (or more specifically, a decision) window. Both findings can be explained by party competition, thus underlining the need to revise agenda-setting models to better account for party politics. ; publishedVersion
BASE
1. The UK's decision to leave the EU has far-reaching, and often shared, implications for agriculture and fisheries. To ensure the future sustainability of UK agricultural and fisheries systems, we argue that it is essential to grasp the opportunity that Brexit is providing to develop integrated policies that improve the management and protection of the natural environments, upon which these industries rely. 2. This article advances a stakeholder informed vision of the future design of UK agriculture and fisheries policies. We assess how currently emerging UK policy will need to be adapted in order to implement this vision. Our starting point is that Brexit provides the opportunity to redesign current unsustainable practices and can, in principle, deliver a sustainable future for agriculture and fisheries. 3. Underpinning policies with an ecosystem approach, explicit inclusion of public goods provision and social welfare equity were found to be key provisions for environmental, agricultural and fishery sustainability. Recognition of the needs of, and innovative practices in, the devolved UK nations is also required as the new policy and regulatory landscape is established. 4. Achieving the proposed vision will necessitate drawing on best practice and creating more coherent and integrated food, environment and rural and coastal economic policies. Our findings demonstrate that "bottom-up" and co-production approaches will be key to the development of more environmentally sustainable agriculture and fisheries policies to underpin prosperous livelihoods. 5. However, delivering this vision will involve overcoming significant challenges. The current uncertainty over the nature and timing of the UK's Brexit agreement hinders forward planning and investment while diverting attention away from further in-depth consideration of environmental sustainability. In the face of this uncertainty, much of the UK's new policy on the environment, agriculture and fisheries is therefore ambitious in vision but light on detail. Full ...
BASE