The Governance of Climate Change Adaption in Switzerland Issues, Actors, and Processes at the National and Cantonal Level and in Land-Use Relevant Policies

Research Collection

Doctoral Thesis

The Governance of Climate Change Adaption in Switzerland Issues, Actors, and Processes at the National and Cantonal Level and in Land-use relevant Policies

Author(s): Widmer, Alexander M.

Publication Date: 2014

Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010255093

Rights / License: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted

This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use.

ETH Library DISS ETH NO. 22144

THE GOVERNANCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN SWITZERLAND: ISSUES, ACTORS, AND PROCESSES AT THE NATIONAL AND CANTONAL LEVEL AND IN LAND-USE RELEVANT POLICIES

A thesis submitted to attain the degree of

DOCTOR OF SCIENCES of ETH ZURICH

(Dr. sc. ETH Zurich)

presented by

ALEXANDER MARTIN WIDMER

lic. phil., Universität Zürich

born on 08.02.1978

citizen of Lausanne VD & Sumiswald BE

accepted on the recommendation of

Prof. Dr. Stefanie Engel Prof. Dr. Karl Hogl Dr. Christian Hirschi

2014

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... page iv LIST OF FIGURES ...... v ZUSAMMENFASSUNG...... vii ABSTRACT ...... x 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION POLICY ...... 1 1.2 KEY ISSUES OF THIS THESIS ...... 2 1.3 GUIDING RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 4 1.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 5 1.4.1 Integrating climate change adaptation policy in Switzerland ...... 5 1.4.2 Issue attention and modes of governance: climate change adaptation in Swiss alpine regions ... 6 1.4.3 What drives incremental policy change? A longitudinal analysis of Swiss forest policy 2000–2012 ...... 7 1.4.4 Combining policy network and model-based scenario analyses: an assessment of future ecosystem services in Swiss mountain regions ...... 8 1.5 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 9 1.6 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH ...... 11 LITERATURE CITED...... 12 2. INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION POLICY IN SWITZERLAND ...... 17 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 18 2.2 CONCEPTS OF AND APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION POLICY INTEGRATION ...... 19 2.2.1 Different concepts of CAPI ...... 20 2.2.2 Different approaches to CAPI ...... 22 2.2.3 Framework for the analysis of CAPI ...... 23 2.3 DATA AND METHOD ...... 26 2.3.1 Selected policy sectors and documents ...... 26 2.3.2 Operationalization of CAPI ...... 28 2.4 CASE ANALYSIS ...... 32 2.4.1 CAPI in the Swiss NAS ...... 32 2.4.2 CAPI in the sectoral strategies ...... 35 2.5 DISCUSSION ...... 39 2.6 CONCLUSION ...... 41 LITERATURE CITED...... 43

i 3. ISSUE ATTENTION AND MODES OF GOVERNANCE: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN SWISS ALPINE REGIONS ...... 49 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 50 3.2 THEORY ...... 51 3.2.1 Problem perception and agenda-setting ...... 51 3.2.2 Predominant modes of governance ...... 52 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS...... 55 3.4 RESULTS ...... 57 3.4.1 Issue attention and regional adaptation measures...... 57 3.4.2 Modes of governance and policy instruments in the three regions ...... 59 3.4.3 Adaptation measures in relevant policy sectors ...... 63 3.5 DISCUSSION ...... 67 3.6 CONCLUSION ...... 69 LITERATURE CITED...... 71 4. WHAT DRIVES INCREMENTAL POLICY CHANGE? A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF SWISS FOREST POLICY 2000–2012 ...... 77 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 78 4.2 THEORY ...... 80 4.3 DATA AND METHODS ...... 82 4.4 CASE ANALYSIS ...... 84 4.5 DISCUSSION ...... 91 4.6 CONCLUSION ...... 93 LITERATURE CITED...... 94 APPENDIX ...... 99 5. COMBINING POLICY NETWORK AND MODEL-BASED SCENARIO ANALYSIS: AN ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES IN SWISS MOUNTAIN REGIONS ...... 107 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 108 5.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODS ...... 109 5.2.1 Model-based assessment of the provision of mountain ecosystem goods and services ...... 110 5.2.2 Policy network analysis ...... 113 5.3 RESULTS ...... 115 5.3.1 Impacts on the provision of agricultural ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions . 115 5.3.2 Policy network analysis ...... 118 5.3.3 Assessment of future scenarios considering the policy network variables ...... 120 5.4 DISCUSSION ...... 123 5.5 CONCLUSION ...... 124 ii LITERATURE CITED...... 126 APPENDIX ...... 131 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 137

iii LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Different concepts of CAPI ...... 22 Table 2.2: Framework for the analysis of CAPI ...... 25 Table 2.3: Participating sectors, offices in charge, and analyzed documents...... 27 Table 2.4: Operationalization of “weak” CAPI ...... 29 Table 2.5: Operationalization of “medium” CAPI ...... 30 Table 2.6: Operationalization of “strong” CAPI ...... 31 Table 2.7: Results for the NAS ...... 35 Table 2.8: Results for the sectors ...... 39 Table 3.1: Modes of governance ...... 53 Table 3.2: Policy instruments and modes of governance ...... 56 Table 3.3: Adaptation policy sectors ...... 57 Table 4.1: Process characteristics ...... 85 Table 4.2: Indicators for network closure (main component) ...... 87 Table 4.3: Policy preferences WAP-CH 2000–2004 ...... 88 Table 4.4: Policy preferences WAG-TR 2005–2008 ...... 89 Table 4.5: Policy preferences WP-FLEX 2009–2012 ...... 89 Table 5.1: Policy process delimitation and network characteristics ...... 114 Table 5.2: Scenario-based ecosystem goods and services provision and public support in the Jura ...... 116 Table 5.3: Scenario-based ecosystem goods and services provision and public support in the Valais ..... 117 Table 5.4: Network cohesion in reform formulation and decision-making...... 120 Table 5.5: Policy positions of core actors ...... 121

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Adaptation measures and national media attention ...... 59 Figure 3.2: Adaptation policy instruments in the three cantons ...... 60 Figure 3.3: Addressees of adaptation activities ...... 61 Figure 3.4: Political body in charge ...... 62 Figure 3.5: Final responsibility ...... 63 Figure 3.6: Policy sectors (overall) ...... 64 Figure 3.7: Policy sectors (Grisons) ...... 65 Figure 3.8: Policy sectors (Valais) ...... 66 Figure 3.9: Policy sectors (Vaud) ...... 67 Figure 4.1: Forest policy network and policy preferences on forest area protection ...... 90 Figure 5.1: Conceptual framework ...... 110 Figure 5.2: Policy network structure and policy positions ...... 119

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Im Vergleich zur Reduktion von Treibhausgasemissionen spielte die Anpassung an den Kli- mawandel in der Klimapolitik lange eine vernachlässigbare Rolle. In den vergangenen Jahren haben die weiterhin steigenden Treibhausgasemissionen jedoch zu einer erhöhten Besorgnis hinsichtlich zukünftiger schwerwiegender Auswirkungen aufgrund des Klimawandels ge- führt. Dementsprechend haben Fragen der Anpassung an den Klimawandel an Bedeutung gewonnen. Weltweit haben politische Entscheidungsträger damit begonnen, in verschiedens- ten Politikbereichen Anpassungsmassnahmen zu diskutieren, formulieren und umzusetzen. Im Vergleich zu anderen Politikzielen spielt die Klimaanpassung jedoch weiterhin eine relativ unbedeutende Rolle und die grosse Mehrzahl der eingeleiteten Massnahmen beschränkt sich auf die Formulierung allgemeiner Handlungsrichtlinien sowie die Informationsbeschaffung. In welcher Form, aus welchen Gründen und in welchen Politikbereichen politische Entschei- dungsträger Klimaanpassungsmassnahmen formulieren und umsetzen und wie sich die beo- bachteten Unterschiede hinsichtlich Agenda-Setting, Instrumentenwahl und Institutionalisie- rung der Klimaanpassungspolitik erklären lassen, sind Kernfragen der aktuellen Forschung zur Klimaanpassungspolitik. Die vorliegende Arbeit hat zum Ziel zur Klärung dieser Fragen beizutragen und somit zu einem besseren Verständnis der noch neuen Klimaanpassungspoli- tik indem sie analysiert (1) wie die Integration von Klimaanpassungspolitik in andere Sek- toralpolitiken umgesetzt wird, (2) welche Anpassungsmassnahmen auf der regionalen Ebene ergriffen werden und (3) welche Faktoren Reformprozesse in besonders klimaempfindlichen Politiksektoren beeinflussen. Zu diesem Zweck wurden im Rahmen von vier Fallstudien Da- ten zur Entwicklung der nationalen Klimaanpassungsstrategie in der Schweiz (Kapitel 2), Anpassungsmassnahmen in drei Schweizer Kantonen (Kapitel 3), sowie Reformprozessen in der schweizerischen Wald- und Landwirtschaftspolitik (Kapitel 4 und 5) erhoben und analysiert.

Kapitel 2 der vorliegenden Dissertation untersucht die Integration von Klimaanpassungs- politik bei der Entwicklung des ersten Teils der schweizerischen Klimaanpassungsstrategie bei welcher auch Anpassungsstrategien für einzelne Politiksektoren erarbeitet wurden. Die sektoralen Anpassungsstrategien bilden eine Besonderheit im internationalen Vergleich und ermöglichen somit einen einzigartigen Blick auf die Frage, wie Klimaanpassungspolitik in einer Vielzahl von Sektoren integriert wird. Die Analyse zeigt, dass Koordinationsprozessen eine Schlüsselrolle bei der Integration von Klimaanpassungspolitik zukommt. Dies ist in ers- ter Linie auf Befürchtungen zurückzuführen, dass Klimaanpassungsmassnahmen in einem Sektor negative Auswirkungen für weitere Sektoren haben könnten. Des Weiteren zeigt die Analyse, dass Klimaanpassung vor allem in denjenigen Sektoren integriert wird, welche eine starke Übereinstimmung zwischen primären sektoralen und anpassungsrelevanten Ziele auf- weisen. Die hohe Bedeutung der sektoralen Ziele für die Klimaanpassungspolitik wird zudem in der Wahrnehmung von möglichen negativen Nebenwirkungen ersichtlich. Diese werden primär aus der Perspektive des eigenen Sektors wahrgenommen, das heisst in Form von For- derungen und befürchteten Nebenwirkungen für den eigenen Sektor. Während die sich die sektoralen Ziele in vielen Fällen für die Integration von Klimaanpassungspolitik als förderlich erweisen, ergeben sich dadurch besondere Herausforderungen an den Koordinationsprozess. Wie die Analyse zeigt, stösst die departementsübergreifenden Koordination bereits jetzt an Grenzen. Zudem fehlen bisher Mechanismen zur Lösung von sich bereits abzeichnenden sek- torübergreifenden Konflikten.

Das dritte Kapitel untersucht regionale Anpassungsmassnahmen, wobei Fragen nach dem Agenda-Setting, den unterschiedlichen Steuerungsmechanismen, sowie der sektoriellen Zu-

vii ordnung der getroffenen Massnahmen im Zentrum stehen. Empirisch wurden Anpassungs- massnahmen in den Kantonen Graubünden, Waadt und Wallis im Zeitraum von 2001 bis 2011 untersucht. Über den untersuchten Zeitraum hinweg weisen die Anpassungsmassnah- men ein erstaunlich einheitliches Muster auf. Besonders starke Aktivitäten hinsichtlich An- passungsmassnahmen lassen sich in allen Kantonen zwischen 2007 und 2009 feststellen. Die- se Gemeinsamkeiten lassen darauf schliessen, dass das Agenda-Setting für Anpassungsmass- nahmen weitestgehend von der nationalen und/oder internationalen Klimaagenda beeinflusst wurde und nicht auf lokale oder regionale Ereignisse zurückzuführen ist. Diese Vermutung wird dadurch gestützt, dass die Medienaufmerksamkeit—wenn auch zeitlich verschoben— beinahe exakt dasselbe Muster aufweist. Die Analyse der Steuerungsmechanismen der kantonalen Anpassungsmassnahmen weist eine hohe Ähnlichkeit mit bisherigen Untersuchungen auf nationaler Ebene auf. Zu einem überwiegenden Teil bestehen diese aus Forschungsaufträ- gen und informationsbezogenen Massnahmen, welche zum Zweck haben, Entscheidungs- grundlagen für die kantonalen Regierungen und Verwaltungen bereitzustellen. Bezüglich der Politiksektoren lassen sich klare Unterschiede zwischen dem Kanton Waadt und den beiden inneralpinen Bergkantonen Graubünden und Wallis feststellen. In den beiden Bergkantonen beziehen sich die Massnahmen schwerpunktmässig auf den Bereich der Naturgefahren, wäh- rend im Kanton Waadt der Tourismussektor hervorsticht. Diese unterschiedlichen Schwer- punkte lassen sich weitestgehend auf topographische Faktoren zurückführen.

In Kapitel 4 und 5 werden jeweils politische Reformprozesse in einem landnutzungsrele- vanten und besonders klimaempfindlichen Politikbereich untersucht, da Klimaanpassungspo- litik vermehrt in die Reformprozesse einzelner Politikbereiche einfliessen soll. Ein besseres Verständnis politischer Prozesse bildet somit eine Grundvoraussetzung, um Klimaanpas- sungsmassnahmen in die entsprechenden Reformprozesse erfolgreich einbringen zu können. Im vierten Kapitel werden zunächst die Bedingungen und Einflussfaktoren für inkrementellen Politikwandel anhand der Schweizer Waldpolitik genauer untersucht. Die Analyse des waldpolitischen Netzwerks zeigt, dass in zwischen 2000–2008 die waldpolitischen Präferenzen der Akteure stabil blieben, jedoch ab 2005 eine Schliessung (network closure) des Netzwerkes zu beobachten ist. Für den Zeitraum 2009–2012 lässt sich eine Konsolidierung mit zunehmender Zentralisierung des waldpolitischen Netzwerkes feststellen, welche mit einer Veränderung der Präferenzen bei Schlüsselakteuren einhergeht. Während 2008 der Versuch einer substan- tiellen Reform in der Schweizer Waldpolitik scheiterte, konnte 2012 eine Teilrevision zur Flexibilisierung der Waldflächenpolitik erfolgreich abgeschlossen werden.

In Kapitel 5 wird das landwirtschaftspolitische Netzwerk analysiert, mit dem Ziel die Wahrscheinlichkeit und Umsetzbarkeit von drei möglichen landwirtschaftspolitischen Ent- wicklungen zu bewerten. Basierend auf aktuellen politischen Diskussionen wurden drei Sze- narien entwickelt: (1) Beibehaltung des Status quo, (2) Liberalisierung der Landwirtschaft sowie (3) Ökologisierung der Landwirtschaft. Am meisten Unterstützung geniesst das Szena- rio zur Beibehaltung des Status quo aufgrund der starken Präferenzen zentraler Akteure für eine produktionsorientierte Landwirtschaft. Die Netzwerkanalyse zeigt zudem eine tiefe Spal- tung zwischen Gegnern und Befürwortern einer Liberalisierung der Landwirtschaft. Eine Ökologisierung scheint unter der Bedingung umsetzbar, dass die produktionsorientierte Landwirtschaft nicht vollständig auf ein ökologisches Direktzahlungssystem umgestellt wird. Die Netzwerkanalyse der Landwirtschaftspolitik zeigt deutlich die Bedeutung zentraler Ak- teure und ihrer Präferenzen auf. Je weiter die Präferenzen zentraler Akteursgruppen in Schlüsselfragen auseinander liegen, desto schwieriger gestalten sich Reformen.

viii Die Analysen dieser Arbeit zeigen, dass eine erfolgreiche Klimaanpassungspolitik die unterschiedlichen Ziele sowie die Akteurstrukturen und -präferenzen in den einzelnen Sektoren berücksichtigen muss, da massgebende politische Entscheidungen auf sektoraler Ebene ge- troffen werden. Die Analysen weisen zudem auf zwei massgebliche Defizite der bisherigen Klimaanpassungspolitik hin. Zum einen besteht für politische Entscheidungsträger zurzeit ein Mangel an verfügbaren Politikinstrumenten, welcher die Umsetzung effektiverer Massnah- men auch unter günstigen Rahmenbedingungen verhindert. Zum anderen besteht weiterer Anpassungsbedarf in institutioneller Hinsicht. Bisher wurden klimaanpassungspolitische Fra- gen im Rahmen bestehender politischer Institutionen angegangen. Insbesondere die zu erwar- tenden Konflikte zwischen einzelnen Politikbereichen dürften bestehende politische Prozesse weiter an ihre Grenze bringen und institutionelle Anpassungen erfordern.

ix ABSTRACT

Compared to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to climate change has played a negligible role in climate policy. In recent years, the continued rise of greenhouse gas emissions has led to increased concerns about the severe impacts of climate change. Ac- cordingly, adapting to climate change has become more important recently. Worldwide, policy-makers have started to discuss, formulate, and implement adaptation measures in various policy areas. However, compared to other policy objectives, climate adaptation continues to play a relatively minor role, and the great majority of the measures introduced is limited to the formulation of general policy guidelines and the provision of information. How, for what reasons, and in which policy areas policy-makers formulate and implement climate adaptation measures and how the observed differences regarding agenda-setting, choice of instruments, and institutionalization of climate adaptation policy can be explained are thus key issues in the current research on climate change adaptation policy. The present study aims to add to the previously highlighted questions and to contribute to a better understanding of the still new area of climate change adaptation policy by analyzing (1) how the integration of climate adaptation policy is addressed in sectoral policies, (2) which adaptation measures are taken at the regional level, and (3) what factors influence reform processes, particularly in the climate- sensitive policy sectors. For this purpose, in the context of four case studies, data from the development of the Swiss National Adaptation Strategy (Chapter 2), adaptation measures in three Swiss cantons (Chapter 3), and recent reform processes in Swiss forest and agricultural policy (chapters 4 and 5) were collected and analyzed.

Chapter 2 of this dissertation examines the integration of climate change adaptation policy in the development of the first part of the Swiss National Adaptation Strategy during which corresponding adaptation strategies for selected policy sectors were developed. As a special feature in international terms, these sectoral adaptation strategies enable insights into the question of how climate change adaptation policy is integrated in a broad variety of sectors. The analysis shows that coordination processes play a key role in the integration of climate change adaptation policy. This mainly results from concerns over the negative impacts of climate change adaptation measures in one sector on another sector. Furthermore, the analysis shows that climate change adaptation is more easily integrated in those sectors that have a strong mutual overlap among primary sectoral and adaptation objectives. The importance of sectoral objectives for climate change adaptation policy is also evident in the perception of possible negative side effects. These are perceived primarily from the perspective of particular sectors and merely serve to express the sectors’ concerns and demands. While the importance of sectoral objectives in many cases supports the integration of climate change adaptation policy, it poses particular challenges for coordination. As the analysis shows, coordination across departments already seems to be reaching its limits. In addition, the current coordination system lacks conflict resolution mechanisms for addressing the already emerging cross-sectoral conflicts.

The third chapter analyzes regional adaptation measures by focusing on the issues of agenda-setting, the adopted steering mechanisms, and the sectoral assignment of the measures taken. Adaptation measures were empirically examined in the cantons of Grisons, Valais, and Vaud between 2001 to 2011. Over this period, the adaptation measures show a surprisingly consistent pattern. Particularly strong activities related to adaptation measures can be identified in all three cantons between 2007 and 2009. These similarities led to the conclusion that the agenda-setting of adaptation measures was largely influenced by the national and/or international climate agenda rather than by local or regional events. This hypothesis is supported x by the fact that media attention to climate change shows almost exactly the same pattern (with a short time lag). An analysis of the steering mechanisms of the cantonal adaptation measures reveals a strong similarity with previous studies at the national level. A majority of the adopted measures relates to research- and information-related measures aiming to provide a decision-making basis for the cantonal governments and their administrations. With regard to the relevant policy sectors, clear differences can be observed between the Canton of Vaud and the two inner alpine cantons of Grisons and Valais. In the two mountain cantons, the majority of measures are directed towards natural hazards, while in the canton of Vaud the tourism sectors dominates. This difference can be largely attributed to topographic conditions.

Chapters 4 and 5 each study recent political reform processes in land-use relevant and particularly climate-sensitive policy areas, since climate adaptation policy aims to increase its incorporation in ongoing policy reform processes. A better understanding of such political processes is thus a fundamental prerequisite to successfully incorporating climate adaptation measures in the relevant reform processes. The fourth chapter first examines the conditions and factors influencing incremental policy change in more detail with reference to Swiss forest policy. The analysis of the forest policy network shows that between 2000 and 2008 the forest policy preferences of the involved actors remained stable, but from 2005 a closure of the network can be observed. For the period 2009–2012, a consolidation with increasing centralization of the forest policy network can be observed which was accompanied by a change in preferences among key players. In 2008, the attempt toward substantial reform in Swiss forest policy failed, while in 2012 a partial revision toward a more flexible definition of forest areas successfully passed legislation.

In Chapter 5, the agricultural policy network is analyzed in order to evaluate the likelihood and feasibility of three possible agricultural policy developments. Based on current political discussions, three scenarios were developed: (1) maintaining the status quo, (2) the liberalization of agriculture, and (3) the greening of agriculture. Most support is given to the maintenance of the status quo due to the strong preferences of key actors for production-oriented agriculture. The network analysis also shows a strong cleavage between opponents and supporters of the liberalization of agriculture. A greening scenario, however, seems feasible under the condition that payments not completely shift towards a purely ecologically based direct payment system. The network analysis of agricultural policy clearly shows the importance of key actors and their preferences. The stronger the cleavage between preferences among key actor groups, the more difficult it becomes to achieve political reforms.

The analyses in this study show that a successful climate adaptation policy must take into account the actor structures and the actors’ objectives and preferences in the individual sectors as key political decisions are predominately determined at the sectoral level. The analyses also reveal two key shortcomings of previous climate change adaptation policy. First, there is currently a lack of policy instruments that can enable policy-makers to engage in climate change adaptation policy, preventing the implementation of effective measures, even under favorable conditions. Second, the analyses reveal further need for institutional adjustments. So far, climate adaptation policy issues have been addressed in the context of existing political institutions. In particular, the emerging conflicts between different policy areas will continue to push existing political processes to their limit and will, therefore, require institutional adjustments.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTA- TION POLICY

Although both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change were included in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, subsequent international and national climate policy has almost exclusively been framed in terms of mitigation—that is, the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration (Seidl 2011, Gupta 2014). Due to the continued rise of greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, expected increases in average global temperatures, concerns over inevitable and severe impacts have increased worldwide over the last decade. Due to these growing concerns and signs of already changed climate patterns, adapting to the current and future impacts of climate change and responding to vulnerabilities have recently become issues of national and subnational policy- making. Today, adaptation to climate change is regarded as an inevitable strategy by most governments and thus complements mitigation efforts in climate policy. Public authorities all over the world have within the last few years started to discuss, formulate, and implement measures to tackle climate change in areas such as coastal protection, biodiversity, agriculture, forestry, tourism, water, energy, natural hazards, land use, and infrastructure (Massey and Bergsma 2008, EEA 2013).

However, in establishing climate change adaptation policy, governments are confronted with a range of challenges, including uncertainties with regard to future climate change and impacts, varying regional vulnerabilities and impacts, the interplay between different governance levels, the cross-sectoral issue of adaptation, and the involvement of a multitude of actors (Smith et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, EEA 2013, Palutikof et al. 2013). In response to these challenges, some widely accepted general principles regarding how to approach the governance of climate change adaptation have been established: Actions should be taken, particularly at the regional and local levels; multi-level governance should be enhanced; climate change adaptation should be systematically integrated across policy domains; priority should be given to so-called “no-regret” or “low-regret” measures; scientific knowledge should be systematically integrated into decision-making; communication and information provision and sharing should be considered fundamental; and participation and consultation should be considered crucial (Swart et al. 2009, Biesbroek et al. 2010, Cimato and Mullan 2010, Staf- ford Smith et al. 2011, Bauer et al. 2012, Termeer et al. 2012, EEA 2013, Palutikof et al. 2013). However, coordinating, supporting, and enabling adaptation across levels and sectors have become the key tasks for national governments and their public administrations (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, EEA 2013).

Several studies and reports have analyzed how governments are implementing these principles (e.g., Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2007, Massey and Bergsma 2008, De Gier et al. 2009, Swart et al. 2009, Biesbroek et al. 2010, Keskitalo 2010b, Ford and Berrang-Ford 2011, Frommer et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2011, Bauer et al. 2012, Keskitalo et al. 2012, EEA 2013). First, these studies report that although there is wide agreement on these general principles and that most governments have extensively referred to them, for instance in their national adaptation strategies or action programs, significant variance exists with respect to the implementation of adaptation measures across countries, governmental levels, and policy sectors. Second, they observe that despite the recent increase in the implementation of more concrete adaptation measures, overall, such measures are still rather scant. Most adaptation measures still consist of research and information-related activities, expressions of concern, and the establishment of general guidelines for future action. Finally, these studies indicate

1 that climate change adaptation policy objectives are still given rather low importance compared to other policy objectives.

However, the early stage of climate change adaptation policy gives cause for serious concern. Recent evidence suggests that climate conditions may change faster and more severely than originally anticipated, thus demanding more profound adaptation efforts (Gilding 2011, Stafford Smith et al. 2011, Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber 2012). Additional concerns arise from the fact that climate change now plays a larger and increasing role in military planning processes (Campbell et al. 2007, The CNA Corporation 2007, Mabey 2008, Dyer 2010). Alt- hough one might not believe in the darkest scenarios of the complete breakdown of food and/or energy supplies and mass migration resulting in unprecedented casualties, even in conservative scenarios an “Age of Consequences” lies ahead. Enhancing adaptation to changing climate conditions and putting forth more substantial effort in mitigation are thus key requirements to prevent this “Age of Consequences” from turning into an “Age of Tragedies.”

1.2 KEY ISSUES OF THIS THESIS

How, why, and in which sectors public authorities from the national to the local levels formulate and implement climate change adaptation policy and what could explain the observed differences in agenda-setting, instrument choice, and institutionalization are thus key questions in recent and ongoing research on the governance of climate change adaptation (Massey and Bergsma 2008, Keskitalo 2010b, Ford and Berrang-Ford 2011, Bauer et al. 2012, Keskitalo et al. 2012). Providing answers to these questions is of particular importance regarding the key tasks of national governments and their public administrations in climate change adaptation policy, which are to coordinate, support, and enable climate change adaptation across levels and sectors (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, EEA 2013). The aim of this thesis is to contribute to this discussion by focusing firstly on two of the key approaches mentioned above—namely, the integration of climate change adaptation policy and the actions taken at the regional level. However, recent research suggests that in order to advance the adaptation agenda, adaptation issues have to be included in regular policy reforms (Dovers and Hezri 2010, Dovers 2013). Understanding how such reforms might be achieved demands a shift of attention to recent and current policy processes in key sectors beyond adaptation (Dovers 2013). Therefore, secondly, this thesis also aims to contribute to a better understanding of policy processes and future developments in two selected key sectors—forestry and agriculture—which are particularly vulnerable to climate impacts (EEA 2009, BAFU 2010).

The first key approach analyzed in this thesis—the integration of climate change adaptation policy—is widely acknowledged as climate change affects most, if not all, policy sectors and as sectoral adaptation measures can potentially result in negative side effects for other sectors. Climate change adaptation policy integration (CAPI) refers to the idea of taking climate change adaptation policy objectives into account in other policies (e.g., energy policy) and recognizing and addressing inconsistencies across sectoral policies (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, Brouwer et al. 2013). In general terms, low levels of integration involve the consideration of climate change adaptation policy objectives along with existing policies, while higher levels of integration include a complete redesign of policies and decision-making processes from the perspective of climate change adaptation. Although there is a broad variety of conceptual studies and reports on the subject, very few empirical studies currently exist that specifically analyze the integration of climate change adaptation policy. Such studies have been carried out in the specific contexts of either water policy (De Loë 2011, Brouwer et al. 2013) or development cooperation (e.g., Gupta and van der Grijp 2010). These single-sector studies, however, barely address the issue of inconsistencies across sectors, and it remains

2 unclear how adaptation is to be integrated into other sectors. Moreover, the integration of climate change adaptation has been included in more general studies on the integration of climate policy (Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008, Mickwitz et al. 2009). While these studies combine the integration of mitigation and adaptation conceptually, more recent studies suggest that the same logic does not apply to both dimensions (Adelle and Russel 2013, Brouwer et al. 2013). Overall, although the integration of climate change adaptation policy is widely promoted as a key principle, it is still an open question in regards to how it is addressed by various governments, what concepts have been adopted, what levels of integration have resulted, and how they can be explained (Brouwer et al. 2013).

The second key approach claims that action should be taken particularly at the regional level due to varying regional climate vulnerabilities and impacts. Recent observations suggest that regional governments have become more active in formulating and implementing adaptation measures (Bättig et al. 2010, Termeer et al. 2011). These regional adaptation measures have predominantly been analyzed in single case studies with a particular geographical focus (e.g., Agrawala 2007, Hilpert et al. 2007, EEA 2009, Keskitalo 2010a) or have concentrated on a set of selected adaptation measures or sectors (e.g., Scott and McBoyle 2007, Overbeck et al. 2009, Frommer et al. 2011, McAllister et al. 2014). In addition, several governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations have recently started to implement platforms to collect information on ongoing climate change adaptation projects at the regional and local levels (see, for instance, the European Climate Adaptation Platform “Climate-ADAPT” or the case study database from Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange) (EEA 2013). These col- lections provide very useful overviews of current ongoing activities but typically focus on technical issues. Moreover, the case studies on regional adaptation as well as these recent data sets are biased towards “successful” activities (“best practice examples”). As governance- focused comparative studies have not been carried out thus far for regional adaptation policies, it remains unclear what prevailing cluster of political steering emerging from regional adaptation measures, so-called modes of governance (Salamon 2000, 2002, Lascoumes and Le Galès 2005, Howlett and Rayner 2007, Howlett 2009, Evans 2012), are emerging from regional policy decisions, which sectors are addressed, and what puts adaptation on the regional agenda (Huitema et al. 2012).

Climate change adaptation is explicitly framed as a policy problem that should be addressed in established sectoral policies and existing political institutions (Swart et al. 2009, Dovers and Hezri 2010). Recent research suggests that in order to advance the adaptation agenda, adaptation has to become a key issue in regular policy reform processes (Dovers and Hezri 2010, Dovers 2013). In order to understand how such reforms might be achieved by using existing routine institutional procedures, a shift of attention to recent and current policy processes in key sectors beyond adaptation is demanded (Dovers 2013). In particular, the literature on the integration of climate change adaptation policy has so far adopted a rather normative perspective, giving only very general instructions, such as that adaptation should be integrated in all stages of policy-making (see for instance Olhoff and Schaer 2010). Such general instructions, however, are only of limited practical guidance for assisting policy-makers in formulating and implementing climate change adaptation policy and integrating climate change adaptation policy into sectoral policies (Dovers 2013, EEA 2013). Hence, in a second step, this thesis also aims to contribute to a better understanding of policy processes in two selected key sectors—forest and agriculture—which are particularly vulnerable to climate impacts. Such recent and current policy processes may also provide evidence—although to a limited degree—for further policy developments despite the current absence of adaptation measures in these sectors. Moreover, reform attempts towards climate change adaptation may

3 be supported by analyzing and evaluating existing policy structures and anticipating likely and feasible policy developments.

1.3 GUIDING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This thesis aims to contribute to filling these gaps by analyzing the integration of climate change adaptation policy in more detail, making more systematic use of the growing empirical evidence of adaptation measures at the regional level, and by studying recent policy processes and evaluating potential future developments in two selected key sectors—forestry and agriculture. The empirical analysis was carried out for Switzerland. On December 23, 2011, the revised CO2 act was adopted by both chambers of the Swiss parliament, giving the Federal Council the authority to coordinate adaptation activities and to engage in the development of adaptation measures and mandating the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) as the coordinating body between the federal agencies and the cantons (Swiss member states). By March 2012, Switzerland had developed the first part of the national adaptation strategy as well as seven corresponding sectoral adaptation strategies. The development of sectoral strategies provides a particularly interesting case for analyzing the integration of climate change adaptation as they offer insights into how adaptation is addressed over a broad variety of sectors. Similar sectoral strategies have only been developed in the United Kingdom thus far. These developments were paralleled at the cantonal level as well—that is, several cantons developed adaptation strategies and implemented adaptation measures. However, a questionnaire-based survey suggests significant differences with respect to the policy measures adopted to address climate change adaptation across cantons but also reveals some similar developments, such as a strong focus on adaptation measures in the forestry sector (Bättig et al. 2010). For the analysis of policy processes, data were collected from the forestry and agriculture sectors, which were both subjects of several reform processes. Moreover, both sectors are considered to be highly vulnerable to climate change and were, therefore, involved in the development of the national adaptation strategy and the established sectoral adaptation strategies (BAFU 2010, FOEN 2012).

Hence, as climate change adaptation in Switzerland shows substantial variance across sectors and regions, analyzing climate change adaptation in Switzerland presents an interesting case for analyzing the previously outlined key questions on climate change adaptation policy, which are how, why, and in which sectors public authorities formulate and implement climate change adaptation policy. In order to start to fill the research gaps previously highlighted, the following three research questions were chosen for this thesis:

1. What concepts and approaches for the integration of climate change adaptation policy have been developed so far and how has the integration of climate change adaptation policy been addressed during the process of developing the National Adaptation Strategy in Switzer- land?

2. What climate change adaptation measures have been discussed or adopted in Switzerland at the regional level so far, what developments put them on the agenda, and what are the implications for coordinating and enhancing regional climate change adaptation policy?

3. What kinds of policy developments are likely and feasible within a policy sector given the current structure of policy networks, the distribution of policy preferences, and the political powers in these sectors, and what are the implications for future attempts to integrate climate change adaptation policy into sectoral policies?

4 To investigate these guiding research questions, four studies were conducted. Together, they explore climate change adaptation policy in Switzerland at the national and cantonal levels as well as recent policy processes in two adaptation-relevant policy sectors from different perspectives. Addressing the first research question, the first study investigates the integration of climate change adaptation policies in more detail. To this end, the study analyzes the process of the development of the national adaptation strategy and the sectoral adaptation strategies in Switzerland. In the second study, the adaptation measures in three Swiss cantons are analyzed from a comparative perspective, thus contributing to the second research question. The third and fourth studies analyze recent policy processes in two policy sectors, namely forestry and agriculture. Both the third and fourth studies address the third research question but for different sectors. The third study analyzes forestry, while the fourth study focuses on agriculture. While the study on forestry focuses on the drivers of incremental policy change, the study on agriculture demonstrates the application of assessing different policy scenarios based on recent policy developments. While these two studies do not analyze adaptation specifically, they might provide further guidance for future reform attempts regarding adaptation in these sectors. The key findings of each study are summarized in more detail below.

1.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1.4.1 Integrating climate change adaptation policy in Switzerland

As the impacts of climate change cut across several, if not all, policy domains, the principle of CAPI has emerged as a key pillar of climate change adaptation policy. Most of the studies and reports on CAPI refer to concepts and approaches developed in the context of environmental policy integration (EPI). However, due to the lack of empirical studies, it remains unclear how CAPI is adopted in practice, what levels of integration have resulted, and how different levels of integration could be explained (Brouwer et al. 2013). Following the categorization developed by Rametsteiner et al. (2010) for policy integration, the review of CAPI studies reveals strong similarities between conceptualizations of CAPI and EPI. Three particular understandings of CAPI can be identified in the literature: (1) an “incorporation” of climate change adaptation policy objectives into other policies, (2) a “process of coordination,” and (3) “joint new policy.” A major difference from previous EPI concepts exists regarding the understanding of CAPI exclusively as a process due to the absence of a theoretical foundation to assess CAPI as an output. Moreover, coordination plays a fundamental role in CAPI, while in the EPI literature it is often considered as a prerequisite or pre-stage but not as policy integration per se (Meijers and Stead 2004). In contrast to EPI, enhanced coordination is expected to support the realization of mutual benefits and—more importantly—to prevent the negative side effects of adaptation measures across sectors. Such negative side effects are expected to arise due to the strong inter-linkages (i.e., same resource use) among the sectors, which often have competing policy objectives. However, the three conceptualizations also imply different levels of CA- PI—that is, a “weak,” “medium,” and “strong” level of integration. In order to assess different levels of CAPI, a framework has been developed for the empirical analysis of CAPI as a governing process. Like previous EPI studies, this framework basically distinguishes between three different approaches: (1) normative-communicative, (2) organizational, and (3) procedural (Jordan 2002, Persson 2004, Jacob et al. 2008, Jordan and Lenschow 2008). Previous studies have argued that higher levels of integration result from the adoption of procedural measures. However, recent evidence suggests that this assumption may be misleading as the design of procedural measures is often rather undemanding (Jacob et al. 2008). Thus, in contrast to previous studies, the article argues that the level of integration results from the design of the selected measures.

5 Subsequently, the study analyzes how CAPI was approached during the development of the Swiss National Adaptation Strategy and what degrees of integration resulted across the sectors. The analysis reveals that CAPI has been achieved at either a weak or medium level in Switzerland. A medium level results from substantial coordination across sectors. Most notably, this is reflected in the systematic provision of basic information on the key vulnerabilities and possible fields of action for the national adaptation strategy, on the standardized procedures for developing the sectoral strategies, and on the systematic identification of interfaces. However, not all sectors completed the task of developing a sectoral adaptation strategy, and some strategies and reports deviate substantially regarding form and content. Since these strategies have been developed in sectors located in other departments as the leading office, this suggests that coordination (and thus integration) is more challenging across departments. Moreover, the analysis shows substantial differences in the various sectors. Some sectors already consider climate change adaptation to be an integral part of their agenda. In particular, the forestry sector included adaptation prominently in its sectoral agenda and most recently initiated a partial revision of the Federal Act on Forestry to further address climate change adaptation. In addition, the agriculture, biodiversity, and natural hazard sectors also seem to consider climate change adaptation more prominently than other sectors. However, compared to certain other issues in these sectors, adaptation is still considered to be of comparatively minor importance. The analysis suggests that adaptation objectives are mainly adopted when they overlap with primary sectoral objectives. Several sectors identified areas of potential conflict with other sectors but without further consideration. Those considering such contradictions or negative effects in more detail, however, merely express their sector’s concerns and demands, such as the legal protection of water rights for the agricultural sector or legislation in favor of the energy sector with respect to residual flow. Finally, the analysis also reveals that, in organizational terms, climate change integration is strongly concentrated in the Federal Office for the Environment rather than being integrated throughout different departments and offices.

1.4.2 Issue attention and modes of governance: climate change adaptation in Swiss alpine regions

Due to varying regional impacts, scientific studies as well as official reports have assigned a key role in climate adaptation policy to regional governments and public authorities, as actions to tackle climate change should particularly be taken at the regional and local levels (e.g., Adger 2001, De Gier et al. 2009, Swart et al. 2009, Keskitalo 2010b, Frommer et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2011, IPCC 2012, EEA 2013). However, which modes of governance arise from policy decisions at the regional level, which sectors are addressed, and how the policy agenda for climate change adaptation is determined have remained unanswered questions due to a lack of comparative studies with a governance focus on the regional level. In this chapter, regional climate change adaptation measures taken in Switzerland are we therefore systematized and analyzed in order to better understand the more general patterns of regional adaptation policy processes. The analysis focuses on the three cantons of Grisons, Va- lais, and Vaud for the period from 2001 to 2011, as these cantons have a substantial share of mountain areas, which are considered among the most vulnerable areas to climate change in Europe (Beniston 2003, 2005, Agrawala 2007, European Commission 2008, EEA 2009, Eu- ropean Commission 2009b).

Our analysis of climate change adaptation measures reveals that regarding the timing of the observed adaptation measures in the three selected cantons, very similar patterns emerge. Cantonal governments were especially active in initiating and implementing adaptation measures between 2007 and 2009. This similarity suggests that the agenda-setting was shaped

6 more by the national and international climate policy agendas than by specific regional conditions such as the occurrence of locally explicit extreme events, as suggested by previous research (Swart et al. 2009, Peltonen et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2012). This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that media attention to climate change shows almost exactly the same pattern (with a short time lag) as that of the number of adaptation measures adopted in the three cantons.

With respect to applied policy instruments, the analysis showed that regional adaptation measures strongly mirror current climate change adaptation policy at the national level in that, by far, most of the cantonal adaptation measures primarily contained information and exhortation instruments. This should not be misinterpreted as a “networked mode” of governance, as these information activities in the three regions had the characteristics of acquiring information for governments and public administrations as well as raising public awareness and disseminating information. This is corroborated by an analysis of the involved actors. In our analysis, most adaptation measures were of concern to the executive branch of government only and did not involve the participation of stakeholders or engage a broader democratic process. The analysis of addressed policy sectors revealed different needs and priorities for adaptation measures between the regions. The most notable difference in adaptation measures exists between the canton of Vaud, with a primary focus on tourism resulting in concerns about reduced snow-security at lower altitudes, and the inner-alpine cantons of Grison and Valais, with a primary focus on natural hazards. These differences mainly resulted from different topographical and socio-economic conditions but could also reflect to some degree political preferences (for instance, the higher share of measures in the biodiversity sector in Vaud).

1.4.3 What drives incremental policy change? A longitudinal analysis of Swiss forest policy 2000–2012

Contemporary analyses of policy change have typically focused on major policy alterations even though incremental policy change is by far more frequent (Sabatier 2007). The predominance of such policy processes that develop incrementally has been attributed to the stabilizing forces of institutions (Tsebelis 2002, Mahoney and Thelen 2010), the power of existing policy networks (Howlett 2002, Hayes 2006), or the path dependence of policy programs (Bennett and Elman 2006). The more recent studies of incremental policy change have emphasized the importance of ideational change during times of stability (Carstensen 2011, Baumgartner 2013). In this study, we take a policy network approach, combining a structural analysis of the policy network with a systematic analysis of the relevant actors’ policy preferences. We argue that a high level of network closure, which enhances trust and cooperation among actors in combination with the sharing of key policy preferences, can lead to incremental policy change. However, the network actors only support the incremental changes if those changes allow the actors to consolidate their preferred policies as well as their position in the policy network. Empirically, our analysis covers Swiss forest policy over the period from 2000 to 2012. For this period, three particular processes were identified and analyzed: (1) the development of the National Forest Policy Program (2000–2004), (2) the proposal to revise the Swiss Federal Act on Forests (2005–2008), and (3) the parliamentary initiative for a more flexible policy on forest areas (2009–2012).

During the period covered by the analysis, Swiss forest policy-making can be characterized as a process of continuous evolvement and extension without major shifts. The development of the National Forest Policy Program was mainly a continuation and consolidation of processes started in the 1990s. The revision of the Swiss Federal Act on Forests initially intended to implement the National Forest Policy Program. However, the sum of significant changes

7 (substantial changes in the setting and application of policy instruments as well as a partial revision of policy goals) that was finally proposed in the revision of the Federal Act on For- ests was no longer supported by the major interest groups and was countered by a popular initiative. This eventually resulted in a rejection of the proposal and thus a consolidation of the status quo. A minor modification of the Federal Act on Forests initiated by the Parliamen- tary Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy received wide support and passed legislation in 2012.

The analysis showed that the policy developments in Swiss forest policy between 2000 and 2012 were associated with different processes in the Swiss forest policy. Overall, the analysis revealed only minor changes in the structure of the policy network as well as in the alignment of preferences. In the first phase of policy stability, the policy network displayed a process of network closure with mostly stable policy preferences. A stabilization of the network in combination with a considerate shift in the policy preferences of the critical actors then allowed for a partial revision of the Federal Act on Forests with a more flexible definition of forest areas to address the problem of growing forest areas in mountain regions.

1.4.4 Combining policy network and model-based scenario analyses: an assessment of future ecosystem services in Swiss mountain regions

The agricultural sector in mountain regions provides a range of crucial ecosystem goods and services (EGS), which are increasingly under stress. To steer these processes and mitigate their negative impacts, as well as to guarantee the provision of these crucial EGS in the future, new policy interventions or adjustments of current practices are needed. To assess the future provision of EGS in mountain regions, three policy scenarios reflect the crucial policy issues of the ongoing processes in Swiss agricultural policy. The first scenario (status quo) assumes a continuation of domestic support including production-oriented support, proof of ecological performance, and market access restrictions. The second scenario (liberalization) assumes only direct payments but no production and trade support, and an abolishment of tariffs and import quotas. The third scenario (greening) assumes a reform of domestic support towards ecological performance. In order to assess the political feasibility and likelihood of each scenario, the given structure of the Swiss agricultural policy network and the policy preferences of the relevant political actors were included in the analysis.

The network data revealed the central position of the Federal Office for Agriculture, the Federal Council, the parliamentary committees, the two chambers of the parliament, and the main interest organization, the Swiss Farmers’ Association (SBV). Political parties and other interest group organizations were positioned more at the periphery of the network. Combining the structural characteristics of the network with the actors’ policy preferences revealed a strong cleavage between supporters and opponents of deregulation of the agricultural markets as well as domestic support for agricultural products. Specifically, the opponents consist of the SBV and the main political right-wing party, SVP. While the supporters are found in the core of the policy network, the influence of both the SBV and SVP is expected to be larger than that what emanates from the network data only. Due to their organizational and reputational power, both the SBV and SVP are currently in a position to successfully block further liberalization attempts. The cleavage in policy preferences is less accentuated regarding the issue of greening. In particular, the SBV does not strictly oppose a greening scenario, as long as it is in accordance with its key policy preference of sustaining the production-oriented agricultural sector at its current economic size. Opposition, however, would arise in the case of a substantial reduction of agricultural production or a major shift away from a production-

8 oriented towards a purely ecologically based direct payment system, as in the liberalization scenario.

Overall, our analyses revealed that despite the agricultural sector having been structurally weakened within the last two decades, it still incorporates many characteristics of a “policy community”: stable membership including the responsible government ministry and the main interest organizations. Moreover, the beliefs and preferences regarding the main agricultural policy issues were rather stable among the main actors in the network. Consequentially, major changes are very unlikely in the near future. The strong cleavages in the case of deregulation and domestic support, in combination with the structural characteristics of the network and the distribution of organizational and reputational power, favor the maintenance of the status quo. A greening scenario is more likely than a liberalization scenario, but only under the conditions that agricultural production not be substantially reduced and payments not shift entirely to a purely ecologically based direct payment system.

1.5 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The first study addressed the issue of climate change adaptation policy integration (CAPI) during the process of the development of the Swiss National Adaptation Strategy and sectoral adaptation strategies. The analysis implies that CAPI is stronger in those sectors where adaptation objectives show a strong overlap with primary sectoral objectives. Although adaptation is now included in several key sectors, compared to other issues, adaptation is still considered to be of comparatively low importance. In addition, the identification of potentially conflicting areas firmly expresses the specific sectoral concerns and demands. This suggests that adaptation in general and CAPI in particular is strongly shaped by a sectoral perspective. This prevailing sectoral perspective has implications for the current main approach for CAPI in Switzerland, which is “coordination”. As it is well known from the EPI literature, developing a strategy is a comparatively easy task, while achieving effective implementation is substantially more challenging (Carter 2007, Nilsson et al. 2007, Jacob et al. 2008, Jordan and Lenschow 2008, Sgobbi 2010). Although the greater potential fit of sectoral and adaptation objectives in contrast to EPI suggests a more optimistic perspective for CAPI, the strong sectoral focus implies substantial coordination challenges, specifically with respect to potentially harmful side effects of adaptation measures across sectors. Hence, strengthening the coordination processes will be a main challenge in the future. In particular, the current coordination mechanisms lack conflict resolution mechanisms to deal with potential conflicts. Establishing effective conflict resolution procedures will thus be a key task for enhancing CAPI in the future.

Responsibility for the various tasks related to the national adaptation strategy has mainly been allocated to a single federal office. This includes addressing and managing the interplays where, in the vast majority of cases, the Federal Office for the Environment is responsible for further elaborating on these interplays. Hence, climate change adaptation is strongly concentrated in the Federal Office for the Environment rather than being integrated into different offices and sectors. Thus, so far, CAPI is not reflected in organizational terms. However, a prerequisite for successful CAPI within sectors is that those concerned sectors establish key competencies in climate change adaptation. Providing additional financial resources and per- sonnel is crucial for further enhancing the CAPI agenda in organizational terms as well. Moreover, establishing adaptation units in departments outside the Federal Office for the En- vironment may additionally support the main challenge of coordination as outlined previously.

9 The analysis of regional adaptation measures has revealed strong similarities with regard to the occurrence of adaptation measures in the three selected cantons. Cantonal governments were especially active in initiating and implementing adaptation measures between 2007 and 2009. Retrospectively, a significant “window of opportunity” (Kingdon 2003) for climate change adaptation measures was open during this period. However, at the national level, climate change adaptation was barely an issue at that time. It was only in August 2009 that the Federal Council initiated the development of a national adaptation strategy for Switzerland as well as additional strategies for some key sectors (FOEN 2012). Thus, support and coordination could not be provided by national public authorities and this “window of opportunity” at the cantonal level was missed. The almost exclusive focus on information-based adaptation measures, aiming at building adaptive capacity by information gathering and research on behalf of public officials and by raising public awareness, seems to have contributed to the current difficulties in translating the abstract goals of adaptation—“enhancing adaptive capacity” and “reducing vulnerability”—into more concrete objectives and policy measures. In order to enable regional adaptation, the development and assessment of more concrete policy instruments seems therefore an important field of action for future national climate change adaptation policy.

Besides these similarities, the analysis regarding the policy sectors in the three cantons also revealed different needs and priorities for adaptation measures, and the inclusion of a broader set of cantons would probably reveal an even more diverse set of needs and priorities. The observed differences mainly seem to result from different topographical but also socio- economic conditions. Hence, climate change adaptation policy has strong implications for regional policy. More recently, the European Union has also started to address climate change adaptation within its regional policy programs (EEA 2013). To add to the complexity of the problem, these regional implications also cut substantially across sectors. Coordinating climate change adaptation across sectors and levels simultaneously involves substantial governance challenges that have been highlighted and analyzed only very recently (Keskitalo 2010b, Casado-Asensio et al. 2012).

Climate change adaptation measures can either be transformational or incremental. While transformational adaptation involves fundamental technological or behavioral changes, incremental adaptation consists of modifications and/or extensions of existing measures according to the “incremental model” of policy change and policy-making. Consequently, in order to enhance climate change adaptation measures, understanding the processes and mechanisms of incremental policy change is crucial. The third and fourth studies analyzed recent policy processes in Swiss agricultural and forest policy. The analyses of the current structures of the policy networks, as well as the distributions of policy preferences on major issues, revealed that—in absence of major political and/or economic crises—only incremental changes in both policy sectors currently seem likely or feasible. Climate change adaptation policy has mainly envisioned and proposed measures according to the incremental model of policy change (Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber 2012, EEA 2013). Thus, with regard to the amount of change, there seems to be a basic compatibility between the general aims of climate change adaptation policy and what is currently likely and feasible in Swiss agricultural and forest policy. How- ever, major policy changes within a short period of time in the case of accelerated climate change will be substantially more challenging.

The analyses of both cases have revealed that policy proposals that run counter to the key policy preferences of the central actors create major cleavages among the central actors in the policy network and/or undermine the position of the central actors in the policy network have a very low chance of success. While in the case of forest policy, the protection of forest areas

10 is still widely supported among the main actors, production-oriented agricultural policy is a key position of the main interest group in agriculture. Anticipating these preferences would thus be a prudent strategy in future reform attempts towards climate change adaptation policy in Switzerland. More generally, analyzing the policy preferences of the central actors and identifying potential conflicts with climate change adaptation measures are key prerequisites for the successful implementation of climate change adaptation policies. As our studies have shown, the main actors of the policy network supported policy changes only if the changes allowed them to consolidate their policy goals as well as their position in the policy network. Thus, policy-makers attempting to reform policies towards climate change adaptation have to acknowledge the congruence of key actors’ general policy goals and the intended policy adjustments as well as how policy adjustments support or undermine the actors’ network position.

1.6 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH

The research results summarized above are subject to certain limitations. A key limitation that restricts all current research on climate change adaptation is a lack of empirical cases, in particular for national climate change adaptation policy. As of 2013, 16 national adaptation strategies existed in Europe, with most adaptation measures consisting of research and information-related activities, expressions of concern, and the establishment of general guidelines for future action. Implemented adaptation measures on the national level, however, are still rather scarce. Consequently, any analysis of climate change adaptation policy is currently confronted with a rather small sample size, which imposes strong methodological limitations.

Most recently, an increase in implemented adaptation measures has been reported by the European Environment Agency, but a closer look at such measures reveals that this increase is probably due to the re-framing of various long-standing measures as climate change adaptation. For example, the Swiss insurance scheme against natural hazards (mostly established in late 19th and early 20th centuries) is now considered as adaptation measure and parks and public gardens were relabeled from “urban recreational areas” to “green infrastructure projects in climate change adaptation” (EEA 2013). However, re-framing existing measures as climate change adaptation cannot replace the task of establishing climate change adaptation policy and adjusting current practices.

Current attempts to include climate change adaptation in legal frameworks could provide an interesting foundation for new empirical studies. As such processes would have a higher visibility by involving the participation of political parties and the broader public, this could also initiate new research questions as climate change adaptation has so far been mainly the task of the executive branch of government. Recently, a range of new instruments has been proposed (e.g., climate proofing, vulnerability assessments). However, these instruments have been implemented only very recently, are still in a pilot phase, or even exist only in draft form (Persson and Klein 2009, Olhoff and Schaer 2010). The assessment of such new instruments as well as the development of more concrete boxes of policy instruments seem to be interesting and essential fields for future research. Currently, measures that address climate change adaptation are envisaged more as technical exercises (e.g., improving flood protection) rather than as adjustments of current practices. There seems to be a particular lack of policy instruments that enable governments on various levels to engage actively in climate change adaptation. This fact gives cause for serious concern.

11 LITERATURE CITED

Adelle, C. and D. Russel. 2013. Climate Policy Integration: a Case of Déjà Vu? Environmen- tal Policy and Governance 23:1–12. Adger, W. N. 2001. Scales of Goverance and Environmental Justice for Adaptation and Miti- gation of Climate Change. Journal of International Development 13:921–931. Agrawala, S., editor. 2007. Climate Change in the European Alps – Adpating Winter Tourism and Natural Hazards Management. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- opment (OECD), Paris. BAFU. 2010. Strategie der Schweiz zur Anpassung an die Klimaänderung – Zwischenbericht zuhanden des Bundesrates. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Bern. Bättig, M., L. Rageth, and Y. Kaufmann. 2010. Anpassung an die Klimaänderung: Erhebung in den Kantonen. Econcept/Bundesamt für Umwelt, Zürich/Bern. Bauer, A., J. Feichtinger, and R. Steurer. 2012. The Governance of Climate Change Adapta- tion in 10 OECD Countries: Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 14:279–304. Baumgartner, F. R. 2013. Ideas and Policy Change. Governance 26:239–258. Beniston, M. 2003. Climatic Change in Mountain Regions: A Review of Possible Impacts. Climatic Change 59:5–31. Beniston, M. 2005. Mountain Climates and Climatic Change: An Overview of Processes Fo- cusing on the European Alps. Pure and Applied Geophysics 162:1587–1606. Bennett, A. and C. Elman. 2006. Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis 14:250–267. Biesbroek, G. R., R. J. Swart, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, H. Mela, M. Morecroft, and D. Rey. 2010. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Global Environmental Change 20:440–450. Brouwer, S., T. Rayner, and D. Huitema. 2013. Mainstreaming climate policy: the case of climate adaptation and the implementation of EU water policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31:134–153. Campbell, K. M., J. Gulledge, J. R. McNeill, J. Podesta, P. Ogden, L. Fuerth, R. J. Woolsey, A. T. J. Lennon, J. Smith, R. Weitz, and D. Mix. 2007. The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and Security Implications of Global Climate Change. Center for Strategic & International Studies/Center for a New American Security, Washington, D.C. Carstensen, M. B. 2011. Ideas are Not as Stable as Political Scientists Want Them to Be: A Theory of Incremental Ideational Change. Political Studies 59:596–615. Carter, N. 2007. The Politics of the Environment – Ideas, Activism, Policy. 2nd edition. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge. Casado-Asensio, J., R. Streuer, K. Jacob, and S. Korte. 2012. CLIP–IN: Climate Policy Inte- gration in Federal States: Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy BOKU Wien & Freie Universität Berlin, Wien/Berlin. Cimato, F. and M. Mullan. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: Analysing the Role of Gov- ernment. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), London. De Gier, T., J. Gupta, and M. van Rijswick. 2009. A state of the Art on the Legal and Policy Literature on Adaptation to Climate Change: Towards a Research Agenda. Knowledge for Climate Report 001/09. Knowledge for Climate, Utrecht/Wageningen.

12 De Loë, R. C. 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Drinking Water Source Protection in Ontario: Challenges and Opportunities. Pages 439–448 in J. D. Ford and L. Berrang-Ford, editors. Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations – From Theory to Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Dovers, S. 2013. How much adaptation: are existing policy and institutions enough? Pages 97–102 in J. Palutikof, S. L. Boulter, A. J. Ash, M. Stafford Smith, M. Parry, M. Waschka, and D. Guitart, editors. Climate Adaptation Futures. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Dovers, S. and A. A. Hezri. 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation. WIREs Climate Change 1:212–231. Dyer, G. 2010. Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats. Oneworld, Ox- ford. EEA. 2009. Regional climate change and adaptation: The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources. EEA Report No. 8/2009. European Environment Agency (EEA), Co- penhagen. EEA. 2013. Adaptation in Europe: Addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in the context of socio-economic developments. EEA Report No. 3/2013. European Envi- ronment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen. European Commission. 2008. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. European Commission. 2009. White Book – Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a Europe- an Framework for Action. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Evans, J. P. 2012. Environmental Governance. Routledge, London and New York, NY. FOEN. 2012. Adaptation to climate change in Switzerland: Goals, challenges and fields of action. First part of the Federal Council's strategy, adopted on 2 March 2012. Federal Of- fice for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. Ford, J. D. and L. Berrang-Ford. 2011. Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations – From Theory to Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Frommer, B., F. Buchholz, and H. R. Böhm. 2011. Anpassung an den Klimawandel – regional umsetzen! Oekom, München. Gagnon-Lebrun, F. and S. Agrawala. 2007. Implementing adaptation in developed countries: an analysis of progress and trends. Climate Policy 7:392–408. Gilding, P. 2011. The Great Disruption – Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World. Bloomsbury Press, New York, NY. Gupta, J. 2014. The History of Global Climate Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gupta, J. and N. van der Grijp. 2010. Climate Change, Development and Development Coop- eration. Pages 1–30 in J. Gupta and N. van der Grijp, editors. Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hayes, M. T. 2006. Incrementalism and Public Policy. University Press of America, Lanham, MA. Hilpert, K., F. Mannke, and P. Schmidt-Thomé. 2007. Towards Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Baltic Sea Region. Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo. Howlett, M. 2002. Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evi- dence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Sci- ence 35:235–267. Howlett, M. 2009. Governance Modes, Policy Regimes and Operational Plans: A Multi-Level Nested Model of Policy Instrument Choice and Policy Design. Policy Sciences 42:73–89.

13 Howlett, M. and J. Rayner. 2007. Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coher- ence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’. Policy and Society 26:1–18. Huitema, D., F. Berkhout, C. Termeer, W. N. Adger, R. Plummer, and D. Mazmanian. 2012. The Governance of Adaptation – Introduction. Ecology and Society (in review). IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation – Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jacob, K., A. Volkery, and A. Lenschow. 2008. Instruments for Environmental Policy Inte- gration in 30 OECD Countries. Pages 24–45 in A. Jordan and A. Lenschow, editors. Inno- vation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northhampton, MA. Jordan, A. 2002. Efficient Hardware and Light Green Software: Environmental Policy Inte- gration in the UK. Pages 35–56 in A. Lenschow, editor. Environmental Policy Integration – Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow. 2008. Environmental Policy Integration: An Innovation in Envi- ronmental Policy? Pages 313–341 in A. Jordan and A. Lenschow, editors. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA. Keskitalo, E. C. H. 2010a. Adapting to Climate Change in Sweden: National Policy Devel- opment and Adaptation Measures in Västra Götaland. Pages 189–232 in E. C. H. Keskitalo, editor. Developing Adaptation Policy and Practice in Europe: Multi-Level Gov- ernance of Climate Change. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Keskitalo, E. C. H., editor. 2010b. Developing Adaptation Policy and Practice in Europe: Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Keskitalo, E. C. H., L. Westerhoff, and S. Juhola. 2012. Agenda-setting on the environment: the development of climate change adaptation as an issue in European states. Environmen- tal Policy and Governance 22:381–394. Kingdon, J. W. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd edition. Longman, New York, NY. Lascoumes, P. and P. Le Galès. 2005. Gouverner par les instruments. Les Presses de Sciences Po, Paris. Mabey, N. 2008. Delivering Climate Security: International Security Responses to a Climate Change World. Routledge, Abingdon. Mahoney, J. and K. Thelen. 2010. A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change. Pages 1–37 in J. Mahoney and K. Thelen, editors. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Massey, E. and E. Bergsma. 2008. Assessing Adapation in 29 European Countries. Institute for Environmental Studies Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. McAllister, R. R. J., R. McCrea, and M. N. Lubell. 2014. Policy networks, stakeholder interactions and climate adaptation in the region of South East Queensland, Australia. Regional Environmental Change 14:527–539. Meijers, E. and D. Stead. 2004. Policy integration: what does it mean and how can it be achieved? A multi–disciplinary review. Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change "Greening of Policies – Interlinkages and Policy Integration", Ber- lin. Mickwitz, P., F. Aix, S. Beck, D. Carss, N. Ferrand, C. Görg, A. Jensen, P. Kivimaa, C. Kuhlicke, W. Kuindersma, M. Máñez, M. Melanen, S. Monni, A. Branth Pedersen, H.

14 Reinert, and S. van Bommel. 2009. Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Govern- ance. Partnership for European Environmental Research, Helsinki. Nilsson, M., K. Eckerberg, and A. Persson. 2007. Introduction: EPI Agendas and Policy Re- sponses. Pages 1–24 in M. Nilsson and K. Eckerberg, editors. Environmental Policy Inte- gration – Shaping Institutions for Learning. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA. Olhoff, A. and C. Schaer. 2010. Screening Tools and Guidelines to Support the Mainstream- ing of Climate Change Adaptation into Development Assistance – A Stocktaking Report UNDP, New York, NY. Overbeck, G., P. Sommerfeldt, S. Kohler, and I. Birkmann. 2009. Klimawandel und Regio- nalplanung. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 67:193–203. Palutikof, J., M. Parry, M. Stafford Smith, A. J. Ash, S. L. Boulter, and M. Waschka. 2013. The past, present and future of adaptation: setting the context and naming the challenges. Pages 3–28 in J. Palutikof, S. L. Boulter, A. J. Ash, M. Stafford Smith, M. Parry, M. Waschka, and D. Guitart, editors. Climate Change Adaptation Futures. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Peltonen, L., S. Juhola, and P. Schuster. 2011. Governance of Climate Change Adaptation: Policy Review. Aalto University, Aalto. Persson, A. 2004. Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction. PINTS Background Paper. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Persson, A. and R. J. T. Klein. 2009. Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in official development assistance: Challenges to foreign policy integration. Pages 162–177 in P. G. Harris, editor. Climate Change and Foreign Policy. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Rahmstorf, S. and H. J. Schellnhuber. 2012. Der Klimawandel. C.H. Beck, München. Rametsteiner, E., A. Bauer, and G. Weiss. 2010. Policy Integration and Coordination: Theo- retical, Methodological and Conceptual Approach. Pages 11–25 in E. Rametsteiner, G. Weiss, P. Ollonqvist, and B. Slee, editors. Policy Integration and Coordination: the Case of Innovation and the Forest Sector in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Sabatier, P. A., editor. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Salamon, L. M. 2000. The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal 28:1611–1674. Salamon, L. M. 2002. The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action. Pages 1–47 in L. M. Salamon, editor. The Tools of Government – A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Scott, D. and G. McBoyle. 2007. Climate change adaptation in the ski industry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12:1411–1431. Seidl, A. 2011. Finding Higher Ground: Adaptation in the Age of Warming. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Sgobbi, A. 2010. Environmental Policy Integration and the Nation State: What Can We Learn from Current Practices? Pages 9–41 in A. Goria, A. Sgobbi, and I. von Homeyer, editors. Governance for the Environment – A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Policy Inte- gration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Smith, J. B., J. M. Vogel, and J. E. Cromwell III. 2009. An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change 95:53–61. Stafford Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey, and C. Hamilton. 2011. Rethinking adaptation for 4°C world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A – Mathematical, Physi- cal & Engineering Sciences 369:196–216.

15 Swart, R., R. Biesbroek, S. Binnerup, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, S. Loquen, H. Mela, M. Morecroft, M. Reese, and D. Rey. 2009. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. PEER Report No 1. Partnership for European Environmental Research (PEER), Helsinki. Termeer, C., G. R. Biesbroek, and M. van den Brink. 2012. Institutions for Adaptation to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies in Europe. European Political Science 11:41–53. Termeer, C., A. Dewulf, H. van Rijswick, A. van Buuren, D. Huitema, S. Meijerink, T. Rayner, and M. Wiering. 2011. The regional governance of climate adaptation: A framework for developing legitimate, effective, and resilient governance arrangements. Climate Law 2:159–179. The CNA Corporation. 2007. National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. The CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players – How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press, New York, NY. Van Bommel, S. and W. Kuindersma. 2008. Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance in Dutch Climate Policy: A Multi-Level Analysis of Mitigation and Adaptation Policy. Alter- ra, Wageningen.

16 2. INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION POLICY IN SWITZERLAND

Alexander WIDMER1

ABSTRACT

As the impacts of climate change cut across several policy domains, the principle of climate change adaptation policy integration (CAPI) has been widely acknowledged as a key pillar of climate change adaptation policy. While CAPI is broadly discussed in conceptual proposals, empirical studies on how CAPI is adopted in practice are still scant. Applying categorizations developed in the Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) literature, this paper first reviews the different concepts and approaches of CAPI. Based on this review, a framework for the empirical analysis of CAPI as a governing process is developed. Subsequently, its applicability is illustrated by analyzing how CAPI was approached during the development of the Swiss Na- tional Adaptation Strategy (NAS) and what levels of integration have resulted. The analysis reveals that in Switzerland, CAPI has been achieved at either a weak or medium level. The medium level mainly results from substantial coordination across the involved sectors during the NAS process. This is expressed through a standardized procedure for identifying key vulnerabilities and possible fields of action for the participating sectors and a consistent identification of interfaces as potential sources for synergies and conflicts. However, on the sectoral level, adaptation is considered especially when it overlaps with primary sectoral objectives. Some sectors even consider climate change adaptation as an integral part of their agenda, but for thus far lack backing by organizational and procedural measures. New instruments are discussed only on a conceptual level. Adjustments of existing instruments occasionally take place but are barely coordinated across sectors. The consideration of potential contradictions or negative effects seems to express particular sectors’ concerns and demands rather than conclusions from cross-sectoral deliberation. From an organizational perspective, adaptation is strongly concentrated in the Federal Office for the Environment rather than being integrated among different offices and departments. Overall, the analysis suggests a similar pattern for CAPI as for EPI: While policy frameworks such as strategies are adopted rather easily, a move towards more binding measures that interfere with sectoral policy-making and the existing institutional structure and eventually resulting in more substantial levels of integration is much more challenging. However, in contrast to EPI, the greater potential fit of sectoral and adaptation objectives suggests a more optimistic outlook for CAPI, though a major challenge involves the coordination of measures in order to avoid severe negative effects across sectors.

Key words: policy integration; climate change adaptation; national adaptation strategies; Switzerland

1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich), Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Environmental Policy and Economics, Universitaetstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.

17 2.1 INTRODUCTION

Due to the lack of a substantial worldwide slowdown in greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, expected continued global average temperature increase, concerns over the severe impacts of climate change have increased worldwide within the last decade. Hence, adaptation to climate change is regarded today as an “inevitable reaction to climate change” (De Gier et al. 2009: 32) by most governments. In this scope, a range of challenges for policy-making that governments are similarly confronted with has been identified: uncertainties with regard to future climate change and its impacts, varying regional vulnerabilities and impacts, the interplay among different governance levels, the cross-sectoral issue of adaptation, and the involvement of a multitude of actors (Smith et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, EEA 2013, Palutikof et al. 2013). To address these challenges, a number of general principles to guide the governance of climate change adaptation have been introduced: Actions should be taken, particularly at the regional and local levels; multi-level governance should be enhanced; climate change adaptation should be systematically integrated across policy sectors; priority should be given to so-called “no-regret” or “low-regret” measures; scientific knowledge should be systematically integrated into decision-making; communication and information provisioning and sharing should be considered fundamental; and public participation and consultation should be considered crucial (Smith et al. 2009, Swart et al. 2009, Biesbroek et al. 2010, Cimato and Mullan 2010, Bauer et al. 2012, Termeer et al. 2012, EEA 2013, Palutikof et al. 2013).

Among these general principles, the integration of climate change adaptation policy (CA- PI) has now become a specific focus of both public officials and scientific experts (e.g., Euro- pean Commission 2008, 2009b, Swart et al. 2009, Cimato and Mullan 2010, Dovers and Hezri 2010, Lebel et al. 2012, Dovers 2013, EEA 2013). In general terms, CAPI is referred to as taking into account climate change adaptation policy objectives in regards to other policies and to recognize and address inconsistencies (Swart et al. 2009, Brouwer et al. 2013). How- ever, this leaves much room for interpretation and no common understanding exists on its objectives or how it should be implemented and supported (Olhoff and Schaer 2010, Brouwer et al. 2013). Some argue that the main objective of CAPI is to activate stakeholders and public authorities in the affected sectors and to encourage the coordination and coherence of sectoral adaptation measures (Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008, Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, EEA 2013). For others, CAPI aims at the systematic consideration of climate change adaptation in decision-making in order to reduce vulnerability to climate conditions (Persson and Klein 2009, Olhoff and Schaer 2010). Furthermore, a broad variety of measures has been proposed to implement and support CAPI. This entails political commitment and strategic vision (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012), altering existing routine institutional procedures (Dovers and Hezri 2010, Dovers 2013), establishing and/or modifying organizational settings in public administration (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, Lebel et al. 2012), modifying existing instruments (Persson and Klein 2009, EEA 2013), and developing and implementing new instruments (OECD 2009, Olhoff and Schaer 2010, UNDP-UNEP 2011).

While these issues are now widely addressed in conceptual proposals, empirical studies analyzing CAPI in practice are still scant. Three types of empirical studies that include or address CAPI in their analysis can be distinguished. First, several studies provide overviews of how governments (intend to) tackle climate change (e.g., Econcept 2008, Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, Termeer et al. 2012). These studies basically reveal that CAPI is widely accepted as a policy principle but provide only very general information on how CAPI is adopted in different contexts. Second, although focusing on the mitigation dimension, a few studies on Climate Policy Integration (CPI) have also explicitly included adaptation in their analysis (Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008, Mickwitz et al. 2009). They indicate substan-

18 tial variance regarding the implementation of measures, priorities, and the perception of potential conflicts and synergies across countries and sectors. However, these studies basically assume that the integration of adaptation and mitigation are both part of the same CPI-agenda. This assumption has been questioned by the third type of studies, which analyze CAPI from a particular sectoral perspective. These studies similarly report substantial variance across countries. In addition they also report that, despite being widely acknowledged, CAPI is—as is adaptation policy in general—still in an early stage and considered to be of rather low priority compared to other (sectoral) policy objectives. So far, these more specific studies have been conducted either in a water policy context (Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008, De Loë 2011, Brouwer et al. 2013) or in a development context (e.g., Gupta and van der Grijp 2010). This focus reflects the major concerns over increasing water stress and flood risks as well as over the high level of exposure to climate change impacts and the low level of adaptive capacity of developing countries. However, climate change is expected to have an impact on a broad variety of sectors, and it has been suggested that CAPI may result in very different approaches in different sectors (Persson and Klein 2009). Given the absence of similar studies for other sectors, it is still an open question if and how CAPI is addressed in these sectors. Moreover, due to the single-sector-perspective of these previous studies, the issues of coherence, synergies, and contradictions have barely been analyzed thus far.

Overall, there are still many open questions regarding what concepts of and approaches to CAPI have been developed, which of them have been adopted by governments and in various sectors, what levels of CAPI have resulted, and how they could be explained (Brouwer et al. 2013). This paper contributes to this current debate by addressing the following two research questions:

— What concepts of and approaches to the application of climate change adaptation policy integration have been developed so far and how can they be analyzed? — How has the integration of climate change adaptation policy been addressed in the development of the Swiss National Adaptation Strategy and the sectoral strategies, respectively, and what levels of integration have resulted?

To address these questions, the paper is structured in the following manner. Adopting categorizations that have been developed in the more extensive Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) literature, the paper first identifies and discusses the various concepts and approaches proposed for CAPI. Subsequently, a framework for empirical analyses is developed. Its applicability is then illustrated by analyzing how CAPI was adopted in Switzerland during the development of the Swiss NAS and what levels of CAPI have resulted. The paper concludes with some recommendations regarding the future analysis of CAPI and how it could be further strengthened.

2.2 CONCEPTS OF AND APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTA- TION POLICY INTEGRATION

Policy integration refers to the inclusion of the concerns and characteristics of one policy into another (Briassoulis 2005b, Rametsteiner et al. 2010, Rouillard et al. 2013). In the environmental policy context, EPI in particular has been strongly promoted to further enhance the environmental and sustainable development agendas (for some more recent reviews, see Persson 2004, Briassoulis 2005b, Persson 2007, Jordan and Lenschow 2008c, 2010, Rametsteiner et al. 2010, Sgobbi 2010). Since the 1990s, EPI has become a key policy principle in environmental governance along with more cooperative and participatory approaches and the increased use of market-based instruments (Persson 2004, Fiorino 2006, Jänicke and

19 Jörgens 2006, Jordan and Lenschow 2010, Aden 2012). Within the last decade, some narrow- er principles emerged that were initially considered subfields of EPI (EEA 2005a, b, Jordan and Lenschow 2010, Primmer 2011, Adelle and Russel 2013). Among these, CPI has become a widely acknowledged principle for climate policy and, more recently, CAPI has become a widely acknowledged principle for climate change adaptation policy.

A majority of studies and reports suggests a conceptual similarity between CPI and CAPI and EPI (e.g., Nilsson and Nilsson 2005, Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008, EEA 2009, European Commission 2009a, b, Mickwitz et al. 2009, Swart et al. 2009, Dupont 2011, Dupont and Oberthür 2012, Brouwer et al. 2013, EEA 2013). In contrast, Adelle and Russell (2013) reveal substantial differences regarding the normative interpretation, the applied instruments, and the relative emphasis on processes, outputs, and outcomes between EPI and CPI. In addition, Rietig (2013) argues that CPI is not necessarily compatible with sustainable development or environmental protection as envisioned by EPI. With respect to CAPI, conceptual differences have been suggested regarding the inclusion of environmental impacts, which go beyond the consideration of environmental objectives as conceptualized in EPI and the absence of a theoretical foundation to assess CAPI as an output (Persson and Klein 2009, Adelle and Russel 2013). However, in contrast to EPI and CPI, no overviews or comparisons of different conceptualizations exist for CAPI thus far. In order to identify and clarify different concepts of CAPI, the subsequent section adopts a categorization that was previously developed in the context of EPI.

2.2.1 Different concepts of CAPI

In their review, Rametsteiner et al. (2010) identify three different conceptualizations of policy integration: (1) incorporation, (2) process and output of coordination, and (3) joint new policy. The first category interprets policy integration as the inclusion of additional elements (e.g., objectives, instruments) of one policy into another. The second category entails activities linking actors, programs, measures, and/or organizations across sectoral boundaries. The third category describes policy integration as the unification of policies resulting in the establishment of a new policy with original characteristics. These three conceptualizations not only suggest different understandings with respect to the key characteristics of policy integration but also imply different levels of ambition. Several studies conceive “incorporation” of other policies’ objectives as the initial starting point or prerequisite for further forms and levels of integration (Mickwitz et al. 2009, Brouwer et al. 2013). Policy integration as “coordination” implies achieving coherence and synergies between two or more policies as suggested by the so-called “rational” interpretation (Underdal 1980, Collier 1994, Liberatore 1997). Finally, a “joint new policy” aims at a more fundamental change from the perspective of one particular policy as envisioned by the “strong” interpretation (Lafferty and Hovden 2003). These initially normative interpretations of ideal levels of policy integration have been adopted to distinguish between different positive levels of policy integration (Jordan and Lenschow 2008b, 2010, Adelle and Russel 2013, Brouwer et al. 2013). These studies typically distinguish only between “weak” (that is “rational”) and “strong” levels, although EPI in particular hardly qualifies as “weak” (Jacob et al. 2008).

For conceptualizing CAPI, several studies adopt an understanding according to the first category of “incorporation.” For instance Brouwer et al. (2013) define CAPI as taking adaptation objectives into account in other sectors. Moreover, “inclusion” is a prerequisite for further integration regarding “consistency” and “weighting” (see also Mickwitz et al. 2009). Similarly, Swart et al. (2009) adopt the understanding that adaptation goals should be incorporated in the affected sectors. Bauer et al. (2012) also point out the significance of incorporat-

20 ing adaptation in the relevant sectors. While Brouwer et al. (2013) remain rather unspecific in their definition regarding inconsistencies (“being recognized and addressed”), Swart et al. (2009) and Bauer et al. (2012) explicitly identify cross-sectoral coordination as a defining characteristic of CAPI in order to avoid contradictions and negative effects between different policies and to realize synergies. Thus they both include elements of the category of “process/output of coordination.” However, both adopt a procedural- rather than an output-based perspective as a theoretical foundation through which to assess CAPI as output remains absent. In a development context, several definitions imply major institutional changes: CAPI should ensure that adaptation becomes a permanent element of all policy-making, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring (OECD 2009, Gupta and van der Grijp 2010, Olhoff and Schaer 2010, UNDP-UNEP 2011). Thus, aiming at an overall redesign and reorganization of policies and decision-making processes from a perspective of climate change adaptation, this understanding entails the key characteristics of a “joint new policy.” As for “coordination,” CAPI is referred to exclusively from a procedural perspective (Olhoff and Schaer 2010).

This brief review shows a strong conceptual similarity between CAPI and previous understandings of policy integration. Several reports and studies acknowledge the consideration of climate change impacts and/or climate change adaptation objectives in addition to sectoral policy objectives according to the concept of policy integration as “incorporation.” Such considerations remain on a rather general level and do not include more specific measures. In addition, several studies and reports emphasize the need for limiting the potential negative cross-sectoral side effects resulting from adaptation measures as well as for realizing mutual benefits. Aiming at coherence and synergies in addition to the incorporation of adaptation objectives, they include “coordination” as a key characteristic for CAPI. In a development context, CAPI is typically framed as a fundamental change of policy-making from an adaptation perspective, thus entailing characteristics of a “joint new policy.” These different conceptualizations also reflect different levels of ambition for CAPI. While “incorporation” is considered an initial starting point, “coordination” implies a so-called “rational,” and “joint new policy” a “strong” level of integration. Subsequently, these three levels are labeled “weak,” “medium,” and “strong.” However, CAPI differs from previous understandings of policy integration in regards to its exclusive procedural focus since a theoretical foundation through which to assess CAPI as an output remains absent. Moreover, coordination seems to play a more substantial role in CAPI compared to EPI, where it is often considered to be a necessary condition but not as policy integration per se (Meijers and Stead 2004). The main reason for this difference may be that no negative impacts across sectors are expected from EPI. Table 2.1 provides an overview of the different concepts of CAPI, their key characteristics, and their implications for the level of integration.

21 Table 2.1: Different concepts of CAPI

Process of Concept Incorporation Joint new policy coordination

Coordination as process Redesign and reorganiza- Acknowledgment and to avoid contradictions tion of policies and deci- inclusion of climate Key characteristics and negative effects sion-making processes change adaptation between different policies from the perspective of objectives and to realize synergies climate change adaptation

Implied level of weak (“initial starting medium (“rational”) strong integration point”)

2.2.2 Different approaches to CAPI

Assessing different levels of integration in practice has been the main obstacle in the study of policy integration (Jordan and Lenschow 2010, Brouwer et al. 2013). In assessing policy integration as a governing process, previous studies referred to the analysis of policy integration measures (Jordan and Lenschow 2008c). On the one hand, several studies suggest that the more measures are adopted, the higher the level of policy integration (OECD 2002, Lafferty and Hovden 2003, Briassoulis 2005a, Swart et al. 2009). On the other hand, it has been emphasized that measures that challenge and alter the institutional structure indicate higher levels of policy integration in contrast to measures that only add to the institutional structure (Jordan 2002, Jacob et al. 2008, Jordan and Lenschow 2008a). Following Persson (2004), three different approaches to policy integration that address different institutional challenges are distinguished: (1) normative-communicative, (2) organizational, and (3) procedural (see also Jordan 2002, Jacob et al. 2008, Jordan and Lenschow 2008a). Subsequently, each approach is briefly discussed with a specific focus on the corresponding CAPI measures.

The normative-communicative approach refers to the development of strategies, high-level commitments, or adjustments in laws or constituencies. Such normative-communicative measures are considered the easiest to implement as they do not interfere with the existing institutional structure (Jacob et al. 2008). However, it is expected that such measures initiate further reform efforts, provide guidance and leadership for policy-making, and/or support implementation. Regarding the normative-communicative approach, adaptation frameworks such as national adaptation strategies or action plans currently play a key role in climate change adaptation policy-making (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012). Only in very few cases are legal action, the integration of adaptation in an overall governmental strategy, or sectoral adaptation strategies reported (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012). Occasionally, adaptation has also been included in sectoral policy frameworks, for instance in regional river ba- sin and flood risk management plans (Brouwer et al. 2013).

The organizational approach addresses the governmental and administrative structure and context and aims at framing the institutional setting (Jacob et al. 2008). It entails the size of staff, the allocation of financial resources, the establishment of specialized units across departments, the merger of departments, the establishment of interdepartmental units, staff training, and stakeholder interaction. For CAPI the following measures have been proposed: The establishment of strong leading departments and complementary adaptation units across departments; the coordination of organizations; interdepartmental information exchange and

22 cooperation platforms; staff training; and stakeholder workshops (Persson and Klein 2009, Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012). However, typically soft organizational measures on the political and administrative levels like interdepartmental councils, committees, or working groups have been established while special adaptation units are still rare (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012). Moreover, the lead in adaptation policy is usually with a comparatively weak environmental or natural resource department (Carter 2007, Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, Lebel et al. 2012).

Finally, the procedural approach intends to alter current decision-making and information exchange procedures. Having direct consequences for the institutional setting, this approach is considered the most effective but also the most challenging for policy integration (Jacob et al. 2008). On the one hand, it includes altering the institutional rules in the political system, such as establishing interdepartmental cooperation, consultation, or veto rights. On the other hand, the procedural approach entails adjustments to existing instruments, the implementation of new instruments across sectors, and new or modified reporting and monitoring practices. As climate change adaptation is explicitly framed as a policy problem that should be addressed in established sectoral policies and existing political institutions, the use of existing routine institutional procedures (interdepartmental cooperation, consultation, and participation processes; communication and information exchange processes; joint responsibility for interfaces; participative and interactive processes with non-governmental actors and subnational authorities; etc.) has been prominently suggested (Swart et al. 2009, Dovers and Hezri 2010). In practice, such procedural measures typically adopt a consensual approach and are often established on a voluntary and temporary basis (Bauer et al. 2012). Regarding the implementation of new instruments, a broad variety of additional procedural instruments has been proposed. Among those instruments are climate change screening, climate risk screening, climate proofing, climate risk management, vulnerability assessments, and various guidance tools (OECD 2009, Persson and Klein 2009, Olhoff and Schaer 2010, UNDP-UNEP 2011). However, such instruments have been implemented only very recently, are still in a pilot phase, or exist only in draft form. Existing instruments (e.g., flood monitoring) are occasionally adjusted (EEA 2013).

2.2.3 Framework for the analysis of CAPI

Analyzing CAPI according to the three approaches implies that normative-communicative measures indicate lower levels of CAPI, and organizational and procedural measures higher levels of CAPI. However, Jacob et al. (2008) argue that in the case of EPI, this may be misleading due to the often fairly undemanding design of procedural and organizational measures. Previous research suggests similar design issues for CAPI measures. For instance, the responsibility for adaptation has been assigned to comparatively weak environmental min- istries (Swart et al. 2009, Lebel et al. 2012), or procedural measures are often established only on a voluntary and temporary basis (Bauer et al. 2012). Thus, a framework for the analysis of CAPI has to assess each measure regarding its implications for the level of integration.

Regarding “incorporation” as the initial starting point for CAPI, the normative- communicative approach entails the development of an adaptation framework focusing on impacts, vulnerabilities, and general recommendations. Selected sectors may also voluntarily develop adaptation strategies which focus on impacts and vulnerabilities alike. Moreover, selected laws are identified and minor legal adjustments are proposed adding adaptation as an objective. With respect to organizational measures, a mandate for adaptation is assigned to a department but no or very limited additional resources are granted. Selected sectors include the task of addressing adaptation in their portfolio but do not establish additional units. The

23 procedural approach entails occasional awareness raising campaigns and research projects and the selected assessment of vulnerabilities. Moreover, new instruments and potential adjustments as well as monitoring and reporting practices are discussed and outlined. Information exchange as well as interdepartmental consultation and cooperation remain on a voluntary basis. Potential contradictions and synergies are identified but merely serve to express a particular sector’s concerns and demands. Non-governmental and subnational actors are occasionally consulted.

The “coordination” perspective implies a so-called “rational” motive—that is, achieving coherence and synergy between two or more policies. Regarding the normative- communicative approach, adaptation policy frameworks are adopted that aim at coordination across sectors and include further measures and timeframes. Adaptation frameworks are developed in key sectors and coordinated across all involved sectors. Coordination is adopted in legal adjustments and revisions are coordinated. Regarding procedural measures, campaigns and research projects are coordinated and vulnerability assessments follow standard procedures. New instruments are designed, implemented, and coordinated across affected sectors. Moreover, monitoring and reporting practices are established and coordinated. Communica- tion and information exchange processes are established on a regular basis and are coordinated across sectors. The identification of contradictions and synergies is coordinated and aims at establishing coherence. The main responsibility for interfaces is typically assigned to a single leading sector, although other affected sectors may be substantially involved. Participative processes with non-governmental actors and subnational authorities are regularly realized. Coordination is also reflected in organizational terms. The leading department is supplied with resources for coordination tasks and coordination bodies and sectoral adaptation units are established.

Even more ambitious is a “joint new policy.” It aims at so-called “strong” integration—that is, a change of the current hierarchy of policy objectives from the perspective of adaptation. Thus, adaptation becomes the guiding objective for policy-making including binding targets, timetables, and regular updates. Adaptation is not only included in specific sectoral strategies but is also included in the sectoral strategies themselves. Adaptation is addressed throughout legal frameworks and an overall legal framework is adopted. Vulnerability assessments follow a standard procedure and are updated regularly. New instruments are implemented across all sectors with a joint responsibility for affected sectors. A consistent reporting and monitoring system is adopted. Awareness raising campaigns and research are institutionalized. Inter- departmental cooperation is formally required and conflict mediation mechanisms are established. Responsibility for interfaces and cross-sectoral measures are shared across departments. Priorities regarding adaptation are decided for such interfaces. Stakeholders and subnational authorities are included in the decision-making process. Regarding organizational measures, the leading department is supplied with substantial resources, including agenda- setting and veto rights. Joint staff training is established on a regular basis. Adaptation units are established across all departments and occasionally departments and units are merged.

Table 2.2 provides a detailed overview of the framework of analysis. A “weak” level of CAPI results from measures according to the first column (incorporation). If predominantly normative-communicative measures are identified in the analysis without the substantial backing of procedural and organizational measures, such a result would also be considered to be at a “weak” level. A “medium” level results if measures are adopted from all approaches according to the second column (coordination). Similarly, a “strong” level results from the adoption of measures according to the last column (joint new policy).

24 Table 2.2: Framework for the analysis of CAPI

Measures Incorporation Process of coordination Joint new policy (weak CAPI) (medium CAPI) (strong CAPI)

a) Overall adaptation a) Adaptation policy frame- a) Adaptation policy frame- a) Adaptation policy frame- policy framework work such as a strategy or work such as a strategy or work such as a strategy or (strategy, action plan) action plan is adopted; ad- action plan is adopted; action plan is adopted; dresses possible impacts and coordination across sectors; binding timetables and targets b) Sectoral adaptation vulnerabilities, outlines outlines further course of are included; adaptation is strategies general objectives; adaptation action including measures and established as guiding objec- is recognized as key issue for timeframes; tive for all policy-making; c) Legal framework policy-making; b) Adaptation strategies are regular updates; Normative-communicative b) Sectoral adaptation strate- developed in key sectors and b) Adaptation is systematical- approach gies are established on a coordinated across sectors; ly included in sectoral strate- voluntary basis; addresses c) Coordination is included in gies as guiding objective; possible impacts and vulnera- legal adjustments; coordina- c) Systematic inclusion of bilities; tion of legal revisions; adaptation in legal frame- c) Identification of selected works; overarching binding adaptation relevant laws; legal framework for adapta- selected minor legal adjust- tion; ments including adaptation as objective; a) Mandate and re- a) Mandate to a leading a) Mandate to a leading a) Mandate to a leading sources department is assigned; no or department is assigned; department is assigned; very limited additional re- additional resources mainly substantial financial re- b) Interdepartmental sources for adaptation; for coordination tasks; sources; agenda-setting information exchange b) Interdepartmental infor- b) Interdepartmental infor- possibilities and veto rights; and coordination bodies mation exchange bodies are mation exchange and coordi- b) Interdepartmental infor- Organizational established on a voluntary and nation bodies are established; mation exchange and coordi- approach c) Sectoral units temporary basis; c) Adaptation is added to the nation bodies are institution- c) Adaptation is added to the sectoral task portfolio; alized; joint staff training; sectoral task portfolio; no adaptation units are estab- c) Complementary adaptation adaptation units are established in key sectors; units across departments; lished; selected merger of departments; a) Campaigns and a) Occasionally awareness a) Awareness raising cam- a) Institutionalized awareness research raising campaigns and re- paigns and research projects raising campaigns and search projects are initiated; are established and coordinat- research projects; b) Vulnerability assess- b) Selected vulnerability ed; b) Systematic vulnerability ments assessments; b) Systematic vulnerability assessments following a c) New instruments are assessments following a standard procedure and guide c) New instruments, discussed and conceptualized; standard procedure; policy-making; priorities are adjusting existing selected existing instruments c) New instruments (e.g., decided; instruments are adjusted; climate change screening, c) New instruments (e.g., Procedural approach I d) Monitoring and reporting climate risk screening, climate change screening, (instruments) d) Monitoring and practices are discussed and climate proofing, climate risk climate risk screening, reporting practices outlined (sector-specific); management, guidance tools) climate proofing, climate risk are designed, implemented management, guidance tools) and coordinated among the implemented systematically; affected sectors; adjustments joint decision-making of of existing instruments are affected sectors; coordinated; d) A consistent overall d) Monitoring and reporting monitoring and reporting practices are established and system is adopted; coordinated; a) Communication and a) Communication and a) Communication and a) Communication and information exchange information exchange pro- information exchange pro- information exchange institu- cesses on an informal and cesses established and coordi- tionalized; b) Interdepartmental voluntary basis; nated; b) Formally required interde- consultation and coop- b) Voluntary interdepart- b) Coordinated processes of partmental consultation and eration mental consultation and interdepartmental consultation cooperation including conflict cooperation; and cooperation; mediation mechanisms; c) Interfaces (contradic- c) Selected potential contra- c) Systematic identification of c) Systematic identification of tions and synergies) dictions and synergies are potential contradictions and potential contradictions and identified from a sectoral synergies; coordination synergies; priorities are Procedural approach II d) Inclusion of non- perspective; mechanisms are promoted to decided; joint responsibilities (institutional adjustment) governmental and d) Occasional consultation of achieve coherence and for all interfaces; subnational actors non-governmental actors and synergies; main responsibility d) Inclusion of non- subnational authorities; for interfaces is assigned to a governmental actors and single sectoral unit with subnational authorities into substantial participation of decision-making; affected sectors; d) Regular participative processes with non- governmental actors and subnational authorities;

25 2.3 DATA AND METHOD

2.3.1 Selected policy sectors and documents

Developing a national adaptation strategy is currently the main approach to climate change adaptation policy. These strategies summarize the current state of adaptation policy and outline further action, their analysis can reveal past, current, and planned measures regarding CAPI. Therefore, CAPI in Switzerland during the process of developing the Swiss NAS and the respective sectoral strategies is analyzed as a case study. The NAS process in Switzerland covered the period between August 26, 2009, (mandate for developing the NAS) and March 2, 2012 (adoption of the NAS). However, an analysis of this process can, in principle, also reveal the CAPI measures adopted previous to this period as well as measures that extend beyond this period. Given the rather recent emergence of climate change adaptation, only very few implemented measures are expected. In contrast, it is expected that intentions for future action are discussed more substantially. As these measures have not yet been implemented, such intentions have to be interpreted with caution. nine federal offices from four different departments representing 13 different sectors officially participated in the process. Besides establishing a NAS, developing sectoral strategies was attempted for nine selected key sectors: water, natural hazards, agriculture, forestry, energy, tourism, biodiversity, health, and spatial planning. In addition, civil protection, finance, meteorology and climatology also participated in the process.

To identify the measures for climate change adaptation integration, data were collected based on a qualitative analysis of official documents from the NAS process applying deduc- tively derived categories (Mayring 2000a, b). These categories are addressed in the section below in more detail. The analyzed documents include the Swiss National Adaptation Strate- gy (FOEN 2012a), an intermediary report (FOEN 2010), and the sectoral strategies and reports of the participating sectors, respectively. The sectoral strategies that were developed specifically for the NAS are available for seven sectors: Spatial planning (ARE 2011), energy (SFOE 2012), natural hazards (FOEN 2012c), biodiversity (FOEN 2011a), forestry (FOEN 2011b), agriculture (FOAG 2011), and water (FOEN 2012b). For tourism, a research report (SECO and Forschungszentrum für Tourismus Universität Bern 2011) on the impacts of climate change and possible courses of action was written in concert with the NAS. Therefore, this report was included in the analysis. For civil protection, a report on climate change adaption regarding future need for action (FOCP 2009) was prepared before the mandate for the NAS process was officially assigned. As the responsible office participated in the subsequent NAS development, this report was included in the analysis although it did not result from the official NAS process. The health sector was included in the development of the NAS and was represented by the Federal Office for Public Health (FOPH) and the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO). However, no documentation is currently available on this subject with the exception of some very limited information available indirectly through the NAS. Given the lack of documentation, no particular analysis was carried out for the health sector. Finally, the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (MeteoSwiss) and the Federal Finance Administration (FFA) participated in the development of the NAS. However, they did not aim at developing a particular strategy or a similar document for the NAS due to their mainly advisory function. Therefore, meteorology/climatology and finance were not included in the sectoral analysis. An overview of the selected sectors, the responsible federal offices, their department affiliation, and the analyzed documents is presented in Table 2.3.

26 Table 2.3: Participating sectors, offices in charge, and analyzed documents

Sector Offices in charge Department affiliation Adaptation strategies Reports

Adaptation to climate Department of the change in Switzerland – Intermediary report on the NAS to Federal Office for the Environment, Transport, Goals, challenges and Climate change adaptation the attention of the Federal Council Environment (FOEN) Energy and Communica- fields of action. First part (FOEN 2010) tions (DETEC) of the Federal Council’s strategy (FOEN 2012a)

Department of the Adaptation to climate Federal Office for Spatial Environment, Transport, change in Switzerland in Spatial planning – Development (ARE) Energy and Communica- the sector of spatial tions (DETEC) planning (ARE 2011)

Department of the Adaptation to climate Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Transport, change in Switzerland in Energy – Energy (SFOE) Energy and Communica- the energy sector (FOE tions (DETEC) 2012)

Department of the Adaptation to climate Federal Office for the Environment, Transport, change in Switzerland in Natural hazards – Environment (FOEN) Energy and Communica- the sector of natural tions (DETEC) hazards (FOEN 2012c)

Adaptation to climate Department of the change in Switzerland in Federal Office for the Environment, Transport, Biodiversity the biodiversity manage- – Environment (FOEN) Energy and Communica- ment sector (FOEN tions (DETEC) 2011a)

Department of the Adaptation to climate Federal Office for the Environment, Transport, change in Switzerland in Forestry – Environment (FOEN) Energy and Communica- the forestry sector (FOEN tions (DETEC) 2011b)

Federal Department of Federal Office for Agricul- Economic Affairs, Climate strategy agricul- Agriculture – ture (FOAG) Education and Research ture (FOAG 2011) (EAER)

Department of the Adaptation to climate Federal Office for the Environment, Transport, change in Switzerland in Water – Environment (FOEN) Energy and Communica- the sector of water econ- tions (DETEC) omy (FOEN 2012b)

Swiss Tourism and Climate Change Federal Department of – Impacts and Options for Adapta- State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Tourism – tion (SECO and Forschungszentrum Economic Affairs (SECO) Education and Research für Tourismus Universität Bern (EAER) 2011)

Federal Department of Federal Office for Civil Climate Change and Civil Protection Civil Protection Defense, Civil Protection – Protection (FOCP) (FOCP 2009) and Sports

Federal Office for Public Health (FOPH); Federal Federal Department of Health – – Food Safety and Veterinary Home Affairs (DHA) Office (FSVO)

Federal Office of Meteor- Federal Department of Meteorology/Climatology ology and Climatology – – Home Affairs (DHA) (SwissMeteo)

Federal Finance Admin- Federal Department of Finance – – istration (FFA) Finance (FDF)

27 2.3.2 Operationalization of CAPI

Following the approach of Mayring (2000a, b) for qualitative document analysis, the unit of analysis defines the particular sections within the documents to be analyzed. The unit of analysis is therefore defined in every section, which addresses the measures for taking into account climate change adaptation policy objectives in other policies and recognizing and addressing inconsistencies (Swart et al. 2009, Brouwer et al. 2013). As sections can contain information on more than one measure, multiple coding was allowed. The distinction between normative-communicative, organizational, and the two procedural approaches follows the previously outlined framework. In order to identify different levels, these sections are then assessed following the method of structured scaling (Mayring 2000b: 92–99). The scale is ordinal and follows the three levels outlined previously. “Weak” refers to general recommendations and statements, voluntary measures, and/or the mere reference to adaptation objectives. The “medium” level is reserved for CAPI aiming at the establishment of coherence and mutual support through coordination activities. Finally, “strong” CAPI follows the traditional understanding of the EPI literature that aims at a fundamental change of policy objectives giving adaptation precedence, a consistent implementation of binding and demanding measures, substantial financial resources, etc. A detailed overview of how CAPI is operationalized for the three levels is provided in tables 2.4–2.6. For further clarification, the tables also entail examples and coding rules used for the document analysis (Mayring 2000a, b). The examples are abridged quotes from the original documents (translation by the author).

28 Table 2.4: Operationalization of “weak” CAPI

Incorporation Selected examples* Additional coding rules** (weak CAPI)

a) Adaptation policy framework such c) Adaptation as a planning principle a) A non-binding NAS is established; as a strategy or action plan is adopt- should be embedded in the partial general adaptation objectives and ed; addresses possible impacts and revision of the spatial planning act; some recommendations are outlined; vulnerabilities, outlines general main focus is on vulnerabilities and objectives; adaptation is recognized impacts; as key issue for policy-making; b) Sectoral climate change adaptation Normative-communicative b) Sectoral adaptation strategies are strategy is established; focus is on approach established on a voluntary basis; vulnerabilities and impacts; general addresses possible impacts and objectives and objectives are out- vulnerabilities; lined; c) Identification of selected adaptation relevant laws; selected minor legal adjustments including adaptation as objective; a) Mandate to a leading department c) The strategic goal is […] that a) A leading department is assigned; is assigned; no or very limited agriculture adapts proactively to no or only very limited additional additional resources for adaptation; climate change in order to increase resources; b) Interdepartmental information production; b) Interdepartmental information Organizational exchange bodies are established on a exchange platforms with voluntary approach voluntary and temporary basis; participation; c) Adaptation is added to the sectoral c) Adaptation is included as addi- task portfolio; no adaptation units are tional policy goal, other (sectoral) established; goals dominate; developed without coordination with other sectors; a) Occasionally awareness raising a) Additional research is needed to a) Awareness raising campaigns are campaigns and research projects are better understand the foundations of founded or initiated or demanded; initiated; hazard processes; regular infor- research projects are initiated or b) Selected vulnerability assess- mation campaigns for the local demanded; ments; population, tourists, and public b) Identification of some key vulner- Procedural approach I (instru- c) New instruments are discussed officials with a booklet; abilities and challenges; ments) and conceptualized; selected existing b) Snow security will be substantial- c) General ideas and principles for instruments are adjusted; ly reduced for most regions; a higher more specific instruments or adjust- d) Monitoring and reporting practices volatility for agricultural products is ments of existing instruments are are discussed and outlined (sector- expected; outlined; specific); c) Innovative solutions […] should be examined; a) Communication and information a) Trans-regional organizations a) Occasional communication and exchange processes on an informal should establish consulting and information exchange processes and voluntary basis; awareness rising functions; (e.g., workshops) are reported; b) Voluntary interdepartmental c) Irrigation demand will increase b) Consultation and cooperation with consultation and cooperation; while comply with ecological other offices and departments is Procedural approach II (institu- c) Selected potential contradictions standards shall be guaranteed; reported; tional adjustment) and synergies are identified from a d) Discussions took place on April c) Selected potential contradictions sectoral perspective; 26; and synergies are outlined; sectoral d) Occasional consultation of non- demands and concerns dominate; governmental actors and subnational authorities; Note: * The examples are abridged quotes from the original documents (translation by the author); ** The coding rules are used for clarification in case of ambiguities.

29 Table 2.5: Operationalization of “medium” CAPI

Process of coordination Selected examples* Additional coding rules** (medium CAPI)

a) Adaptation policy framework such a) Measures […] are substantiated a) Adaptation strategy or action plan as a strategy or action plan is adopt- until the end of 2013; is adopted; outlines further measures ed; coordination across sectors; b) Key sectors developed strategies and timeframes; outlines further course of action […] the FOEN ensured a consistent b) A broad variety of key sectors including measures and timeframes; approach; develop a strategy; sectoral strategies Normative-communicative b) Adaptation strategies are devel- c) An adaptation article has been are coordinated; approach oped in key sectors and coordinated included in the revision of the CO2- c) Legal adjustments are coordinated across sectors; law […] [coordination is included in across sectors; coordination is c) Coordination is included in legal article 15]; explicitly mentioned; adjustments; coordination of legal revisions; a) Mandate to a leading department a) The FOEN moderates and coordi- a) A leading department supervises is assigned; additional resources nates the process; and coordinates adaptation activities mainly for coordination tasks; b) The IDA Klima included the in order to minimize contradictions b) Interdepartmental information following federal offices […]. and achieve synergies; exchange and coordination bodies c) A unit for climate change adapta- b) Main responsibility for interfaces Organizational are established; tion was established […]; is assigned to a single sectoral unit; approach c) Adaptation is added to the sectoral additional sectors are substantially task portfolio; adaptation units are involved; joint responsibilities for established in key sectors; selected interfaces; c) A sectoral unit is established with adaptation as main task; a) Awareness raising campaigns and b) The key challenges and vulnera- a) Awareness raising campaigns and research projects are established and bilities have been assessed following research projects are coordinated coordinated; the approach developed by the across sectors; b) Systematic vulnerability assess- FOEN; b) Vulnerability assessments are ments following a standard proce- c) An integrated risk management is coordinated and adaptation challeng- dure; implemented; implementation of a es are systematically identified; c) New instruments (e.g., climate constant update for hazard maps; standard procedures; Procedural approach I (instru- change screening, climate risk d) A constant monitoring of all c) Implementation of specific ments) screening, climate proofing, climate relevant developments related to instruments in selected sectors; risk management, guidance tools) are hazard processes, events, risks and affected sectors coordinate measures; designed, implemented and coordi- the success of measures; d) Monitoring and reporting instru- nated among the affected sectors; ments are developed or implemented adjustments of existing instruments and coordination is implied; are coordinated; d) Monitoring and reporting practices are established and coordinated; a) Communication and information a) […] establishing platforms for the a) A regular communication and exchange processes established and exchange of experiences; […] an information exchange process exists; coordinated; internet information platform shall b) Regular cooperation and consulta- b) Coordinated processes of interde- be established; tion is reported; partmental consultation and coopera- b) The development of the NAS was c) Outlines how contradictions can tion; coordinated by the IDA Klima. The be minimized through coordination; c) Systematic identification of following Federal Offices participat- c) Climate change adaptation frame- potential contradictions and syner- ed: [….]; work identifies and addresses gies; coordination mechanisms are c) The federal office in charge of the potential synergies and; outlines how promoted to achieve coherence and interface is indicated; […] multiple mutual support can be achieved Procedural approach II (institu- synergies; main responsibility for responsibilities for the interfaces are through coordination; tional adjustment) interfaces is assigned to a single indicated […] c) Main responsibility for interfaces sectoral unit with substantial partici- c) […] measures within the sectors is assigned to a single sectoral unit; pation of affected sectors; are coordinated in order to realize additional sectors are substantially d) Regular participative processes potential synergies […] and identify involved; with non-governmental actors and potential conflicts […]; d) Non-governmental actors and subnational authorities; d) […] collaboration between the subnational authorities participate Federation and the Cantons […] regularly; shall be increased; d) Annual information events should be organized with all relevant stakeholders; Note: * The examples are abridged quotes from the original documents (translation by the author); ** The coding rules are used for clarification in case of ambiguities.

30 Table 2.6: Operationalization of “strong” CAPI

Joint new policy Selected examples* Additional coding rules** (strong CAPI)

a) Adaptation policy framework such b) Adaptation as a main priority is a/b) Adoption of a climate change as a strategy or action plan is adopt- explicitly recognized by the natural adaptation strategy which addresses ed; binding timetables and targets are hazard strategy; adaptation is a high- relative priorities; quantified and included; adaptation is established as level priority in the current forest demanding objectives, timetables, guiding objective for all policy- strategy; and targets are outlined; climate making; regular updates; change adaptation objectives and Normative-communicative b) Adaptation is systematically targets take precedence; approach included in sectoral strategies as b) A sectoral strategy adds adapta- guiding objective; tion as guiding objective; c) Systematic inclusion of adaptation in legal frameworks; overarching binding legal framework for adaptation; a) Mandate to a leading department a) Sectoral unit can veto sectoral is assigned; substantial financial activities if they do not take into resources; agenda-setting possibili- account or run against climate ties and veto rights; change adaptation policy objectives; b) Interdepartmental information substantial resources are assigned to Organizational exchange and coordination bodies these units; approach are institutionalized; joint staff b) Regular courses for staff training training; exist; c) Complementary adaptation units c) Departments or units are merged across departments; selected merger for key interfaces; of departments; a) Institutionalized awareness raising c) Joint responsibility for new campaigns and research projects; instruments by the affected sectors; b) Systematic vulnerability assessments following a standard procedure and guide policy-making; priorities are decided; Procedural approach I (instru- c) New instruments (e.g., climate ments) change screening, climate risk screening, climate proofing, climate risk management, guidance tools) implemented systematically; joint decision-making of affected sectors; d) A consistent overall monitoring and reporting system is adopted; a) Communication and information b) A process for conflict mediation is exchange institutionalized; established; authority can veto in b) Formally required interdepart- order to ensure the precedence of mental consultation and cooperation climate change objectives; including conflict mediation mecha- d) Non-governmental actors and nisms; subnational authorities are included Procedural approach II (institu- c) Systematic identification of in the decision-making process; tional adjustment) potential contradictions and synergies; priorities are decided; joint responsibilities for all interfaces; d) Inclusion of non-governmental actors and subnational authorities into decision-making; Note: * The examples are abridged quotes from the original documents (translation by the author); ** The coding rules are used for clarification in case of ambiguities.

31 2.4 CASE ANALYSIS

2.4.1 CAPI in the Swiss NAS

Normative-communicative approach a) Overall adaptation framework: According to the mandate of the Federal Council, the first part of the Swiss Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change addresses the goals, challenges, and fields of action. The overall goals and principles for adaptation include sustainability, cooperation among various governmental and non-governmental actors, coherence with climate change mitigation, continuous progress evaluation, and modification and updates according to new developments implying CAPI according to the “medium” level. b) Sectoral adaptation strategies: Coordination is a key issue throughout the NAS. Specifical- ly, it is stressed regarding the development of the sectoral strategies (e.g., standardized procedure for vulnerabilities and potential need for action) and to identify potential synergies and conflicts across sectors. Moreover, progress reports for the sectoral strategies were expected during the development of the NAS itself, which indicates substantial coordination by the FOEN during the process. The strong focus on coordination thus implies a “medium” level of CAPI. c) Legal framework: The NAS systematically identifies relevant laws across the sectors and discusses potential adjustments. However, these recommendations remain mostly on a rather general level, for instance “establishing legal guidelines” or “reviewing existing regulations.” Moreover, adjustments to these legal frameworks should then be initiated from the particular sectors. Thus, in this dimension, CAPI does not go beyond a “weak” level. In addition, a revision of the CO2 act was launched in August 2009 and was adopted by both chambers of the Swiss parliament in December 2011. The parallelism of developing the NAS and revising the CO2 act implies that the two processes were synchronized. In article eight of the revised CO2 act, the Federal Council officially gains the authority to coordinate adaptation activities and to engage in the development of adaptation measures. Moreover, in article 15, the FOEN is now officially mandated as a coordinating body between the federal agencies and the cantons. Thus, these legal adjustments qualify as a “medium” level of CAPI.

Organizational approach a) Mandate and resources: Although a leading department has been established, its authority and resources are limited. The lead for developing the NAS was the FOEN and included a coordinating mandate, which was executed by the section for Climate Change Reporting and Adaptation—a rather small unit consisting of only eight permanent staff members. Conse- quently, the resources for and authority of other members of the commission and other public offices were strongly limited. However, the mandate (and later approval) of the strategy by the Federal Council can be interpreted as a strong commitment for advancing the agenda of climate change policy adaptation. The main responsibility for developing the sectoral strategies was assigned to the respective federal offices. Thus, here CAPI falls somewhere between the “weak” and “medium” levels. b) Interdepartmental exchange bodies: The Interdepartmental Board on Climate (IDA Klima), led by the FOEN, was mandated to coordinate the basic activities between the involved departments and their respective offices. The office of the IDA Klima is hosted by the climate policy section in the FOEN. Ten additional federal offices and agencies are represented in the

32 IDA Klima: the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), the State Secretariat for Econom- ic Affairs (SECO), the Federal Finance Administration (FFA), the Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP), the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), the Federal Office of Mete- orology and Climatology (MeteoSwiss), and the Federal Veterinary Office (FVO). Regarding interdepartmental exchange, here CAPI achieves a “medium” level. c) Sectoral units: The task of developing a sectoral adaptation strategy was explicitly mandated to spatial planning, energy, natural hazards, biodiversity, forestry, agriculture, water, tourism, and health. This mandate can be interpreted as adding adaptation to the sectoral task portfolio. However, for tourism, only a research report was developed, and for health, no document is available. Except for the FOEN, no particular adaptation units have been established so far. The task of developing a sectoral adaptation strategy and a research report, respectively, was mainly carried out by existing staff members with no particular adaptation focus. Thus, here CAPI achieves “weak” level.

Procedural approach I (instruments) a) Campaigns and research: Large-scale campaigns to raise awareness have so far been absent. Several smaller research projects have been initiated, for instance, on European adaptation action plans (Karlegger et al. 2010) or on ongoing adaptation activities in the Swiss cantons (Bättig et al. 2010). Thus, regarding awareness raising and research, CAPI goes barely beyond the “weak” level thus far. b) Vulnerability assessments: Challenges and vulnerabilities are addressed throughout the NAS for the included sectors and follow a consistent procedure, hence implying a “medium” level. c) New instruments: More concrete measures for climate change adaptation are intended to be addressed only in the second part of the adaptation strategy. Therefore, the NAS makes only very few and very general references to new instruments. Such general references include the notion that climate change adaptation instruments should be coordinated with other strategies in the relevant sectors that are currently being revised or developed. Some more concrete plans for measures are outlined for the following sectors: water, natural hazards, forestry, energy, tourism, biodiversity, health, and spatial planning. However, most of them refer to pilot projects and reviews and modifications of existing instruments, consulting tasks, additional research projects, communications, and awareness raising campaigns. As coordination is mainly absent, only a “weak” level is achieved here. d) Monitoring and reporting: So far no monitoring and reporting of adaptation measures or projects exist in Switzerland. Establishing such a monitoring and reporting system is intended in due course and should then be assessed with respect to the main goals and principles as outlined in the NAS. More concrete indicators are announced for the second part of the strategy. As the monitoring and reporting practices indicate only very general intentions, they qualify as “weak.”

Procedural approach II (institutional adjustments) a) Communication and information: Activities on information provision are reported on several occasions. For instance, these include presentations, meetings, and workshops. These activities have been initiated by the adaptation unit of the FOEN. However, they seem to oc-

33 cur only occasionally and participation is voluntary, thus rather mirroring a “weak” level of CAPI. The NAS admits that activities related to information provision and awareness raising should be improved in the future. b) Consultation and cooperation: Consultation and cooperation have been carried out mainly through the IDA Klima, indicating a “medium” level of CAPI. However, no detailed information is available on this subject. c) Interfaces: Potential contradictions and synergies are extensively addressed in Chapter 5, which focuses on interdependencies through the identification of 47 interfaces. However, how these contradictions will be minimized and how synergies will be achieved shall be addressed only in the second part of the Swiss NAS. For following up on the identified interfaces, the NAS lists three possibilities. First, the responsibility is assigned to one single unit. This is the case in an overwhelming majority (30 cases). Second, the main mandate is assigned to a leading unit, but others are substantially involved. This occurs in seven cases. Third, joint responsibility is assigned to two or more sectors, which occurs only five times. While cooperation across the involved sectors is suggested, it remains unclear how it is achieved. Conflict resolution mechanisms have been announced for the second part of the strategy. Nevertheless, the interfaces qualify as a “medium” level of integration. d) Non-governmental and subnational actors: Consultation seems to occur only occasionally and is not well coordinated, hence indicating a “weak” level of CAPI. The NAS admits that current information and awareness levels are low among stakeholders and public officials. Therefore, collaboration with subnational actors like the cantonal authorities, municipalities, and stakeholders should be enhanced in the future.

Table 2.7 provides an overview of the identified sections and their assignment to different measures and levels of CAPI. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of identified sections. However, as these numbers do not follow a standardized statistical procedure, and the identified sections often indicate future intentions, they give only a very broad picture. Thus, in addition, asterisks indicate the predominant level of CAPI, taking into account the previous discussion.

34 Table 2.7: Results for the NAS

Measure Incorporation Process of coordination Joint new policy (weak CAPI) (medium CAPI) (strong CAPI)

a) Overall adaptation a) NAS (3) a) NAS (1)* a) policy framework b) NAS (1) b) NAS (18)* b) Normative-communicative (strategy, action plan) c) NAS (12) c) NAS (2)* c) approach b) Sectoral adaptation strategies c) Legal framework a) Mandate and re- a) NAS (2)* a) NAS (6)* a) sources b) b) NAS (6)* b) Organizational b) Interdepartmental c) NAS (3)* c) NAS (1) c) approach information exchange and coordination bodies c) Sectoral units a) Campaigns and a) NAS (3)* a) NAS (1) a) research b) b) NAS (1)* b) b) Vulnerability assess- c) NAS (2)* c) NAS (1) c) ments d) * d) NAS (10) d) Procedural approach I c) New instruments, (instruments) adjusting existing instruments d) Monitoring and reporting practices a) Communication and a) NAS (1)* a) NAS (6) a) information exchange b) b) NAS (1)* b) b) Interdepartmental c) NAS (2) c) NAS (24)* c) consultation and cooper- d) NAS (6)* d) NAS (5) d) Procedural approach II ation (institutional adjustment) c) Interfaces (contradictions and synergies) d) Inclusion of non- governmental and subnational actors Note: * indicate predominant levels.

2.4.2 CAPI in the sectoral strategies

Normative-communicative approach a) Overall adaptation framework: As discussed in Section 2.4.1, the NAS process was strongly coordinated across sectors, implying CAPI according to a “medium” level. b) Sectoral adaptation strategies: Ten sectors were mandated by the FOEN to develop a sectoral strategy for climate change adaptation and to report key areas affected by climate change, assess climate sensitivity, and determine the need for potential action. Strategies exist for the following sectors: water (FOEN), natural hazards (FOEN), agriculture (FOAG), forestry (FOEN), energy (SFOE), biodiversity (FOEN), and spatial planning (ARE). Thus, seven strategies were developed by offices in the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communication (DETEC). These seven strategies are strongly coherent and follow the same chapter structure. The strategy for agriculture (located in the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education, and Research, EAER) substantially differs with respect to structure and content (for instance, it also includes climate change mitigation). For tourism, a report was published by the SECO (EAER) that specifically includes climate change adaptation. No strategy is available for the health sector, which is located in the FDHA, although such a strategy is mentioned in the intermediary report. However, both agriculture and health provided relevant information for the comparative sections of the NAS. A report for civil protection was published prior to the development of the NAS. Thus, the report does not follow the overall structure. However, though participating in its development, civil protection is not considered as a key sector within the NAS. Although CAPI can be assessed according to the “medium” level, it seems to be weaker in offices that are not affiliated to the DETEC. Moreover, forestry, natural hazards, and biodiversity have already embedded

35 adaptation into their current sectoral strategies. Although addressed in all annual reports of the FOAG since 2006, climate change adaptation was included only in the most recent agricultural reform process (AP 14–17). Thus, these sectors achieve a “strong” level of CAPI as they explicitly include adaptation as a guiding sectoral objective. c) Legal frameworks: Regarding the adjustment and revision of legal frameworks, most sectoral adaptation strategies have identified existing laws or other policy strategies for further consideration. However, they barely go beyond identification and outline only very general ideas. Some sectors, such as spatial planning, agriculture, biodiversity, and water, also address laws that are beyond their direct sectoral competence. Such considerations are thus far not coordinated and merely serve to express the sector’s concerns and demands. Thus from a legal perspective, CAPI can be assigned a “weak” level for all sectors.

Organizational approach a) Mandate and resources: All strategies and reports indicate the FOEN as the leading department in terms of coordination tasks and acknowledge the mandate to participate in the NAS process. b) Interdepartmental exchange bodies: The Interdepartmental Board on Climate (IDA Klima) was mandated to coordinate the basic activities between the involved departments and their respective offices. Thus, all participating departments are represented in the IDA Klima (see Section 2.5.1). Regarding interdepartmental exchange, CAPI achieves a “medium” level, although no detailed information is available with respect to the exchange of information or participation in meetings. c) Sectoral units: Regarding the inclusion of adaptation to the task portfolio, all sectoral strategies and reports included climate change adaptation objectives. However, traditional sectoral goals such as competitive agriculture or economic growth for tourism prevail. While some explicitly superimpose their sectoral objectives onto their adaptation objectives, this is done implicitly in most cases, usually by referring to a careful monitoring of climate change that could harm the ongoing activities. Due to a strong mutual overlap with sectoral goals, in the cases of forestry, spatial planning, biodiversity, and agriculture, climate change adaptation considerations are explicitly taken on board. However, this is not reflected in organizational terms. As was already mentioned, only one particular and rather small unit for climate change adaptation exists within the FOEN. In all other federal offices and agencies (including the FOEN), no particular unit for climate change adaptation has yet been established. In most cases, the tasks associated with the development of the NAS and the sectoral strategies were completed by the regular offices and agencies involving three to seven staff members. The strategy for tourism was prepared by the Research Institute for Recreation and Tourism of the University of Bern, and for natural hazards, biodiversity, and water, the editorial imprint implies substantial involvement of external experts. For agriculture, a broad spectrum of actors was consulted for developing the strategy.

Procedural approach I (new instruments) a) Campaigns and research: The activities regarding information dissemination or increasing awareness are weak overall. Several sectors therefore now initiate additional research activities to better understand climate change and its impacts for developing adaptation measures. These activities focus on particular sectoral demands and only on four occasions (forestry, energy, biodiversity, and agriculture) additional coordination is explicitly demanded. These

36 demands, however, basically focus on coordination within a particular sector and not across sectors. Thus, only a “weak” level of CAPI is achieved. b) Vulnerability assessments: Most sectoral strategies follow the same structure to identify and assess climate sensitivities and vulnerabilities. Priorities are outlined for the sectors following a threefold categorization: climate change impact, relative importance of change, and need for action. Within the strategy for agriculture, a slightly different approach was adopted. Vulnerabilities and challenges are addressed according to the key tasks of agriculture and include cost-benefit considerations. The reports for civil protection and tourism also follow a particular approach. However, for the NAS, all key sectors provided consistent information following the standard procedure proposed by the FOEN, therefore qualifying as a “medium” level of CAPI. c) New instruments: All sectors extensively outline ideas for new instruments. These are, however, still in a very preliminary stage. These instruments mostly express a sectoral view and, except for biodiversity, hardly address other affected sectors or coordination. Slightly more concrete are the adjustments of already existing instruments. Extensions to or the altering of existing guidelines and planning instruments (e.g., PLANAT) (spatial planning, natural hazards), GIS-based monitoring (energy), sustainable and integrated water management projects and guidelines (energy, water), biodiversity management programs (biodiversity), forestry monitoring programs and national fiscal transfer (NFA) (forestry), hazard maps and mar- keting (tourism), and energy loan programs and direct payments systems (agriculture), among many others, are mentioned. While some of these instruments are already being implemented (i.e., in the forestry and natural hazards sectors), the vast majority are still in the “brainstorm- ing stage.” However, as coordination has hardly been addressed so far, overall they qualify only as “weak.” d) Monitoring and reporting: Although several monitoring and reporting activities already exist, the vast majority does not include relevant indicators of climate change. Thus, it is expressed in several strategies that establishing or altering existing monitoring systems and reporting practices will be important for climate change adaptation, for instance for identifying existing gaps. These intentions for establishing or altering existing monitoring systems and reporting practices typically express sectoral demands, and intentions for coordination are barely expressed. Occasionally, coordination is mentioned for cost-effectiveness reasons, but only biodiversity strongly promotes the coordination of monitoring activities. Thus, for biodiversity, CAPI can be qualified as “medium,” while all other sector achieve only a “weak” level.

Procedural approach II (institutional adjustments) a) Communication and information: Records of communication and information exchange beyond indicating meetings and workshops with the project lead are hardly found in the documents. However, these regular meetings suggest a “medium” level of CAPI. b) Consultation and cooperation: Consultation and coordination across departments beyond the meetings and workshops with the project lead seem to be an exception. Most notably, for civil protection, biodiversity, and agriculture, extensive exchange and consultation processes are reported in order to develop the respective strategies and reports. However, such processes are voluntary and therefore indicate a “weak” level.

37 c) Interfaces: In contrast to the NAS, interdependencies and interfaces are addressed only occasionally in the sectoral strategies. The major focus concerns negative side effects. Occa- sionally, potential synergetic interfaces have been identified (i.e., between forestry and natural hazards and between biodiversity and forestry). Interestingly, such interdependencies are realized very differently among the (potentially) involved sectors. For instance, biodiversity identifies interfaces with all sectors. However, these interfaces are barely echoed from the other sectors. In general, the interfaces are addressed from a strong sectoral perspective—that is, the focus is on the particular sectoral concerns and demands. Moreover, only interdependencies among the sectors involved in the process have been addressed. For instance climate change mitigation is only addressed by agriculture and biodiversity in their strategies although it is included in the overall objectives of the NAS. d) Non-governmental and subnational actors: A majority of the sectoral strategies express the need for raising awareness among sectoral stakeholders. Stakeholder processes are expected to support the exchange of information, to enhance the implementation of the national and sectoral strategies, and to identify obstacles for adaptation. The intent to launch stakeholder dialogues has been expressed by agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, spatial planning, natural hazards, and tourism. For biodiversity and agriculture, stakeholders were already substantially included in the process by the responsible offices and agencies.

Table 2.8 provides an overview of the sections addressing CAPI measures in the various sectors. Again the numbers in brackets indicate the number of identified sections. Again, these numbers indicate only very general information and have no comparative explanatory power.

38 Table 2.8: Results for the sectors

Measure Incorporation Process of coordination Joint new policy (weak CAPI) (rational CAPI) (strong CAPI)

a) Overall adaptation a) a) * a) policy framework b) SP (2), CP (1)*, F (1), AG b) SP (1)*, NH (3), F (1), E b) NH (1)*, F (2)*, BIO Normative-communicative (strategy, action plan) (1), TOU (1)* (2)*, BIO (1), AG (2), TOU (1)*, AG (1)* approach b) Sectoral adaptation c) SP (2)*, CP (1)*, NH (1)*, F (1) c) strategies (2)*, E (10)*, BIO (2)*, W c) BIO (1) c) Legal framework (10)*, AG (6)*, TOU (2)* a) Mandate and re- a) a) SP (1)*, CP (1)*, NH (1)*, a) sources b) SP (1), CP (1), NH (1), AG F (1)*, E (1)*, BIO (1)*, W b) b) Interdepartmental (1) (1)*, AG (1)*, TOU (2)* c) Organizational information exchange c) SP (4)*, CP (2)*, NH (1)*, F b) SP (1), CP (1), NH (1), F approach and coordination bodies (1)* E (1)*, W (1)*, AG (2)*, (1), E (1), BIO (1), W (1), AG c) Sectoral units TOU (1)* (1), TOU (1) c) a) Campaigns and a) CP (1)*, NH (1)*, F (1)*, E a) F (1), E (1), BIO (2), AG a) research (9)*, BIO (9)*, W (3)*, AG (1) b) b) Vulnerability assess- (7)*, TOU (8)* b) SP (2)*, CP (1)*, NH (2)*, c) ments b) CP (1), NH (1), AG (1), F (1)*, E (2)*, BIO (1)*, W d) c) New instruments, TOU (1) (1)*, AG (1)* Procedural approach I adjusting existing c) SP (3)*, CP (11)*, NH c) CP (2), NH (1), BIO (13), (instruments) instruments (11)*, F (1)*, E (8)*, BIO AG (2) d) Monitoring and (11)*, W (6)*, AG (19)*, TOU d) F (1), E (1), BIO (5)*, AG reporting practices (4)* (1) d) SP (1)*, CP (1)*, NH (4)*, E (1)*, BIO (9), W (1)*, AG (5)*, TOU (2)* a) Communication and a) SP (4), CP (1), NH (1), BIO a) […]*CP (1)*, BIO (3)*, W a) information exchange (3), AG (2), TOU (2) (2)*, AG (1)* b) b) Interdepartmental b) SP (2)*, CP (1)*, NH (1)*, b) SP (2), CP (1), F (1), BIO c) consultation and cooper- AG (1)*, TOU (1)*,NAS* (2), W (1) d) Procedural approach II ation c) SP (8)*, CP (2)*, E (4)*, c) CP (1), NH (1), BIO (1), W (institutional adjustment) c) Interfaces (contradic- BIO (3)*, W (11)*, AG (15)*, (2), AG (2) tions and synergies) TOU (2)* d) F (1)*, BIO (2)*, W (1)*, d) Inclusion of non- d) SP (2)*, NH (1)*, E (2)*, AG (7)* governmental and BIO (4)*, TOU (3)* subnational actors Note: * indicate predominant levels; SP = spatial planning; CP = civil protection; NH = natural hazards, F = Forestry; E = Energy; BIO = biodiversity; W = water; AG = agriculture; TOU = tourism; NAS = National Adap- tation Strategy.

2.5 DISCUSSION

The review reveals that studies and reports interpret CAPI acknowledgment and inclusion of climate change adaptation objectives as a process of coordination to avoid contradictions and negative effects between different policies and to realize synergies, and as a redesign and reorganization of policies and decision-making processes from the perspective of climate change adaptation. Thus, they mirror previous understandings of EPI identified by Rametsteiner et al. (2010) and imply different levels of integration. These parallels between the two concepts mainly result from the fact that a majority of studies and reports on CAPI explicitly refer to EPI (e.g., Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008, EEA 2009, European Com- mission 2009a, b, Swart et al. 2009, Brouwer et al. 2013, EEA 2013). However, major conceptual differences emerge regarding the understanding of CAPI exclusively as a process due to the absence of a theoretical foundation to assess CAPI as an output (Persson and Klein 2009, Adelle and Russel 2013) and a stronger focus on coordination in order to avoid negative side effects and realize synergies (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012). The measures that have been suggested for implementing and strengthening CAPI follow the same three basic approaches as for EPI—normative-communicative, organizational, and procedural—although the development of new instruments in particular is still in a very early stage. Again, this similarity results from the strong role of EPI as a source of inspiration for CAPI.

The framework for analyzing CAPI as a governing process developed in this paper focuses on the analysis of measures as has been suggested by previous EPI studies. In addition to ana-

39 lyzing measures along the three approaches, it takes into account that each measure can be designed according to different levels of ambition. Thus, the implementation of organizational and procedural measures does not imply higher levels of policy integration per se as has been suggested by previous research—only if they are designed in a manner that challenges the institutional structure. Similar analyses that take into account different designs have focused only on single measures (e.g., Wilkinson et al. 2008) or approaches (e.g., Schout and Jordan 2007). While including several measures from various approaches in the same framework provides an improvement regarding the analysis of the overall level of policy integration, it has some limitations. In contrast to the detailed study of a single measure, it can account only for major differences among the analyzed measures. In the current framework, only three levels—weak, medium, and strong—were distinguished, which insufficiently accounts for more subtle differences. However, assessing different levels of policy integration in general and policy integration measures in practice remains a main obstacle in the study of policy integration (Jordan and Lenschow 2010, Brouwer et al. 2013). Thus, further research should particularly focus on the development of more detailed scales for assessing different policy integration measures within and across approaches.

The analysis of CAPI indicates that the process for developing the Swiss NAS focused strongly on coordination across the participating sectors. The NAS development resulted in an integration of climate change adaptation in key sectors, although to varying degrees. With respect to the normative-communicative approach, a “medium” level of CAPI was achieved regarding the fact that the majority of the participating sectors developed a strategy or report, and all involved sectors provided consistent information for the NAS. Similar sectoral adaptation strategies have been reported only for the United Kingdom so far (Bauer et al. 2012). The revision of the CO2 act indicates a major step for CAPI as it legally supports coordination. Although many sectoral laws have been identified for potential readjustments, thus far, adaptation has not been included in these specific sectoral laws. Though legal adjustments are planned for the revision of the forestry act, and adaptation has recently been included in the sectoral strategies and action plans for natural hazards, forestry, biodiversity, and agriculture, coordination remains absent. However, compared to other issues in all of these sectors, adaptation is still considered to be of comparatively minor importance but is particularly considered if it supports or overlaps with sectoral objectives. A major gap seems to exist regarding the implementation of new instruments. So far, ideas are merely outlined on a conceptual level. Regarding adjustments of existing instruments, CAPI seems slightly more advanced regarding concretization, but coordination remains widely absent. Another substantial deficien- cy can be identified at the organizational level. With the exception of the rather small unit located in the FOEN, no specific adaptation unit could be identified in the federal administration. Thus, climate change adaptation is strongly concentrated in the FOEN rather than being integrated among different departments. Similar empirical results have been reported in previous studies (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, Brouwer et al. 2013). Swart et al. (2009) attributes these results to the early stage of climate change adaptation policy. Regarding CA- PI, the first generation of the NAS predominantly established processes that aimed at the acti- vation and inclusion of relevant sector departments, focused on increasing knowledge and awareness, and made the first strategic considerations. The analysis of the Swiss NAS largely corroborates these findings.

Two additional findings are of particular interest for CAPI. First, coordination among the involved sectors seems rather advanced compared to previous findings. However, the development of the NAS with rather abstract goals that do not include the implementation of more concrete measures is a comparatively low-level task and therefore easy to coordinate. Coordi- nating more concrete measures—in particular those relating to conflicting areas—will be sub-

40 stantially more demanding. This is indicated by the absence of coordination for already more advanced measures. Although a substantial level of coordination was achieved in the development of the NAS, there is evidence that the authority of the coordinating body is limited, which makes coordination across departments more challenging: In contrast to the agencies located in the FOEN, the sectoral strategies developed in other departments (tourism and agriculture) substantially differ in their structure and content. Moreover, although the responsibilities assigned to address the interfaces further were mainly allocated to the FOEN, some as- signments seem to be the result of interest politics. The interface of water and agriculture, for instance, is the exclusive responsibility of the FOAG. It is questionable that the current structure and limited authority of the leading department is appropriate for solving potential conflicts at the interfaces. Therefore, it is imperative to include effective conflict resolution mechanisms. Alternatively, the main priorities could be decided by the political authorities (e.g., parliament, government).

Secondly, the analysis reveals that CAPI is slightly further developed in selected sectors. Several sectors have addressed climate change adaptation prior to the NAS process and included adaptation as a key objective in their sectoral strategies. Thus, in selected sectors— namely natural hazards, forestry, spatial planning, and to some extent biodiversity—higher levels were achieved. These higher levels, however, have basically focused on normative- communicative measures so far. As it is well known from the EPI literature, putting declarations in place is a comparatively easy task, while achieving effective implementation is substantially more challenging (e.g., EEA 2005b, Carter 2007, Nilsson et al. 2007, Jacob et al. 2008, Jordan and Lenschow 2008a, Sgobbi 2010). The previous analysis reveals a similar pattern for CAPI in Switzerland. Regarding the procedural and organizational approaches, those implying a “medium” level are mostly intentions so far. In contrast to EPI, in these sectors, adaptation objectives strongly overlap with primary sectoral objectives which, therefore, could initiate more substantial developments regarding CAPI. This again supports a strong sectoral perspective for adaptation and implies that effective coordination is the key challenge in order to avoid negative cross-sectional effects.

2.6 CONCLUSION

Both researchers and public officials have emphasized the key importance of CAPI for climate change adaptation policy. However, although many studies have addressed CAPI conceptually, only a few studies so far have analyzed CAPI in practice. This paper has addressed the issues of how CAPI has been conceptualized and what approaches have been developed as well as how CAPI has been addressed in the development of the Swiss NAS.

CAPI shows a strong conceptual similarity with EPI, although a procedural perspective is exclusively adopted. Moreover, fundamental importance is given to coordination in order to avoid negative side effects across sectors. The three conceptualizations mainly express different levels of ambition: the consideration of another policy’s objectives implies a “weak” level of integration, while coordination suggests a “medium” level, and a fundamental change from an adaptation perspective implies a “strong” level. These normative implications regarding the level of integration are adopted in the framework to assess the different positive levels. Focusing on the analysis of measures for CAPI, the framework allows for a detailed and systematic analysis that goes beyond those of previous studies. Moreover, adopting concepts previously developed in the EPI literature allows for some—though very limited— comparisons between the integration of adaptation and environmental policy. However, while researchers widely agree on the basic distinction between “medium” and “strong” levels of policy integration, such a twofold distinction is of very limited value for empirical analysis.

41 The fact that most policy integration—EPI, CPI, and CAPI—centers on the “weak” and occasionally “medium” levels of integration demands a more detailed scale of measurement— particularly for lower levels of policy integration.

The Swiss NAS is the first step towards climate change adaptation policy in Switzerland. Like other NAS, the Swiss NAS has mainly a conceptual focus. Measures that are more concrete are to a large extent addressed only as declarations of intent. For Switzerland, such measures have been postponed to the second part of the NAS. However, as the long history of EPI has shown, moving from declarations to measures that are more concrete and effectively challenge the institutional structure is difficult. After more than 30 years of efforts to push forward the EPI agenda, the overall assessments of EPI are rather disillusioning. However, in contrast to environmental concerns, adapting to climate change is often considered to overlap substantially with the stakes of the prevalent sectoral objectives. Thus, it is plausible to assume that—in contrast to environmental concerns—climate change impacts will be considered more substantially in due course resulting in higher levels of CAPI. Nevertheless, there are two main challenges. First, adaptation measures are likely to be a major source of conflicts across sectors. The management of interfaces risks control by sectors representing strong interest groups, which implies the emergence of negative side effects for other sectors that lack such support. The current coordination mechanisms seem inadequate to deal with such potential conflicts. Thus, establishing bodies and processes for mediating such conflicts is crucial. Secondly, there seems to be a particular lack of policy instruments that enable governments to engage actively in climate change adaptation. Developing more concrete policy instruments for climate change adaptation is a major issue for both researchers and public authorities.

42 LITERATURE CITED

Adelle, C. and D. Russel. 2013. Climate Policy Integration: a Case of Déjà Vu? Environmen- tal Policy and Governance 23:1–12. Aden, H. 2012. Umweltpolitik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. ARE. 2011. Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz im Sektor Raumentwicklung – Beitrag des Bundesamtes für Raumentwicklung zur Anpassungsstrategie des Bundesrates. Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (ARE), Bern. Bättig, M., L. Rageth, and Y. Kaufmann. 2010. Anpassung an die Klimaänderung: Erhebung in den Kantonen. Econcept/Bundesamt für Umwelt, Zürich/Bern. Bauer, A., J. Feichtinger, and R. Steurer. 2012. The Governance of Climate Change Adapta- tion in 10 OECD Countries: Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 14:279–304. Biesbroek, G. R., R. J. Swart, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, H. Mela, M. Morecroft, and D. Rey. 2010. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Global Environmental Change 20:440–450. Briassoulis, H. 2005a. Analysis of Policy Integration: Conceptual and Methodological Con- siderations. Pages 50–80 in H. Briassoulis, editor. Policy Integration for Complex Envi- ronmental Problems – The Example of Mediterranean Desertification. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot and Burlington, VT. Briassoulis, H. 2005b. Complex Environmental Problems and the Quest for Policy Integra- tion. Pages 1–49 in H. Briassoulis, editor. Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems – The Example of Mediterranean Desertification. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot and Burlington, VT. Brouwer, S., T. Rayner, and D. Huitema. 2013. Mainstreaming climate policy: the case of climate adaptation and the implementation of EU water policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31:134–153. Carter, N. 2007. The Politics of the Environment – Ideas, Activism, Policy. 2nd edition. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge. Cimato, F. and M. Mullan. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: Analysing the Role of Gov- ernment. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), London. Collier, U. 1994. Energy and Environment in the European Union. Avebury, Aldershot. De Gier, T., J. Gupta, and M. van Rijswick. 2009. A state of the Art on the Legal and Policy Literature on Adaptation to Climate Change: Towards a Research Agenda. Knowledge for Climate Report 001/09. Knowledge for Climate, Utrecht/Wageningen. De Loë, R. C. 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Drinking Water Source Protection in Ontario: Challenges and Opportunities. Pages 439–448 in J. D. Ford and L. Berrang-Ford, editors. Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations – From Theory to Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Dovers, S. 2013. How much adaptation: are existing policy and institutions enough? Pages 97–102 in J. Palutikof, S. L. Boulter, A. J. Ash, M. Stafford Smith, M. Parry, M. Waschka, and D. Guitart, editors. Climate Adaptation Futures. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Dovers, S. and A. A. Hezri. 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation. WIREs Climate Change 1:212–231. Dupont, C. 2011. Climate Policy Integration in the EU. Pages 385–404 in W. L. Filho, editor. The Economic, Social and Political Elements of Climate Change. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY.

43 Dupont, C. and S. Oberthür. 2012. Insufficient climate policy integration in EU energy policy: the importance of the long-term perspective. Journal of Contemporary European Research 8:228–247. Econcept. 2008. Synopse Anpassungsstrategien EU-Raum. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Bern. EEA. 2005a. Environmental policy integration in Europe: Administrative culture and practices. EEA Technical Report No. 5/2005. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenha- gen. EEA. 2005b. Environmental policy integration in Europe: State of play and an evaluation framework. EEA Technical Report No. 2/2005. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen. EEA. 2009. Regional climate change and adaptation: The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources. EEA Report No. 8/2009. European Environment Agency (EEA), Co- penhagen. EEA. 2013. Adaptation in Europe: Addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in the context of socio-economic developments. EEA Report No. 3/2013. European Envi- ronment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen. European Commission. 2008. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. European Commission. 2009a. Adapting to Climate Change: The Challenges for European Agriculture and Rural Areas. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. European Commission. 2009b. White Book – Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a Euro- pean Framework for Action. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Fiorino, D. J. 2006. The New Environmental Regulation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. FOAG. 2011. Klimastrategie Landwirtschaft – Klimaschutz und Anpassung an den Klima- wandel für eine nachhaltige Schweizer Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft. Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), Bern. FOCP. 2009. Klimawandel und Bevölkerungsschutz. Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP), Bern. FOEN. 2010. Strategie der Schweiz zur Anpassung an die Klimaänderung: Zwischenbericht zuhanden des Bundesrats vom 8. September 2010. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. FOEN. 2011a. Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz im Sektor Biodiversitätsma- nagement – Beitrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt zur Anpassungsstrategie des Bundesra- tes. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. FOEN. 2011b. Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz im Sektor Wald und Wald- wirtschaft – Beitrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt zur Anpassungsstrategie des Bundesra- tes. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. FOEN. 2012a. Adaptation to climate change in Switzerland: Goals, challenges and fields of action. First part of the Federal Council's strategy, adopted on 2 March 2012. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. FOEN. 2012b. Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz im Sektor Wasserwirtschaft – Beitrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt zur Anpassungsstrategie des Bundesrates. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. FOEN. 2012c. Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz im Umgang mit Naturgefah- ren – Beitrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt zur Anpassungsstrategie des Bundesrates. Fed- eral Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern.

44 Gupta, J. and N. van der Grijp, editors. 2010. Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation – Theory, Practice and Implication for the European Union. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge. Jacob, K., A. Volkery, and A. Lenschow. 2008. Instruments for Environmental Policy Inte- gration in 30 OECD Countries. Pages 24–45 in A. Jordan and A. Lenschow, editors. Inno- vation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northhampton, MA. Jänicke, M. and H. Jörgens. 2006. New Approaches to Environmental Governance. Pages 167–209 in M. Jänicke and H. Jörgens, editors. Environmental Governance in a Global Perspective: New Approaches to Ecological Modernization. Freie Universität Berlin, Ber- lin. Jordan, A. 2002. Efficient Hardware and Light Green Software: Environmental Policy Inte- gration in the UK. Pages 35–56 in A. Lenschow, editor. Environmental Policy Integration – Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow. 2008a. Environmental Policy Integration: An Innovation in En- vironmental Policy? Pages 313–341 in A. Jordan and A. Lenschow, editors. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow, editors. 2008b. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northhampton, MA. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow. 2008c. Integrating the Environment for Sustainable Develop- ment: An Introduction. Pages 3–23 in A. Jordan and A. Lenschow, editors. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA. Jordan, A. and A. Lenschow. 2010. Policy Paper Environmental Policy Integration: a State of the Art Review. Environmental Policy and Governance 20:147–158. Karlegger, A., N. Rom, S. Bock, and M. Bättig. 2010. Synopse: Aktionspläne Anpassung an den Klimawandel in europäischen Ländern. Econcept, Zürich. Lafferty, W. M. and E. Hovden. 2003. Environmental Policy Integration: Towards an Analyt- ical Framework. Environmental Politics 12:1–22. Lebel, L., L. Li, C. Krittasudthacheewa, M. Juntopas, V. Tatirose, T. Uchiyama, and D. Kra- wanchid. 2012. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning. Ad- aptation Knowledge Platform and Stockholm Environment Institute, Bangkok. Liberatore, A. 1997. The Integration of Sustainable Development Objectives into EU Policy- Making. Pages 107–126 in S. Baker, M. Kousis, D. Richardson, and S. Young, editors. The Politics of Sustainable Development – Theory and Practice within the European Union. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Mayring, P. 2000a. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:20 [online] URL: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385. Mayring, P. 2000b. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Deutscher Studienverlag, Weinheim. Meijers, E. and D. Stead. 2004. Policy integration: what does it mean and how can it be achieved? A multi-disciplinary review. Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change "Greening of Policies – Interlinkages and Policy Integra- tion", Berlin. Mickwitz, P., F. Aix, S. Beck, D. Carss, N. Ferrand, C. Görg, A. Jensen, P. Kivimaa, C. Kuhlicke, W. Kuindersma, M. Máñez, M. Melanen, S. Monni, A. Branth Pedersen, H.

45 Reinert, and S. van Bommel. 2009. Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Govern- ance. Partnership for European Environmental Research, Helsinki. Nilsson, M., K. Eckerberg, and A. Persson. 2007. Introduction: EPI Agendas and Policy Re- sponses. Pages 1–24 in M. Nilsson and K. Eckerberg, editors. Environmental Policy Inte- gration – Shaping Institutions for Learning. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA. Nilsson, M. and L. J. Nilsson. 2005. Towards climate policy integration in the EU: evolving dilemmas and opportunities. Climate Policy 5:363–376. OECD. 2002. Improving Policy Coherence and Integration for Sustainable Development – A Checklist. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. OECD. 2009. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. Olhoff, A. and C. Schaer. 2010. Screening Tools and Guidelines to Support the Mainstream- ing of Climate Change Adaptation into Development Assistance – A Stocktaking Report UNDP, New York, NY. Palutikof, J., M. Parry, M. Stafford Smith, A. J. Ash, S. L. Boulter, and M. Waschka. 2013. The past, present and future of adaptation: setting the context and naming the challenges. Pages 3–28 in J. Palutikof, S. L. Boulter, A. J. Ash, M. Stafford Smith, M. Parry, M. Waschka, and D. Guitart, editors. Climate Change Adaptation Futures. Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford. Persson, A. 2004. Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction. PINTS Background Paper. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Persson, A. 2007. Different Perspectives on EPI. Pages 25–48 in M. Nilsson and K. Ecker- berg, editors. Environmental Policy Integration – Shaping Institutions for Learning. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA. Persson, A. and R. J. T. Klein. 2009. Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in official development assistance: Challenges to foreign policy integration. Pages 162–177 in P. G. Harris, editor. Climate Change and Foreign Policy. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Primmer, E. 2011. Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry. Journal of Cleaner Production 19:1822–1832. Rametsteiner, E., A. Bauer, and G. Weiss. 2010. Policy Integration and Coordination: Theo- retical, Methodological and Conceptual Approach. Pages 11–25 in E. Rametsteiner, G. Weiss, P. Ollonqvist, and B. Slee, editors. Policy Integration and Coordination: the Case of Innovation and the Forest Sector in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Rietig, K. 2013. Sustainable Climate Policy Integration in the European Union. Environmen- tal Policy and Governance 23:297–310. Rouillard, J. J., K. V. Heal, T. Ball, and A. D. Reeves. 2013. Policy integration for adaptive water governance: Learning from Scotland. Environmental Science & Policy 33:378–387. Schout, A. and A. Jordan. 2007. EU-EPI, Policy Co-ordination and New Institutionalism. EPIGOV Papers No. 13. Ecologic – Institute for International and European Environmen- tal Policy, Berlin SECO and Forschungszentrum für Tourismus Universität Bern. 2011. Der Schweizer Touris- mus im Klimawandel: Auswirkungen und Anpassungsoptionen. Staatssekretariat für Wirt- schaft (SECO), Bern. SFOE. 2012. Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz im Sektor Energie – Beitrag des Bundesamtes für Energie zur Anpassungsstrategie des Bundesrates. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Bern.

46 Sgobbi, A. 2010. Environmental Policy Integration and the Nation State: What Can We Learn from Current Practices? Pages 9–41 in A. Goria, A. Sgobbi, and I. von Homeyer, editors. Governance for the Environment – A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Policy Inte- gration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Smith, J. B., J. M. Vogel, and J. E. Cromwell III. 2009. An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change 95:53–61. Swart, R., R. Biesbroek, S. Binnerup, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, S. Loquen, H. Mela, M. Morecroft, M. Reese, and D. Rey. 2009. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. PEER Report No 1. Partnership for European Environmental Research (PEER), Helsinki. Termeer, C., G. R. Biesbroek, and M. van den Brink. 2012. Institutions for Adaptation to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies in Europe. European Political Science 11:41–53. Underdal, A. 1980. Integrated Marine Policy – What? Why? How? Marine Policy 4:159–169. UNDP-UNEP. 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide for Practitioners. UNDP-UNEP, Nairobi. Van Bommel, S. and W. Kuindersma. 2008. Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance in Dutch Climate Policy: A Multi-Level Analysis of Mitigation and Adaptation Policy. Alter- ra, Wageningen. Wilkinson, D., D. Benson, and A. Jordan. 2008. Green Budgeting. Pages 70–92 in A. Jordan and A. Lenschow, editors. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA.

3. ISSUE ATTENTION AND MODES OF GOVERNANCE: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN SWISS ALPINE REGIONS

Alexander WIDMER1, Christian HIRSCHI1

ABSTRACT

Like other European countries, Switzerland has only rather recently begun to develop a national climate change adaptation strategy. In contrast, Swiss cantonal (i.e., state-level) governments have been more active in formulating and implementing adaptation measures. These measures, however, differ considerably with respect to scope, range, and mode within and across regions. In this article, we analyze this variety of regional adaptation measures within the Swiss federalist political system by looking specifically at three mountainous cantons in various parts of Switzerland. In particular, we attempt to explain the timely occurrence of these adaptation measures and the governance patterns that emanate from these activities at the regional level. For this purpose, we developed a dataset including all public (in the sense of “public policy”) adaptation measures in the three selected cantons for the period from 2001 to 2011 based on the publicly available documentation. The study shows that over time, similar patterns in the occurrence of adaptation measures in the three regions can be observed. This similarity seems to be due to a trans-regional adaptation discourse shaped by the national and international policy agenda, rather than by specific regional conditions, such as the occurrence of locally extreme events. The discussed or applied modes of governance in these adaptation measures, however, display some significant differences between the three regions. Most adaptation measures are information- or research-oriented, with the cantonal government and its public administration being the main body in charge of the measures. However, the relevant fields of application (policy sectors) clearly differ and mainly reflect the topographical and socio-economic conditions in the three cantons.

Key words: climate change; adaptation; agenda-setting; policy instruments; governance; Switzerland

Acknowledgments:

We thank the participants of the Symposium on “The Governance of Adaptation,” Amster- dam, The Netherlands, 22–23 March 2012, for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich), Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Environmental Policy and Economics, Universitaetstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.

49 3.1 INTRODUCTION

Although Article 4 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN- FCCC) requires all its members to “facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change,” adaptation did not play a major role in climate policy until the beginning of the new millennium. Due to the lack of a substantial slowdown in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, global average temperatures will continue to rise, and concerns about the severe impacts of climate change are accelerating (IPCC 2012). Hence, adaptation is now regarded as an “inevitable reaction to climate change” (De Gier et al. 2009: 32). Whereas adaptation to climate change in the least developed and developing countries has been an issue of international concern since at least the seventh UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP7, 2001), adapting to the current and foreseen impacts of climate change in highly economically developed countries has only recently become an issue of national and subnational policy (Adger 2001, De Gier et al. 2009, Swart et al. 2009, Keskitalo 2010, Frommer et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2011, IPCC 2012). Still, as studies for various countries have shown (Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2006, Swart et al. 2009, Keskitalo 2010, Bauer et al. 2012, Ford and Berrang-Ford 2011, Peltonen et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2011), climate change adaptation policies are still in a very early stage.

Although national-level several studies with a comparative and governance focus exist (e.g., Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2006, 2007, Massey and Bergsma 2008, Swart et al. 2009, Biesbroek et al. 2010, Bauer et al. 2012, Termeer et al. 2012), similar studies are still lacking at the regional and local levels. Typically, the analysis of regional adaptation policies focuses on specific regional case studies or selected sets of adaptation measures (e.g., EEA 2009, Frommer et al. 2011). Additionally, some have criticized the fact that studies analyzing regional adaptation measures usually have a highly theoretical approach and that the case studies are typically reduced to occasional illustrations (Van Nieuwaal et al. 2009). The few studies that include regional adaptation measures on a larger scale are generally single- country analyses that are interested in taking stock of all adaptation measures within a country, without an explicitly regional focus (e.g., Tompkins et al. 2009, Tompkins et al. 2010). Furthermore, regional adaptation measures have been addressed within the context of multi- level governance frameworks (Keskitalo 2010, Juhola et al. 2011, Juhola and Westerhoff 2011). However, studies making systematic use of the growing empirical evidence of regional adaptation measures have not been carried out so far, leaving many questions unanswered. Consequentially, which modes of governance arise from policy decisions at the regional level has remained an open question (Huitema et al. 2012). Lacking such information, related issues of coordination among these modes of governance (“meta-governance”) have barely been addressed either. Such information, however, is crucial to enhancing the design of national and supra-national adaptation frameworks (vertical integration) in the future. Equally important is the question of which sectors regional governments engage. Do regional adaptation measures in fact reflect regional vulnerabilities, or are they more an outcome of interest group politics or policy processes at different (e.g., national) scales? Regional adaptation measures are thus also interesting from an agenda-setting perspective. In the absence of larger comparative studies, however, such questions cannot be addressed in a systematic way.

In this article, we make an initial attempt to systematize and analyze regional climate change adaptation measures taken in Switzerland in order to better understand the more general patterns of regional adaptation policy processes. We thereby specifically focus on Swiss alpine regions because mountain areas are considered to be among the most vulnerable to climate change in Europe (Beniston 2003, 2005, Agrawala 2007, European Commission 2008, EEA 2009, European Commission 2009b). Many local and regional governments and public administrations had indeed developed climate change adaptation strategies or initiated

50 or planned individual measures in order to address climate changes, even before a national adaptation strategy was formulated (FOEN 2012). However, a recent questionnaire-based survey suggests that there are significant regional differences with respect to the policy measures adopted to address climate change adaptation (Bättig et al. 2010). For example, only seven out of 26 cantons (the Swiss states) have actually developed a comprehensive adaptation strategy. However, the survey also revealed some similar developments, for example, in the forest sector, where 93 percent of the cantons reported having taken or planning to implement adaptation measures. It is therefore our goal to address the actual adaptation measures in three selected Swiss mountain cantons over the last decade in more detail. We are particularly interested in finding explanations for the overall timing of these adaptation measures and aim to identify the predominant modes of governance that have been applied in these measures and why they were chosen (Huitema et al. 2012). Specifically, we will address the following research questions:

— What climate adaptation measures were discussed or adopted in Swiss mountain regions from 2001 to 2011? — What developments put the issue of climate change adaptation on the political agendas of the relevant political bodies in those regions? — What are the predominant modes of governance of those adaptation measures, and how can they be explained?

In the following section, we first outline our theoretical framework. Then, the design and procedure of our data collection is explained, and the resulting systematic database of regional adaptation measures in Switzerland is introduced. In the section that follows, we present our data and analyze them with regard to the underlying agenda-setting processes of regional adaptation measures in the selected regions, as well as the related modes of governance, with a specific focus on the policy instruments adopted and the policy sectors addressed. Finally, we discuss these findings with respect to our previously formulated theoretical assumptions.

3.2 THEORY

3.2.1 Problem perception and agenda-setting

In contrast to developing countries, recent discussions of climate change adaptation in developed countries have mainly centered on environmental concerns (Van Nieuwaal et al. 2009, Keskitalo et al. 2012). How environmental issues enter the political agenda has been a recurring research question since Downs’s (1972) seminal study on the rise and fall of environmen- talism in the United States in the 1960s (Guber and Bosso 2013). In the following, we use this model of the issue-attention cycle—defined as a “systematic cycle of heightening public interest and then increasing boredom with major issues” (Downs 1972: 39)—to describe adaptation to climate change as a policy problem and then assess the timing of adaptation measures in the three selected mountain regions.

Despite the severe ecological impacts of climate change, such as the loss of the major part of the Alps’ glaciers, the melting of the permafrost, and severe weather events such as storms, floods, and heat waves (for Switzerland, see OcCC 2003, OcCC and ProClim 2007), climate- change-related risks are usually not a prominent issue on the public agenda in the absence of punctual extreme events. Adaptation issues are therefore a problem that typically attracts only punctual attention, in accordance with Downs’s (1972) specification of the nature of problems that move through issue-attention cycles: 1) the vast majority of the population is not immediately suffering from these conditions; 2) at least some of the causes of the (potential) suffer-

51 ings are otherwise legitimate social and economic activities, such as energy consumption and production, mobility, tourism, etc. and therefore closely connected to significant benefits to wide segments of the population; and 3) climate-change-related risks typically have very low probabilities of occurrence and highly regionally bounded impacts and therefore have— particularly in the case of non-occurrence—“no intrinsically exciting qualities” (Downs 1972: 41).

The stage at which such undesirable conditions actually exist but have not yet captured much public attention—despite expert knowledge of the likely causes and the potential consequences of these conditions—is called the “pre-problem stage” (Downs 1972: 39). Dramatic events, such as floods, avalanche disasters, or mountain slides, on the other hand, create high public attention beyond the regional scale of the event and have the potential to draw broad public attention to severe weather patterns and their potential connection with changing climate conditions (Brulle et al. 2012, Ratter et al. 2012). They lead to “alarmed discoveries” (Downs 1972: 39) and result—at least in the immediate aftermath of an extreme event—in public willingness to act in order to prevent such disasters in the future.

In the next step, the model of the issue attention cycle predicts a decrease in the attention paid towards the issue due to the realization of the costs that would be involved in significantly making progress in addressing the unfavorable conditions and their causes effectively. With regard to climate-change-related risks in mountain regions, we must distinguish between the various forms of climate-related risks that result in unfavorable conditions for societies. In addition to the abrupt risks typically associated with changing climate conditions (mainly changing risks related to extreme weather events, such as those described above), gradually changing climate conditions are increasingly expected to result in significant societal challenges (Van Nieuwaal et al. 2009: 15). For example, water shortages are very likely to intensi- fy competition between various water users, such as agriculture, households, and energy production, as well as between water usage interests and environmental protection concerns. Be- cause of the continuing growth of forests in Swiss mountain areas (due to land-use changes and a warmer climate), tensions between forest and landscape protection and land-user interests (e.g., of the construction, agricultural. and tourism sectors) could further accelerate.

The “post-problem stage” is typically characterized by the fact that the issue has been re- placed at the center of public concern, moving into a state of “prolonged limbo” (Downs 1972: 40). However, the issue can take on a different shape at this stage of the issue-attention cycle than it had during the “pre-problem stage.” If the “window of opportunity” (Kingdon 2003: 166–171) when public attention was high was used to establish new institutions, programs, and policies, the capacity to address the issue in the future could be increased.

3.2.2 Predominant modes of governance

The concept of “governance” has been applied in many different contexts, with as many different meanings (Bevir 2011). From a public policy perspective, two main basic understandings of governance have prevailed (Kjaer 2004, Chhotray and Stoker 2009, Knill and Tosun 2012):

On the one hand, the concept of governance refers to a shift towards a non-hierarchical— that is, cooperative and deliberative—form of political steering by emphasizing the consideration and inclusion of private actors in policy-making and the broadening of applied policy instruments (with a particular focus on network management and so-called "soft" policy instruments that do not involve regulation) (e.g., Kooiman 1993, Kickert et al. 1997, Rhodes

52 1997, Börzel 2011, Héritier and Lehmkuhl 2011, Evans 2012). This shift in applied policy instruments has been promoted extensively in order to support the acceptance of policies and overcome interest conflicts and implementation deficits. Most scholars addressing “adaptive governance” follow a similar direction, arguing for a governance system that enables and le- gitimizes adaptive management (Van Nieuwaal et al. 2009: 16).

On the other hand, some scholars understand governance more broadly, as political steering in general, and therefore consider a broad spectrum of various forms of political steering as different “modes of governance.” “Mode of governance” is then understood as the prevailing cluster of political steering in a given policy area (e.g., Salamon 2000, 2002, Lascoumes and Le Galès 2005, Howlett and Rayner 2007, Howlett 2009, Termeer et al. 2011, Evans 2012). A key issue within this broader governance perspective is to understand the emergence, interplay, alterability, and persistence of various modes of governance, as well as their (potential) effects on policy outcomes (Kettl 2002, Jordan et al. 2003, Holzinger et al. 2006, Jordan et al. 2007, Huitema et al. 2012). For this purpose, the categorization and assessment of relevant policy instruments has become a key prerequisite for understanding policy dynamics and the resulting changes in the modes of governance (Holzinger et al. 2006, Howlett 2011).

In this article, we follow the second, broader definition of governance. Various classifications used to separate “modes of governance” have been offered. Most scholars base their classifications on a threefold distinction between hierarchical, market, and network modes of governance (Thompson et al. 1991, Lowndes and Skelcher 1998, Meuleman 2008, Frommer et al. 2011, Evans 2012). Although slight modifications with respect to the labeling of these three basic modes sometimes exist (e.g., Pierre and Peters 2000, Kooiman 2003, Holzinger et al. 2006), this basic categorization is widely accepted. Table 3.1 displays the key characteristics of these three basic types of modes of governance with regard to the actors involved, as well as the instruments typically applied. However, these modes are only ideal-typical forms. Empirically, the various modes (or elements thereof) exist side by side or overlap, creating more or less ambiguous hybrid modes of governance (Bradach and Eccles 1989). Deciding which mode of governance dominates in a given policy area is thus an empirical question.

Table 3.1: Modes of governance

Mode of Governance

Key characteristics Hierarchy Market Network

Relationship between authority prices/property rights trust actors

regulation Governing tools financial incentives collaboration (bans and rules)

information campaigns, (quality) standards, pro- taxes, subsidies, private- Typical policy instru- consultation, persuasion, hibition, obligations, public partnerships, trad- ments quality targets, coordina- restrictions able permits, contracting tion, certification

53 What predominant modes of governance within climate change adaptation policies can be expected at a regional scale? The existing literature suggests that instrument choice in general is a result of a rather technical and rational exercise or a complex interaction between political bargaining, national traditions, policy styles, legal and resource constrains, and learning from past failures (Howlett and Ramesh 1993). A special characteristic of adaptation measures is that they are dispersed among a variety of policy sectors and often involve more than one governmental level, making adaptation policy formulation and implementation a cross- sectoral and multi-level task (Adger et al. 2005, Juhola and Westerhoff 2011). Furthermore, at the level of specific policy measures, proposals for adaptation policies have remained rather general, becoming more specific only recently. General claims such as “reducing vulnerability,” “enhancing adaptive capacity,” or even “integrating adaptation into all policies” are very difficult to translate into specific policy instruments (Adger 2006, Adger et al. 2007, Adger et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2011). The more concrete adaptation policies are mostly of a technical, planning, and management nature, e.g., building protective dams, adjusting spatial planning, water supply management, or artificial snow-making (EEA 2009: 103). Such adaptation measures follow the traditional hierarchical mode of governance because they are strongly regulated or directly provided by governments and their administrations, respectively.

However, following the argument of Hood and Margetts (2007: 134), establishing first instruments with a low level of state involvement and then shifting to more state involvement at a later stage in the policy process is a fairly common type of policy development. On the other hand, assuming that climate change adaption measures follow the issue attention cycle, as described by Downs (1972), we expect that high level of “issue attention” paid to adaptation will not necessarily produce institutionalized policies. The attention could also fade away over time, especially if new policies involve large (economic or political) costs. Consequentially, we hypothesize that adaptation measures focus predominantly on soft information-based instruments and research activities linked to vulnerability assessments and raising public awareness.

Adaptation measures are dispersed among a variety of policy sectors, making adaptation a cross-sectoral task. Hence, we additionally hypothesize that adaptation measures follow the modes of governance that are prevalent in the policy sectors in which they are adopted. In the natural hazard sector, for example, technical solutions (usually in the form of direct provisions or regulations, i.e., the hierarchical mode of governance, see above) are available and usually seen as the preferred policy instrument (Bader and Kunz 1998, Bloetzer et al. 1998). Howev- er, we expect such regulatory modes to arise only subsequently to information-based instruments. We do not expect that market-based modes of governance resulting from the implementation of instruments that aim at steering adaptation through financial incentives (e.g., subsidies for infrastructure projects, user charges, insurances) will be adopted yet, because these instruments are just emerging (OECD 2008).

With respect to the policy sectors that adopt regional adaptation measures, we expect them to reflect the ecological, socio-economic, and political conditions in the particular regions. Especially in the inner alpine regions, we assume that adaptation measures will mainly be adopted in the natural hazard and water management sectors. Because agriculture is clearly a domain of national policies in Switzerland, we expect only a very few adaptation measures in this sector, even though climate change impacts in this sector are also presumed to be very regionally specific (Hirschi et al. 2013, Huber et al. 2013a).

54 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Our study covers three particular mountain regions in Switzerland: the Canton of Grisons, located in the eastern part of the Swiss Alps, with a multifaceted and versatile climate; the Canton of Valais, in the South of Switzerland, with a high sensitivity to drought; and the Can- ton of Vaud, stretching from the Jura mountains in the west of Switzerland to the Alps, with landscapes sensitive to both land-use and temperature changes (Huber et al. 2013b). We therefore also aimed at a selection of study regions that displays the broad variety of (potential) ecological, socio-economic, and political factors that could be relevant to climate change adaptation measures. Accordingly, the selected study regions are not only geographically very different areas with distinct ecosystems and climate conditions but also differ significantly with regard to political-institutional and socio-economic contexts (Hermann and Leuthold 2003, Ladner 2004, Koller et al. 2012).

Politically, the Canton of Vaud can be characterized as a liberal center-left canton, with the liberal and social-democratic parties traditionally dominating the government and the parliament of the canton. The parliament and government in the Canton of Grisons are dominated by liberal, center, and conservative parties. The Canton of Valais, finally, is a predominantly conservative canton with a historically hegemonic Christian-democratic party.

Socio-economically, Valais and Grisons have only about one-third of the overall economic strength of the Canton of Vaud. However, in relation to their population, the Canton of Grison has the highest GDP per capita (64,158 CHF in 2010), followed by Vaud (61,070 CHF) and finally Valais (49,792 CHF) (BAK Basel Economics AG 2011). In all three cantons, the service industry is the dominant economic sector. Whereas in the Canton of Vaud, the financial and IT industries are the most important economic drivers, tourism dominates in the other two cantons.

To identify the prevailing modes of governance in the three selected cantons on issues of climate change adaptation, we collected a systematic database of all adaptation measures adopted in the three cantons from 2001 to 2011. To delimit our unit of analysis, we follow the IPCC’s (2007) definition of adaptation as the “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.” Accordingly, we define cantonal adaptation measures as every activity explicitly aimed at the adjustment of natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities involving cantonal political actors, such as cantonal governments, administrations, and legislative bodies (parliaments).

As a first step, we used publicly available official documents (minutes of the parliament, administration reports, legislative programs, laws, legal ordinances, government reports, research reports, government strategies, and press releases) as primary sources to identify adaptation measures in the selected cantons. We restricted the time period to the years 2001–2011 because adaptation issues have emerged on the political agenda more prominently only since 2000 (Swart et al. 2009, Bauer et al. 2012, Termeer et al. 2011, Wilson and Termeer 2011). Specifically, we identified all the relevant documents containing explicit information on climate change and/or climate change adaptation using the same key words used by Dupuis and Knoepfel (2011) in a previous study on Swiss national adaptation policies.

As a second step, every document matching one of the key words was analyzed to determine whether it contained information on adaptation measures, as defined above. The identi-

55 fied adaptation measures were then coded according to theoretically predefined categories based on Mayring’s (2000a) qualitative content analysis approach. Similar policy document analyses have been carried out for national adaptation strategies (NAS) (Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2007, Massey and Bergsma 2008, Biesbroek et al. 2010). A short description of our database, with the coded categories, is provided below:

Applied policy instruments: From the broad variety of available policy instrument typologies, we followed the categorization by Howlett (2005) and Howlett and Ramesh (1995), as displayed in Table 3.2. This categorization has three main advantages. Firstly, the categorization follows a gradual continuum from high to no state involvement and therefore takes into account the binding characteristic or compulsion of a particular policy instrument. Secondly, these basic categories provide a level of detail that allows them to be easily transferred into other commonly used typologies, such as “carrots, sticks, and sermons” (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 2003) or “nodality, authority, treasure, and organization” (Hood and Margetts 2007). Thirdly, each category can be unambiguously assigned to one of the three modes of governance, as shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Policy instruments and modes of governance

Policy instrument and level of state involvement

high low

xhortation Direct provision Direct enterprise Public Regulation Tax and user charge Auction of property property of Auction rights Subsidies Information and e Private markets organization Voluntary Family and community

Hierarchy ✓ ✓ ✓

Market ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Modes of governance Network ✓ ✓ ✓

Relevant sectors: To identify the relevant sectors for our categorization, we first listed the sectors identified by the federal government’s interdepartmental working group on adaptation to climate change (BAFU 2010). We then added the sectors identified by the European Envi- ronment Agency for alpine regions (EEA 2009). If a sector was mentioned as being important for Switzerland in general, as well as for alpine regions in particular, as characterized by the EEA, we included the sector in our analysis (Table 3.3). Because some adaptation measures are cross-sectoral, measures can occasionally be assigned to multiple sectors.

56 Table 3.3: Adaptation policy sectors

Switzerland Alpine regions Selected sectors Sector (BAFU 2010) (EEA 2009) for this study Biodiversity ✓ ✓ ✓ Households ✓ Forestry ✓ ✓ ✓ Agriculture ✓ ✓ ✓ Tourism ✓ ✓ ✓ Energy ✓ ✓ ✓ Industry ✓ Infrastructure ✓ Water ✓ ✓ ✓ Natural Haz- ✓ ✓ ✓ ards/Disasters Transportation Migration Spatial Planning ✓ Health ✓ Coastal Zones/Sea Level Rise Foreign/Development

Involved actors: The documents analyzed contained only a little information on the actors involved in the process leading to a particular adaptation measure. However, information on the actual political body in charge, as well as the final legally binding responsibility for the activity—cantonal government, administration (including administrative unit), parliament, citizens (referendum)—and the main target population (civil society, economy/industry, scientific community, international actors, federation, communities, cantonal government, cantonal parliament, cantonal courts, and a residual category), were provided in almost all cases.

3.4 RESULTS

3.4.1 Issue attention and regional adaptation measures

Extreme weather events and natural disasters have repeatedly put the issue of changing climate conditions and adaptation on the political agenda (Swart et al. 2009, Peltonen et al. 2011, Termeer et al. 2012). In Switzerland, in recent years, a number of extreme events have caused substantial damages, and the question of whether these events have become more frequent and more destructive as a result of climate change has become a recurring issue within scientific and public debate (OcCC 2003, IPCC 2012). The most recent climate scenarios for Switzerland project that the nature of extreme events will change, indicating more frequent, intense, and longer lasting summer warm spells and heat waves and a decreasing number of cold winter days and nights. The frequency and intensity of precipitation events is associated with higher uncertainties, but substantial changes cannot be ruled out, especially a higher risk of floods in the lowlands due to a shift from solid (snow) to liquid (rain) precipitation

57 (CH2011 2011: 8). Extreme weather such as the “heat summer” of 2003 (ProClim 2005), the very dry months of June and July in 2006, and flooding events in 2005 and 2007 (BAFU 2008, FOEN 2008) were the major weather events of the last decade that could be described as “alarmed discoveries” (Downs 1972: 39).

Extreme weather events have repeatedly focused public attention on possible climate impacts on weather patterns in Switzerland and resulted in a series of detailed analyses and reports on the causes and consequences of these events (for an overview, see MeteoSwiss 2012). Obviously, the perception and assessment of these events has not been accompanied by “euphoric enthusiasm” which Downs (1972) describes as another characteristic of this particular stage of the issue-attention cycle. Rather, the analysis of the events and the evaluation of current and future precautionary measures were predominantly characterized by a scientific and engineering approach, often combined with an understanding of the human limitations involved in dealing with the forces of nature.

Abrupt extreme events also helped to allocate new resources to policy programs. At the regional scale, a series of major weather-related events instigated the adoption of new measures at the cantonal and municipal levels. Figure 3.1 illustrates adaptation measures taken in the three selected regions, as displayed in our database. From 2001 to 2011, the three selected cantons of Grisons, Vaud, and Valais adopted adaption measures of varying intensity. How- ever, a similar pattern in all the three cantons can be observed: after only a few adaptation measures in the first half of the decade, the number of adopted adaptation measures sharply increased after 2007.

Comparing the general public attention directed towards climate change, as displayed in the national media (dashed curve in Figure 3.1), with the occurrences of major extreme events that triggered high levels of public attention across the country (vertical dashed lines in Figure 3.1), one can even hypothesize that the adoption of adaptation measures in these regions is not necessarily connected to the occurrence of extreme events in the regions themselves but is at least partly linked to the national and international climate policy agenda. As Figure 3.1 illustrates, the timing of the climate policy reports that received the broadest public and political attention in Switzerland (IPCC AR3, OcCC 2003, IPCC AR4, CH2050, and CH2011) coin- cides with the lagged peaks of new regional adaptation measures. It is striking that the media attention time series shows almost exactly the same pattern (with a short time lag) as the number of adaptation measures adopted in the three cantons per year. Media attention in Switzerland, displayed in Figure 3.1, broadly follows the same pattern as international media attention: a steady increase until 2007 and a subsequent decline. However, in contrast to the international level (Boykoff 2011: 20–28), Swiss media attention towards climate change had already peaked in 2007, when the IPCC’s Four Assessment Report was published, not in 2009, on the occasion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

58 Figure 3.1: Adaptation measures and national media attention

Extreme events are relatively rare and local with regard to their impacts. It is therefore not surprising that public attention decreases after some time has elapsed since a disastrous event and its aftermath. Furthermore, the pressure to return to conditions prior to the extreme event is high (Parry et al. 2007: 733). According to Downs’s model of the issue-attention cycle, this gradual decline in public interest in the prevention of abrupt events may also be due to the broader realization of how difficult—and how costly—a solution to the problem would be (Downs 1972: 40). Diffuse risks with longer-term expected impacts and high levels of uncertainty, on the other hand, are usually costly when measures are taken but typically show no immediately noticeable benefits (Peters 2005, Tompkins and Adger 2005, Viscusi and Zeckhauser 2006, Underdal 2010). Especially when behavioral changes would be required (for example, in land use, energy consumption, or mobility), the public begins to realize quickly that possible solutions to the problem require major sacrifices (at least by significant segments of society), resulting in a shift in attention and problem perception, thus complicat- ing and delaying societal action on the problem. The benefits of the sacrifices, however, remain highly uncertain due the place-specific uncertainties regarding the relevant risks.

3.4.2 Modes of governance and policy instruments in the three regions

According to our categorization of applied policy instruments (Table 3.2 above), adaptation measures in the three regions concentrate heavily around information and exhortation activities (Figure 3.2 below). Information provision, as a government activity, is an instrument that is mainly intended to change behavior (based on informed choices) through the provision of additional knowledge. Exhortation, or suasion, “entails the concerted effort to change the subject preferences and actions” (Howlett and Ramesh 1995: 91) and therefore contains little more governmental activity than information dissemination. Concerning adaptation, the information activities in the three regions have the characteristics of acquiring information for governments and public administrations, as well as raising public awareness (exhortation). Most of the information activities compiled in our dataset are publications of research reports on expected climate change impacts, communications of current and planned government adaptation measures (sometimes in the form of statements of accounts on behalf of the public and/or the cantonal parliament), and monitoring systems and information platforms (e.g., for

59 natural hazard risk management) because they were suggested by the IPCC (2012: 345–347). Furthermore, the so-called “fact sheets” published by public authorities for the broader public and campaigning activities are also included in this category. Such fact sheets concern very specific topics, such as endangered animal species, as well as campaigning activities to address climate change impacts more broadly (mainly in combination with climate change mitigation).

Figure 3.2: Adaptation policy instruments in the three cantons

90 80 70 60 50 40 GR 30 VD 20 VS 10 Total 0

Economic approaches have barely been used thus far. Occasional subsidies in the form of financial support for artificial snow-making were granted in the canton of Valais.

Regulatory activities mainly include revisions of natural hazard maps (Valais and Grisons), the “legalization” of the production of artificial snow (Valais), and recent revisions of cantonal laws, taking into account some selected aspects of climate change adaptation (such as the laws on forestry and on economic development in the canton of Vaud). Overall, however, climate change played only a very minor role in these legislative processes.

Direct provisions are mainly connected to activities in the tourism sector in the Canton of Vaud, as well as to the establishment of an information system for natural hazards in Grisons. Natural hazard information and monitoring systems exist in other cantons as well, but Gri- sons’s system explicitly takes into account adaptation to climate change. Because mountain regions have a long tradition of managing natural hazards, with relevant activities being con- tinually re-evaluated and refined, it is possible that climate change adaptation is incorporated into those activities without any explicit reference to climate change.

The few voluntary activities are cattle food provisions during dry summers, which are organized by the cantonal farmers’ associations, in collaboration with the cantonal administration of Grisons; a public event (named “Hotday”) at the University of Lausanne in collabora-

60 tion with WWF; and a meeting of migrants—officially supported by the canton—discussing climate-change-induced migration in the canton of Vaud (among other migration related topics).

Overall, our data show a clear pattern of adaptation measures that rely strongly on information provision on behalf of the canton authorities. The main goal of these activities is to assess the need for adaptation measures and outline policy requisites under changing climatic conditions. This goal is mainly pursued via the initiation and continuation of research and monitoring activities. As has also been shown for the United Kingdom (Tompkins et al. 2009), adaptation measures in our study regions are manifested primarily as building adaptive capacity via information gathering and research on behalf of public officials and, to a lesser extent, the broader public.

This pattern is also mirrored in the addressees of the coded adaptation measures (Figure 3.3). More than half of all activities primarily address the government and cantonal administration, followed by the general public, which has the second largest share.

Figure 3.3: Addressees of adaptation activities

100%

90%

80%

others 70% Cantonal judiciary (Courts) 60% Cantonal legislative (Parliament) Cantonal Exekutive (Government and Administration) 50% Communities Federation

40% International

Science 30% Business/Economy 20% General Public

10%

0% GR VD VS Total

The dominance of the government in these activities is also reflected in how the authorities and responsibilities are distributed (Figure 3.4). In all cantons, activities are mostly guided by the cantonal administration. The higher number of parliamentary activities in the Canton of Vaud is derived from the higher number of parliamentary motions addressing climate change issues in this particular canton.

61 Figure 3.4: Political body in charge

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Administration 50% Parliament 40% Government

30%

20% N= 102 (GR=24, VD=49, VS=29) 10%

0% GR VD VS Total

With respect to the final legal responsibility, the coded adaptation measures are mainly in the hands of the cantonal governments (Figure 3.5). The administration and the parliament represent significantly smaller shares. The wider public has not been directly involved in any of the three cantons (such as through the use of the direct-democratic instruments of popular initiatives and referendums, which are also well-established political instruments at the Swiss cantonal level).

62 Figure 3.5: Final responsibility

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% People (Referendum)

50% Administration

40% Parliament Government 30%

20%

10%

0% GR VD VS Total

3.4.3 Adaptation measures in relevant policy sectors

Over the three regions combined, 45% of the coded adaptation measures address natural hazards and—due to strong links with flooding problems and hydropower issues—water-related issues. This result is very consistent with the findings of a study by Massey and Bergesma (2008: 82) for the Swiss national level and it seems quite typical for a country in the alpine region (ibid. p. 29). However, tourism—which is not reported as a separate category in Mas- sey and Bergesma (2008)—appears as the second largest sector according to our data (Figure 3.6). Previous research shows similar results: Winter tourism has been one of the sectors of highest concern due to its strong vulnerability to weather events and climate conditions (Parry et al. 2007: 722). Particularly relevant for Switzerland, reduced snow reliability has a direct economic impact (Agrawala 2007, Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2007). In the cases of energy, forestry, and biodiversity, all the selected cantons carried out only a few activities from 2001 to 2011. This finding is in line with the rather low levels of activity reported for biodiversity and landscape management in a questionnaire-based survey from the year 2008 (Bättig et al. 2010). In contrast, the same survey reports more activity in the forest sector.

63 Figure 3.6: Policy sectors (overall)

35 32% 30

25 22% 20 15 13% 13%

10 8% 9% 5 3% Percent 0

As outlined earlier, the three regions differ considerably with respect to climate vulnerabilities, as well as political and socio-economic structures. We therefore expect the regions to also differ regarding the sectors addressed by regional adaptation measures. Whereas the high relevance of the natural hazards, water, and tourism sectors is shared by all of the three regions (Figures 3.7–3.9), some interesting regional differences do become visible. In the Can- ton of Grisons, natural hazard and water-related adaptation measures dominate (Figure 3.7). The over-proportional focus on water may be related to concerns over hydropower production, which is of crucial economic importance in this canton (Amt für Energie und Verkehr Graubünden 2009). Tourism-specific activities, on the other hand, are below the average in Grisons as compared to the other two cantons. This may be due to relatively high altitudes and, therefore, fewer concerns about snow security.

64 Figure 3.7: Policy sectors (Grisons)

40 36% 35 30 25 22% 20 15% 15 13% 10 5% 5% 4% Percent 5 0

In the canton of Valais, most adaptation measures focus on natural hazards, followed by tourism and water (Figure 3.8). The relatively high importance of tourism may be due to the concerns of tourist centers at lower altitudes, and this is also reflected in the debate on artificial snowing. Here, the canton seems to follow the very common strategy of aiming to maintain the status quo (Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2007). The importance of the water sector in this particular canton can be explained by the recent correction and re-naturalization of the river Rhône. Concerns about droughts have played a rather minor role according to our data, which can at least partly be explained by the region’s traditional adaptation to arid climate conditions (EEA 2009: 71–73).

65 Figure 3.8: Policy sectors (Valais)

50 44% 45 40 35 30 25 19%

20 14% 15 11% 10 6% 3% 3% Percent 5 0

The canton of Vaud differs substantially from the other two cantons (Figure 3.9). First, adaptation measures in Vaud address natural hazards substantially less frequently than is the case in the other two regions because of their different topographical conditions. In contrast to Grisons and Valais, Vaud is not an inner-alpine region—only some areas in the southeast are alpine, and the Jura Mountains in the north of the canton are less affected by natural hazards. Secondly, tourism took the largest share of adaptation measures from 2001 to 2011 as a consequence of concerns over snow security. The offshoots of the Alps, as well as the Jura Mountains, are much less snow-safe than the inner-alpine regions. However, the economy in both regions is traditionally strongly dependent on winter tourism. Refocusing tourism, especially in the foothills of the Alps, has therefore become a major concern of the cantonal government. The canton, together with the municipalities in the relevant areas, launched a program to diversify tourism in those regions. This was performed in collaboration with the stakeholders, indicating a mode of “network governance.” Thus, in contrast to the Valais region, tourism adaptation measures in the Vaud region seems to initiate a transition process.

66 Figure 3.9: Policy sectors (Vaud)

30 28%

25 22% 20% 20

15 13%

10 7% 7% 5 3% Percent 0

A larger share of adaptive activities in the canton of Vaud, as compared to the other two cantons, is also found with regard to the forestry and biodiversity sectors. The activities identified in forestry are mainly due to a revision of the cantonal forest law. Nevertheless, adaptation measures in forestry may still be underrepresented in our data (e.g., more activties in forestry have been reported by Bättig et al. 2010) for all three cantons because protective forests play a major role in natural hazard prevention and have been established as a policy since the early 1900s. The higher share of activities addressing biodiversity-related issues in the case of the Canton of Vaud results mainly from the publication of “fact sheets” and research reports on the future environment (“Nature Demain”), which are linked to efforts pushing forward the cantonal implementation of Agenda 21.

3.5 DISCUSSION

Regarding the timing of the observed adaptation measures in the three selected regions of Grisons, Valais, and Vaud, we found very similar patterns regarding when adaptation measures were initiated. Our data indicate that this similarity in regional political agenda- setting is due to a trans-regional adaptation discourse shaped by the national and international climate policy agenda rather than to specific regional conditions, such as the occurrence of locally explicit extreme events. Cantonal governments were especially active in initiating and implementing adaptation measures between 2007 and 2009. During this period, a significant “window of opportunity” for climate change adaptation measures was open.

With regard to the prevailing modes of governance, our data could suggest the predominance of rather “soft” (meaning not very authoritative) forms of political steering in adaptation measures in the three cantons from 2001 to 2011. However, this should not be misinterpreted as a “networked mode” of governance. By far, the most adaptation measures are information-based, aiming to build adaptive capacity via information gathering and research on

67 behalf of public officials and to raise public awareness (exhortation). Beyond research man- dates for public and private research organizations, only a very few cooperative and participatory activities that applied a more networked—and thus less hierarchical––form of political steering were actually found.

An observed lack of stakeholder involvement is also reflected in the composition of the addressees of the relevant adaptation measures, which strongly mirrors a government bias in the adaptation measures compiled in our database, combined with a lack of public and parliamentary involvement in decision-making. For the most part, no approval for such informa- tional activities, either from the parliament or the people, is needed. Consequently, we can conclude that most adaptation measures are outside of the focus of a broader democratic process. Rather, they are matters of concern for the executive branch of the government. Conse- quently, adaptation policy in the three cantons is primarily a state-led activity and only partly embedded in a network of actors from the private sector and the wider public. Furthermore, in the dominant sectors (natural hazards and tourism), adaptation measures have begun be integrated into the existing regulatory frameworks. However, adaptation measures in the tourism sector in the Canton of Vaud seem to increasingly follow the “network governance” paradigm. The canton and the directly concerned municipalities have launched a program to diversify tourism in some regions. This program relies heavily on cooperative arrangements (e.g., the collaboration of the communities, the co-financing of the communities and the canton) in order to further develop tourism in the region.

Although they follow a similar pattern, the cantonal adaptation measures differ with respect to the sectors addressed. This indicates that regional conditions do indeed shape the design of regional adaptation measures. Most significantly, our data reveal a difference between the two inner-alpine regions of Grisons and Valais, with a strong focus on natural hazards and water-related adaptation issues on the one hand, and the Canton of Vaud on the other hand, which has focused more than the other two cantons on (winter) tourism, given its more immediate topographical exposure to warmer temperatures. Additionally, the Canton of Vaud addressed environmental topics (biodiversity and forestry) substantially more often, which could also be a result of the political preferences of the social-democratic and green majority in this canton (Dupuis and Knoepfel 2011).

However, because adaptation measures are still in an early stage of development in all of the three cantons, it seems too early to talk about established “modes of governance” in the three regions we analyzed. Furthermore, the new federal adaptation strategy (FOEN 2012) will set an important framework for further cantonal adaptation policies, and it will have a crucial impact on the future “mode of governance” in the relevant policy areas. It is also a goal of the federal strategy to help cantonal authorities in further developing their own strategies and adaptation measures, which, at least until now, seem rather punctual, rather than elements of a coherent framework.

68 3.6 CONCLUSION

Even though climate change adaptation has entered the national political agenda only very recently (FOEN 2010, Dupuis and Knoepfel 2011), Swiss mountain regions have always been well-versed in adapting to changing environmental conditions and related ecological and socio-economic risks (Mauch and Pfister 2009). However, addressing those risks effectively has always been politically challenging, particularly in areas were technical solutions alone (e.g., avalanche barriers, hillside supporting walls, and other infrastructural provisions) are insufficient. Especially when social and economic implications are high (e.g., due to the changed use zoning plans as a consequence of revised risks maps) or behavioral changes are required (e.g., restricted water use due to changing water availability, altered energy consumption as a consequence of climate change impacts on energy production, or a reorientation of tourism due to snow insecurity), addressing such risks remains very politically challenging.

Our analysis of cantonal climate change adaptation measures has revealed that during the period from 2007 to 2009, cantonal governments in Switzerland were quite receptive to en- gaging in climate change adaptation measures. Retrospectively, this period was obviously used as a “window of opportunity” for implementing adaptation measures. However, most of these adaptation measures mainly contain information and exhortation instruments. Conse- quentially, it is too early to talk about an established mode of governance as that term is traditionally understood. However, following the argument of Hood and Margetts (2007: 134), a transition towards instruments implying more state involvement is common pattern in public policy. Hence, instruments that belong to the market and hierarchical mode of governance are expected to gain importance in future climate change adaptation policies. Downs (1972) would probably be more pessimistic concerning further government action.

The analysis of different policy sectors has revealed different needs and priorities for adaptation measures in the regions. These differences result from their different topographical and socio-economic conditions, but they could also reflect political preferences to some degree. We expect that additional differences on a sub-regional level also exist, e.g., between rural and urban areas. In the future, the policies in these sectors could further develop their specific modes of governance. Such developments will certainly create complex questions regarding the meta-governance and multi-level governance of climate change adaptation, particularly in highly federalist countries such as Switzerland. Given our results, we strongly believe that national and supra-national adaptation frameworks should be explicitly designed in such a way that they are able to take these differences and specifics into account.

Finally, our database seems to unravel current difficulties in translating the abstract goals of adaptation—“enhancing adaptive capacity” and “reducing vulnerability”—into more concrete objectives and policy measures. The main reason for these difficulties seems to be the lack of a causal theory or model underlying the policy to be implemented (Stone 1989, 2002, Birkland 2005). The strong and sometimes exclusive focus on research activities and information collection and provision—as shown in our data—seems to be an expression of per- plexity on the part of public authorities regarding the necessity and design of adaptation measures in various policy areas. The development and assessment of more concrete boxes of policy instruments, as is at hand in other policy areas, therefore seems to be a necessary condition to enable regional and local governments to engage in climate change adaptation more actively. A wide range of scholarship has particularly stressed the important role of local and regional communities in addressing long-term policy challenges, such as adapting to changing climate conditions (e.g., Adger 2003, Dietz et al. 2003, Meadowcroft 2004). However, municipalities and regions—particularly in economically and structurally weak mountain regions—

69 often lack the institutional, organizational, and financial capacity to establish effective attenu- ation or precautionary measures for climate-change-related risks (Adger et al. 2007, Agrawal and Perrin 2009). Therefore, finding appropriate institutional and procedural arrangements to formulate and implement long-term strategies and policies is crucial and continues to be an important research area for environmental governance scholarship (Young 2002, Cash et al. 2006, Meadowcroft 2009, Sprinz 2009).

70 LITERATURE CITED

Adger, W. N. 2001. Scales of Goverance and Environmental Justice for Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change. Journal of International Development 13:921–931. Adger, W. N. 2003. Social Capital, Collective Action and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography 79:387–404. Adger, W. N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:268–281. Adger, W. N., S. Agrawala, M. M. Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O'Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit, and K. Takahashi. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Pages 717–743 in M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden, and C. Hanson, editors. Cimate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Adger, W. N., N. W. Arnell, and E. L. Tompkins. 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, Part A 15:77–86. Adger, W. N., K. Brown, and J. Waters. 2011. Resilience. Pages 696–710 in J. S. Dryzek, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Agrawal, A. and N. Perrin. 2009. Climate adaptation, local institutions and rural livelihoods. Pages 350–367 in W. N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni, and K. O'Brien, editors. Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Agrawala, S., editor. 2007. Climate Change in the European Alps – Adpating Winter Tourism and Natural Hazards Management. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develo- pment (OECD), Paris. Amt für Energie und Verkehr Graubünden. 2009. Volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Wasserkraftwerke in Graubünden. Amt für Energie und Verkehr Graubünden, Chur. Bader, S. and P. Kunz. 1998. Klimarisiken – Herausforderungen für die Schweiz. vdf, Zürich. BAFU. 2008. Ereignisanalyse Hochwasser 2005: Teil 2 – Analyse von Prozessen, Massnahmen und Gefahrengrundlagen. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Bern. BAFU. 2010. Strategie der Schweiz zur Anpassung an die Klimaänderung – Zwischenbericht zuhanden des Bundesrates. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Bern. BAK Basel Economics AG. 2011. Wirtschaftsatlas der Kantone. [online] URL: http://www.wirtschaftsatlas.bakbasel.com/wirtschaftsatlas.html [14 January 2013]. Bättig, M., L. Rageth, and Y. Kaufmann. 2010. Anpassung an die Klimaänderung: Erhebung in den Kantonen. Econcept/Bundesamt für Umwelt, Zürich/Bern. Bauer, A., J. Feichtinger, and R. Steurer. 2012. The Governance of Climate Change Adapta- tion in 10 OECD Countries: Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 14:279–304. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., R. C. Rist, and E. Vedung. 2003. Carrots, Sticks & Sermons – Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick. Beniston, M. 2003. Climatic Change in Mountain Regions: A Review of Possible Impacts. Climatic Change 59:5–31. Beniston, M. 2005. Mountain Climates and Climatic Change: An Overview of Processes Focusing on the European Alps. Pure and Applied Geophysics 162:1587–1606. Bevir, M. 2011. Governance as Theory, Practice and Dilemma. Pages 1–16 in M. Bevir, editor. The SAGE Handbook of Governance. SAGE, London.

71 Biesbroek, G. R., R. J. Swart, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, H. Mela, M. Morecroft, and D. Rey. 2010. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Global Environmental Change 20:440–450. Birkland, T. A. 2005. An Introduction to the Policy Process – Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. 2nd edition. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY and London. Bloetzer, W., T. Egli, A. Petrascheck, J. Sauter, and M. Stoffel. 1998. Klimaänderung und Naturgefahren in der Raumplanung. vdf, Zürich. Börzel, T. A. 2011. Drawing Closer to Europe – New Modes of Governance and Accession. Pages 75–103 in A. Héritier and M. Rhodes, editors. New Modes of Governance in Europe – Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Boykoff, M. T. 2011. Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bradach, J. L. and R. G. Eccles. 1989. Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms. Annual Review of Sociology 15:97–118. Brulle, R. J., J. Carmichael, and J. J. Craig. 2012. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change 114:169–188. Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society 11:8 [online] URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/. CH2011. 2011. Swiss Climate Change Scenarios CH2011. C2SM, MeteoSwiss, ETH, NCCR Climate, and OcCC, Zürich. Chhotray, V. and G. Stoker. 2009. Governance Theory and Practice – A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. De Gier, T., J. Gupta, and M. van Rijswick. 2009. A state of the Art on the Legal and Policy Literature on Adaptation to Climate Change: Towards a Research Agenda. Knowledge for Climate Report 001/09. Knowledge for Climate, Utrecht, Wageningen. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science 302:1907–1912. Downs, A. 1972. Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention-Cycle. Public Interest 28:38–50. Dupuis, J. and P. Knoepfel. 2011. Les barrières à la mise en oeuvre des politiques d'adaptation au changement climatique: le cas de la Suisse. Swiss Political Science Review 17:188–219. EEA. 2009. Regional climate change and adaptation: The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources. EEA Report No. 8/2009. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen. European Commission. 2008. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. European Commission. 2009. White Book – Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Evans, J. P. 2012. Environmental Governance. Routledge, London and New York, NY. FOEN. 2008. The floods of 2005 in Switzerland. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern. FOEN. 2012. Adaptation to climate change in Switzerland: Goals, challenges and fields of action. First part of the Federal Council's strategy, adopted on 2 March 2012. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern.

72 Ford, J. D. and L. Berrang-Ford. 2011. Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations – From Theory to Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Frommer, B., F. Buchholz, and H. R. Böhm. 2011. Anpassung an den Klimawandel – regional umsetzen! Oekom, München. Gagnon-Lebrun, F. and S. Agrawala. 2006. Progress on Adaptation to Climate Change in Developed Countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. Gagnon-Lebrun, F. and S. Agrawala. 2007. Implementing adaptation in developed countries: an analysis of progress and trends. Climate Policy 7:392–408. Guber, D. L. and C. J. Bosso. 2013. Issue Framing, Agenda Setting, and Environmental Discourse. Pages 437–460 in S. Kamieniecki and M. E. Kraft, editors. The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Héritier, A. and D. Lehmkuhl. 2011. Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy – New Modes of Governance in Regulation. Pages 48–74 in A. Héritier and M. Rhodes, editors. New Modes of Governance in Europe – Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Hermann, M. and H. Leuthold. 2003. Atlas der politischen Landschaften – Ein weltanschauliches Portrait der Schweiz. vdf, Zürich. Hirschi, C., A. Widmer, S. Briner, and R. Huber. 2013. Combining Policy Network and Model-Based Scenario Analysis: An Assessment of Future Agricultural Ecosystem Goods and Services in Swiss Mountain Regions. Ecology and Society 18:42 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art42/. Holzinger, K., C. Knill, and A. Schäfer. 2006. Rhetoric or Reality? 'New Governance' in EU Environmental Policy. European Law Journal 12:403–420. Hood, C. and H. Z. Margetts. 2007. The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Howlett, M. 2005. What Is a Policy Instrument? Policy Tools, Policy Mixes, and Policy Implementation Styles. Pages 31–50 in P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, and M. Howlett, editors. Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal. Howlett, M. 2009. Governance Modes, Policy Regimes and Operational Plans: A Multi-Level Nested Model of Policy Instrument Choice and Policy Design. Policy Sciences 42:73–89. Howlett, M. 2011. Designing Public Policies – Principles and Instruments. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. 1993. Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience. Policy Studies Review 12:3–24. Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy – Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Howlett, M. and J. Rayner. 2007. Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’. Policy and Society 26:1–18. Huber, R., S. Briner, A. Peringer, S. Lauber, R. Seidl, A. Widmer, F. Gillet, A. Büttler, Q. B. Le, and C. Hirschi. 2013a. Modeling Social-Ecological Feedback Effects in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Pasture-Woodlands. Ecology and Society 18:41 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art41/. Huber R., A. Rigling , P. Bebi, F. Brand, S. Briner, A. Büttler, C. Elkin, F. Gillet, A. Grêt- Regamey, C. Hirschi, H. Lischke, R. Scholz, R. Seidl, T. Spiegelberger, A. Walz, W. Zimmermann, and H. Bugmann. 2013b. Sustainable land use in mountain regions under

73 global change: Synthesis across scales and disciplines. Ecology and Society 18:36 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art36/. Huitema, D., F. Berkhout, C. Termeer, W. N. Adger, R. Plummer, and D. Mazmanian. 2012. The Governance of Adaptation – Introduction. Ecology and Society (in review). IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (Fourth Assessment Report). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva. IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation – Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jordan, A., R. K. Wurzel, and A. Zito. 2003. 'New' Instruments of Environmental Governance: Patterns and Pathways of Change. Environmental Politics 12:1–24. Jordan, A., R. K. Wurzel, and A. Zito. 2007. New Modes of Environmental Governance: Are 'New' Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) Supplanting or Supplementing Traditional Tools of Government? Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft 39:283–298. Juhola, S., E. C. H. Keskitalo, and L. Westerhoff. 2011. Understanding the framings of climate change adaptation across multiple scales of governance. Environmental Politics 20:445–463. Juhola, S. and L. Westerhoff. 2011. Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries. Environmental Science & Policy 14:239–247. Keskitalo, E. C. H., editor. 2010. Developing Adaptation Policy and Practice in Europe: Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Keskitalo, E. C. H., L. Westerhoff, and S. Juhola. 2012. Agenda-setting on the environment: the development of climate change adaptation as an issue in European states. Environmental Policy and Governance 22:381–394. Kettl, D. F. 2002. The transformation of governance: Public management for the twenty-first century. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Kickert, W. J. M., E.-H. Klijn, and J. F. M. Koopenjan, editors. 1997. Managing Complex Networks – Strategies for the Public Sector. SAGE, London. Kingdon, J. W. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd edition. Longman, New York, NY. Kjaer, A. M. 2004. Governance. Polity Press, Cambridge. Knill, C. and J. Tosun. 2012. Public Policy – A New Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Koller, C., A. H. Hirzel, A.-C. Rolland, and L. De Martini. 2012. Staatsatlas – Kartographie des Schweizer Föderalismus. Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich. Kooiman, J., editor. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. SAGE, London. Kooiman, J. 2003. Governing as Governance. SAGE, London. Ladner, A. 2004. Stabilität und Wandel von Parteien und Parteiensystemen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Lascoumes, P. and P. Le Galès. 2005. Gouverner par les instruments. Les Presses de Sciences Po, Paris. Lowndes, V. and C. Skelcher. 1998. The Dynamics of Multi-Organizational Partnerships: An Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance. Public Administration 76:313–333.

74 Massey, E. and E. Bergsma. 2008. Assessing Adapation in 29 European Countries. Institute for Environmental Studies Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Mauch, C. and C. Pfister. 2009. Natural Disasters, Cultural Responses: Case Studies Toward a Global Environmental History. Lexington, Lanham, MD. Mayring, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1: 20 [online] URL: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385. Meadowcroft, J. 2004. Participation and Sustainable Development: Modes of Citizen, Community and Organizational Involvement. Pages 162–190 in W. M. Lafferty, editor. Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Meadowcroft, J. 2009. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences 42:323–340. MeteoSwiss. 2012. http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/web/en/climate/climate_reports.html, [15 March 2012]. Meuleman, L. 2008. Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg. OcCC. 2003. Extreme Events and Climate Change: Status of Knowledge and Recommendations of the OcCC. Organe consultatif sur les changements climatiques (OcCC), Bern. OcCC and ProClim. 2007. Climate Change and Switzerland 2050: Expected Impacts on Environment, Society and Economy. OcCC/ProClim, Bern. OECD. 2008. Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change – Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. Parry, M., O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden, and C. Hanson, editors. 2007. Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Peltonen, L., S. Juhola, and P. Schuster. 2011. Governance of Climate Change Adaptation: Policy Review. Aalto University, Aalto. Peters, B. G. 2005. The Problem of Policy Problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 7:349–370. Pierre, J. and B. G. Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. MacMillan Press, Houndmills. ProClim. 2005. Hitzesommer 2003. Synthesebericht. ProClim, Bern. Ratter, B. M. W., K. H. I. Philipp, and H. von Storch. 2012. Between hype and decline: recent trends in public perception of climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 18:3–8. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham. Salamon, L. M. 2000. The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal 28:1611–1674. Salamon, L. M. 2002. The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action. Pages 1–47 in L. M. Salamon, editor. The Tools Of Government – A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sprinz, D. F. 2009. Long-Term Environmental Policy: Definition, Knowledge, Future Research. Global Environmental Politics 9:1–8. Stone, D. A. 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104:281–300.

75 Stone, D. A. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. W.W. Norton, New York, NY. Swart, R., R. Biesbroek, S. Binnerup, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, S. Loquen, H. Mela, M. Morecroft, M. Reese, and D. Rey. 2009. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. PEER Report No 1. Partnership for European Environmental Research (PEER), Helsinki. Termeer, C., G. R. Biesbroek, and M. van den Brink. 2012. Institutions for Adaptation to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies in Europe. European Political Science 11:41–53. Termeer, C., A. Dewulf, H. van Rijswick, A. van Buuren, D. Huitema, S. Meijerink, T. Rayner, and M. Wiering. 2011. The regional governance of climate adaptation: A framework for developing legitimate, effective, and resilient governance arrangements. Climate Law 2:159–179. Thompson, G., J. Frances, R. Levačić, and J. Mitchell, editors. 1991. Markets, Hierarchies & Networks – The Coordination of Social Life. SAGE, London. Tompkins, E. L. and W. N. Adger. 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental Science & Policy 8:562–571. Tompkins, E. L., W. N. Adger, E. Boyd, S. Nicholson-Cole, K. Weatherhead, and N. W. Arnell. 2010. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transistion to a well- adapting society. Global Environmental Change 20:627–635. Tompkins, E. L., E. Boyd, S. Nicholson-Cole, K. Weatherhead, N. W. Arnell, and W. N. Adger. 2009. An Inventory of Adaptation to climate change in the UK: challenges and findings. Working Paper 135. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich. Underdal, A. 2010. Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Global Environmental Change 20:386–393. Van Nieuwaal, K., P. Driessen, T. Spit, and C. Termeer. 2009. A State of the Art of Governance Literature on Adaptation to Climate Change: Towards a Research Agenda. Knowledge for Climate Report 003/2009. Knowledge for Climate, Utrecht/Wageningen. Viscusi, W. K. and R. J. Zeckhauser. 2006. The Perception and Valuation of the Risks of Climate Change: A Rational and Behavioral Blend. Climatic Change 77:151–177. Wilson, E. and C. Termeer. 2011. Governance of climate change adaptation: Introduction to the Special Issue. Climate Law 2:149–157. Young, O. R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

76 4. WHAT DRIVES INCREMENTAL POLICY CHANGE? A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF SWISS FOREST POLICY 2000–2012

Christian HIRSCHI1, Alexander WIDMER1

ABSTRACT

Contemporary theories of policy change focus predominantly on significant alterations in policy goals, whereas the far more frequent case of incremental changes—characterized by a continuous adjustment of instrumental aspects of a policy—is much less explored. In this paper, we identify three major challenges in the study of incremental policy processes and demonstrate how a network approach can be beneficial to address these challenges. We argue that incremental change is possible if the policy network actors are embedded in a structure that displays a high degree of closure and the policy actors share central policy preferences. Whereas network closure and shared policy preferences each constitute a necessary condition for incremental policy change, they are insufficient when isolated from each other. The network actors support incremental change in a well-established policy sector only if it allows them to consolidate their policy goals, as well as their structural position in the policy network. We examine this simple network theory of incremental policy change with an empirical study of Swiss forest policy from 2000 to 2012. The study shows that the theoretical assumptions can mainly be confirmed. From the first (2000–2004) to the second stage (2005–2008), processes of network closure with mostly constant policy preferences among the network actors can be observed. During this time, Swiss forest policy was characterized by high stability and strengthening of the status quo. However, a considerable shift in the policy preferences of critical actors in a mainly stable network structure allowed a primarily instrumental change in the policy during the third stage (2009–2012) to better address the problem of growing forest areas in mountain regions.

Key words: incremental change; policy networks; policy preferences; forest policy; Switzer- land

1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich), Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Environmental Policy and Economics, Universitaetstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.

77 4.1 INTRODUCTION

Contemporary theories of policy change focus predominantly on significant alterations in policy goals (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993), substantial shifts in the setting of policy instruments (Howlett and Ramesh 1993), or major dynamics in the institutional setting of policy processes (Ostrom 2007). Depending on the theoretical approach taken, these policy changes are called “paradigm shifts” (Hall 1993), “major policy changes” (Sabatier and Weible 2007), “punctuations” (Jones and Baumgartner 2005), or “coupling” during times of open “policy windows” (Kingdon 2003). Often, such fundamental changes in public policy are associated with “times of crisis” or external “perturbations” or “shocks” to established policy subsystems (Schlager 2007, Nohrstedt and Weible 2010, Bauer et al. 2012).

However, as myriad empirical studies on the policy process have shown, such fundamental policy change is rare (e.g., Sabatier 2007, Carstensen 2011, Baumgartner 2013). Most public policies develop incrementally, that is, are periodically adjusted, given changing contextual conditions without significant alterations in the policy goals or major elements of the policy programs. To delimit them from “major policy change,” existing policy change theories define such incremental changes as “minor policy change” (Sabatier and Weible 2007), “normal mode of policy-making” (Hall 1993), or an “equilibrium” (Jones and Baumgartner 2005).

Scholars usually explain the predominance of incrementally developing policy processes by the stabilizing forces of institutions (Tsebelis 2002, Mahoney and Thelen 2010), the power of existing policy networks (Howlett 2002, Hayes 2006), or the path dependence of policy programs (Bennett and Elman 2006). Furthermore, most recent studies on incremental policy change have emphasized the importance of ideational change during times of stability (Carstensen 2011, Baumgartner 2013). Other researchers have argued that an accumulation of incremental changes in the composition of policy programs and applied instruments can gradually lead to significant policy changes (Coleman et al. 1997).

Thus, incremental policy developments are not synonymous with policy stability. They can be the result of institutional, actor-specific, and ideational characteristics of policy processes in a given policy field. Accordingly, even if a policy appears rather stable over time, it does not mean that policy processes were absent or have failed (Widmer and Hirschi 2005). How- ever, identifying the driving factors behind incremental policy change remains challenging, at least for three reasons:

1) Established frameworks, as the ones just mentioned, have developed theories of the policy process that help explain major shifts in policy-making but understand minor changes often as specific constellations only, where one or several of the necessary conditions for major changes are not fulfilled.

2) From an analytical perspective, the study of incremental policy processes is quite demanding because policy outputs in such a situation typically display a high level of stability over time; thus, the dependent variable almost appears as a constant.

3) Empirically, data on incremental policy processes are often unavailable. Incremental policy processes are typically strongly shaped by government agencies and interest organizations mainly responsible for the implementation of a policy. Consequently, policy processes are less visible than in the case of broader political discussions about policy goals and the paradigmatic orientation of a policy.

78 In this article, we address these specific challenges typically associated with the study of incremental policy processes. By taking a policy network approach, we point out a research strategy to address these issues. Theoretically, the network approach with its mainly structural reconstruction of policy processes is particularly useful since it can be combined with other actor-oriented models (e.g., Weible and Sabatier 2005), as well as theories that follow the paradigm of methodological individualism (Henry 2011, Henry and Dietz 2011). This situation allows for the integration of contextual and internal factors into the study of policy dynamics. Analytically, a longitudinal network study over an extended period permits the comprehension of gradual changes in both policy outputs and potential explanatory factors. Meth- odologically, we apply the Actor-Process-Event Scheme (APES) (Serdült and Hirschi 2004, Widmer et al. 2008, Maggetti 2009, Hirschi et al. 2013) to generate network data over time, based on document analysis and qualitative case studies.

To demonstrate our approach, we investigate the Swiss forest policy over the 2000–2012 period, during which the policy can be characterized as a continuous evolution and extension without major changes in its goals. The policy is based on the Federal Act on Forests established in 1991 that defines its four major goals: 1) to conserve the forest in its area and spatial distribution; 2) to protect the forest as a near-natural community; 3) to ensure that the forest can fulfill its functions, particularly the protective, social, and economic ones; and 4) to promote and maintain the forestry sector. In 2004, a national forest policy program (WAP CH) (BUWAL 2004) was introduced, building on the previous policy with complementing adjustments, given the growing functions assigned to federal forest policy.

In 2008, a government-initiated, major policy reform failed to address the growing problem of the loss of cultural land from forest extension, partly due to the political pressure of a popular initiative that aimed to maintain a strict regime of forest protection. A minor reform became possible in 2012, focusing only on the politically, widely undisputed relaxation of the obligation for compensation in case of deforestation, in order to protect agricultural land or to ensure flood protection. Using our conceptual framework, we argue that this incremental policy change can be explained by characteristics of both the policy network and the actors embedded in it. For a policy network with a high degree of closure (in which most of the actors are connected to one another so that no one can act without others noticing), combined with a few key actors’ changed policy preferences on the issue of growing forests in mountain areas, incremental change was possible without revisions in the policy goals.

The paper proceeds as follows. The theoretical section presents the main characteristics of incremental (as opposed to paradigmatic) policy change. It also explains why a policy network approach is fruitful in addressing the identified theoretical, analytical, and empirical challenges to gain a better understanding of incrementally evolving policy processes. The methodological section briefly explicates why Swiss forest policy is an interesting test case for the study of policy incrementalism, then describes our empirical data collection and analysis strategy. The final sections present and discuss the results of our analysis and highlight the theoretical implications.

79 4.2 THEORY

In his seminal study of economic policy-making in Britain, Hall (1993) distinguished among first-, second-, and third-order policy changes that result in different degrees of policy reform. First-order changes are adjustments in the setting of the existing policy instruments. Second- order changes involve revisions in the policy instruments themselves, as well as their setting, to achieve the defined policy goals, which themselves remain unchained. Finally, third-order changes comprise instrumental amendments—in terms of both what policy instruments are applied and their respective setting—and modifications of the policy goals. Whereas the first- and second-order changes are considered a result of incrementally evolving policy processes, third-order changes include a “paradigm shift” when the status quo is widely perceived as a policy failure or instances of policy experimentation have gradually undermined the authority of the existing paradigm (Hall 1993: 283–287).

In contrast to paradigmatic policy shifts that typically require an external stimulus, incremental policy processes are per se shaped by developments within a particular policy subsystem . Described as “minor policy changes” (Sabatier and Weible 2007), “normal mode of policy-making” (Hall 1993) or “policy equilibrium” (Jones and Baumgartner 2005), such processes take primarily place within the policy subsystem. Thus, they are typically under the tight control of the dominant policy actors in the particular subsystem and are characterized by a high stability of underlying policy beliefs, as well as constraining formal and informal institutional rules (Jones and Baumgartner 2005, Wood 2006, Sabatier and Weible 2007, Hirschi and Widmer 2010, Henry 2011). As Howlett and Cashmore (2009: 37) put it, policy processes in such a constellation “arrange themselves in a self-perpetuating or equilibrating order, allowing (unspecified but incremental) changes in settings and instruments to occur but without altering policy goals.” Accordingly, major theories of the policy process regard incremental processes mainly as periods in which a major policy change is absent; consequently, the theories primarily study the necessary conditions and forces to destabilize a policy subsystem so that a major policy change becomes possible. On the other hand, usually these major theories of the policy process do not immediately focus on incremental developments as the main dependent variable.

In addition to the paradigmatic shifts and major policy change being the main theoretical interests of the major frameworks and theories of the policy process, the study of incrementally evolving policy processes also faces analytical challenges (Howlett and Cashore 2009, Capano 2013). Applying a longitudinal design over a limited time period makes policy outputs seem absent from a policy subsystem that is characterized by mainly incremental developments; otherwise, stability, negative feedback processes, or an equilibrium are mainly observed (Baumgartner and Jones 2002). Traditional models of policy change have difficulties in grasping such incrementally developing processes that build on existing policies without evident major shifts but move forward in small, gradual steps (Lindblom 1959). Thus, with a too broad theoretical perspective that focuses mainly on paradigmatic shifts and major policy changes, one encounters the problem of no or limited variance in the dependent variable. Un- less the mainly static policy is compared to the dynamics in a comparable case and results in an interesting variance (Hirschi and Widmer 2010), there is no need to test for possible explanations of such a policy process in a single, longitudinal case study.

From a more practical perspective of conducting empirical research, data on incremental policy processes are often not readily available. Whereas theories of the policy process are typically interested in the major changes, shifts, or punctuations that shape public policy over an extended period and usually involve a broad process of public negotiation over political

80 goals and priorities (Sabatier 2007), incremental processes often depend on bargaining and negotiation among government officials at the level of the public administration and the main interest organizations involved in the given policy subsystem (Hayes 2006, Baumgartner et al. 2009). Contrary to the case of broad political debates, data “produced” by such policy processes are typically unpublished and can (if at all) only be accessed under restrictions (mainly through interviews with involved actors and if possible, the inspection of administrative records).

A policy network approach provides a strategy to address these major challenges in the study of incremental policy change. Theoretically, such an approach allows an understanding of the policy process as dynamics in the structural configuration that leads to various degrees of changing policy outputs over time. Analytical network concepts and methods have proven particularly useful in comprehending the actor-configuration characteristics of policy subsystems. Laumann and Knoke (1987), Marsh and Rhodes (1992), and Van Waarden (1992)—to mention the most prominent ones—demonstrated convincingly how different types of structural configurations can be systematized and used to examine policy subsystems and their potential for change. Furthermore, by using analytical network concepts and theories (Wasserman and Faust 1994, Scott 2000), a network approach can be applied to explain and predict the evolution of policy processes and/or policy outcomes (Carlsson 2000, Sandström and Carlsson 2008).

Given its mainly structural focus on policy processes, a network approach can easily be combined with other actor-oriented approaches that use policy subsystems as the main unit of analysis (e.g., Weible and Sabatier 2005). Actually, policy network scholars have repeatedly pointed out the inadequacy of an exclusively structural perspective on the policy process, for example, in the form of networks (Dowding 1995, Marsh and Smith 2000, Dowding 2001, Kisby 2007). Rather, a policy network approach should be combined with a theory of collective action that helps explain how actor interests, preferences, or beliefs translate into political action (Carlsson 2000, Fowler et al. 2011, Henry 2011).

Accordingly, to assess a policy network’s disposition to change, we combine the structural analysis of the policy network with a systematic assessment of the relevant political actors’ policy preferences. The concept of policy preferences or beliefs has a long tradition as a key determinant for various forms of political behavior (Sabatier 1988, Mair 2001, Benoit and Laver 2006). Inter alia, policy preferences of key political actors—usually in addition to institutional factors—have been frequently used to analyze policy change and stability in specific policy subsystems (e.g., Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993, Tsebelis 2002).

Regarding the structural characteristics of a policy network, it can be assumed that a network with a high degree of closure—that is, a network in which most of the actors are connected to each other so that no one can act without the notice of the others—builds up trust and social control among its members (Wasserman & Faust 1994, Hirschi 2010). Concerning policy processes, high network closure can have a twofold effect. On one hand, it allows a better way for the main network actors to bring their policy preferences to the policy processes and coordinate their actions. Based on Coleman’s (1988, 1990) main argument, a high level of closure facilitates change within the network (e.g., better cooperation among the actors) because of enhanced communication, the creation of common norms, and the possibility of restraining opportunistic behavior. This case allows policy network actors, for example, to expand their fields of activity if appropriate opportunities open up. Thus, social or policy- oriented learning (Sabatier 1988, Bennett and Howlett 1992, Hall 1993, Feindt 2010) becomes possible within the policy network itself, often in combination with repeated negative feed-

81 back on the performance of the existing policy (Baumgartner and Jones 2002, Newig et al. 2010, Huber et al. 2013). We therefore hypothesize that a closed network structure allows for incremental policy change if the key actors in the policy network perceive it as an improvement of the existing policy, mainly due to changing contextual conditions, for example, the perceived performance in its target area.

On the other hand, high network closure over longer periods often eventually results in a so-called “policy community” (Smith 1997) with a high density of relationships within the policy network, as well as mutual relationships and trust among its members, which generally increase the network’s stability and capacity to resist external attempts at interference (Daugbjerg 1997, Howlett 2002). If outside pressure is accumulating and the perpetuation of core preferences of the main policy actors in the network is increasingly at risk, a policy network that shows strong characteristics of a policy community may be willing to make instrumental adjustments to a preexisting policy if such is deemed necessary to sustain their main preferences in the relevant policy area (Sabatier and Weible 2007: 198). Thus, it can be hy- pothesized that network closure allows for incremental policy change even in the absence of internal learning processes, when the key actors’ core policy preferences are at stake and instrumental adjustment seems imperative to maintain them within the network.

In sum, it can be assumed that incremental change is likely if the network actors are embedded in a network structure that displays a high degree of closure and they share central policy preferences. Whereas network closure and shared policy preferences constitute a necessary condition for incremental policy change, they are not sufficient; the network actors support incremental changes in a well-established policy sector only if such changes allow them to consolidate their main policy goals.

4.3 DATA AND METHODS

For our case study, we analyzed the developments in Swiss forest policy over the 2000–2012 period. Such a longitudinal perspective allows for a detailed investigation of variations in both policy outputs and policy network characteristics, as well as the settings of the actors’ policy preferences at multiple time points (Bennett 2004, Gerring 2004). Three major processes in Swiss federal forest policy could be identified over the 12-year period and were used as units of analysis in the investigation:

1) the National Forest Policy Program (WAP-CH) (BUWAL 2004, Projektleitung WAP 2004), developed between 2001 and 2003 in a broad participatory process led by the Fed- eral Office for the Environment;

2) the 2005 government proposal to revise the Swiss Federal Act on Forests (WAG-TR) (Bundesrat 2007), based on the main outcomes of the WAP-CH process; and

3) the 2009 parliamentary initiative of the Council of States (WP-FLEX) (UREK-S 2010) for a more flexible policy on forest areas.

Based on the APES approach (Serdült and Hirschi 2004, Widmer et al. 2008, Maggetti 2009), it could be assumed that the main actor network of Swiss federal forest policy had become manifest during these specific policy processes and thus, could be explored empirically by examining the concurrent political interactions. Furthermore, following Hjern and Porter’s (1993) view, we assumed that policy networks would not necessarily correspond to formal hierarchical structures or political institutions but would need to be measured empirically.

82 According to the theoretical considerations above, policy networks are understood as a particular form of collective action. Accordingly, an empirical exploration of policy networks mainly includes a reconstruction of actions of political actors and their interrelations within a specific policy arena (Lowi 1964), issue area (Heclo 1978), or policy subsystem (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993).

Starting with a detailed chronology of each of these policy processes derived from official documents (Burt 1983a), media reports (Weber 1990), and interviews with informants (Burt 1983b), we systematically identified all the actors (see Appendix 1) and their forms of interaction over the course of the selected policy processes. The resulting graphical representation of each policy process can be found in Appendices 2–4. The systematic representation of actor participation and interaction was then transformed into a policy network for each specific policy process (resulting in so-called two-mode or actor-event networks, see Wasserman and Faust 1994: 291–343).

We calculated network variables at the level of the policy networks, as well as at the actor and relationship (tie) level, to detect processes of network closure. At the network level, we used the network’s density and centralization to assess its overall structure’s degree of dependence on the position of the most central actors. These two indicators were used in previous studies to identify and describe so-called “policy communities” (Smith 1990, Coleman et al. 1996). At the level of individual actors and their relationships, we used the degrees of reciprocity and transitivity as additional indicators of network closure.

As already discussed, a structural view by analyzing network variables alone is insufficient to assess a policy network’s disposition to change. We therefore combined the network analysis with a systematic assessment of the actors’ policy preferences in Swiss forest policy and their changes over time. Following Laver’s (2001: 3) definition, we understand policy preferences of political actors as “their positions on matters of public policy”—in our specific case, the major issues discussed in Swiss forest policy over the 2000–2012 period (see also Kisby 2007: 83).

Empirically, we proceeded with the following steps. First, we identified the definition and protection of forest areas, forest biodiversity promotion, ecological forest management, and the degree of state regulation of timber production as the central and recurring policy issues in the forest sector over the 12-year period (Zimmermann and Widmer 2009, Zimmermann 2010, 2011, 2012). Second, the policy network actors’ individual policy preferences regarding these four issues were identified based on policy statements and reports issued during consultation processes and assigned on a scale ranging from support for strong deregulation to strong (re-)regulation in the particular area of the policy issue. Each actor’s score in the selected issues of Swiss forest policy from 2000 to 2012 is displayed in Appendices 5–7.

In terms of the empirical basis for the identification and categorization of the actors’ policy preferences, we had access to an extensive documentation on the national forest policy program process (2001–2004). We also used the official consultation reports on the government proposal for a partial revision of the Federal Act on Forests (2005) and the parliamentary initiative for a more flexible definition of forest areas (2010). Additionally, public statements (such as press releases) and the official minutes of the federal parliamentary sessions were consulted.

83 4.4 CASE ANALYSIS

Overall, Swiss forest policy over the 2000–2012 period can be characterized as a process of continuous evolution and extension without major shifts in the policy goals. Although the forests’ contributions to biodiversity, promotion of forest biodiversity, and an ecological, more nature-oriented forest management were goals that had been explicitly introduced into the forest policy programs of the federal and cantonal forest administrations, they mainly sig- nified a continuation and consolidation of processes initiated in the 1990s (Kübler et al. 2001) and thus, not a major policy change. In 2001, the Federal Office for the Environment, the timber industry, research institutes, and environmental organizations jointly launched a separate policy program to promote the use of wood and to support the timber market (renewed in 2008 as the “Wood Resource Policy” with a 2009–2012 action plan). Improving the value- added chain of timber production was also mirrored in the national forest policy program.

The only issue that involved a significant policy change over the 12-year period included a more flexible definition of forest areas and—closely related—the question of a partial slack- ening of the strict protection of forests, as established by a general ban on forest clearance at the end of the 19th century (Bisang 2000). It can be considered the only relatively substantial change in Swiss forest policy over the period of investigation in this study—one that did not happen suddenly but incrementally developed over several stages.

During the 1990s, Swiss forest policy was mainly characterized by the shift of its main legal basis from the former Forest Police Act to the new Federal Act on Forests, as well as the debate on sustainable development in the aftermath of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (Kissling-Näf and Zimmermann 1996, Kübler et al. 2001). These two major developments triggered the formulation of a National Forest Policy Program (WAP-CH), which was then developed from 2001 to 2004, involving some 130 stakeholders representing diverse societal interests in the Swiss forests (BUWAL 2004).

Based on the outcome of the WAP-CH process, the federal government proposed a revision of the Federal Act on Forests (WAG-TR) in 2005. To counter the proposed revision and to ensure a strict protection of forests, an environmental, non-governmental organization (NGO) started collecting signatures for a popular initiative, entitled “Save the Swiss Forests,” which was successfully submitted in the same year. During the consultation process on the government proposal and the popular initiative, several interest organizations and stakeholders—from environmental protectionist to more economically oriented organizations— complained that the proposal did not adequately take into account the results of the recent WAP-CH process. While some additional environmental standards were introduced (more nature-oriented management and obligations for biodiversity management), substantial environmental deregulation measures (particularly about forest protection areas and decreased subsidies for the forestry sector) were proposed simultaneously. Overall, the suggested amendments would have implied a substantial change in the setting and application of policy instruments, with a partial revision of policy goals.

During the joint parliamentary deliberation on the government proposal and the popular initiative, it became clear that a majority in parliament was not willing to pursue the proposed revision of the Federal Act on Forests. Since the revision project and the popular initiative were perceived as opposing proposals (the revision of the act aimed—inter alia—at a less stringent regulation of forest areas, whereas the popular initiative demanded an even stricter protection regime) and the majority of interest groups and stakeholders did not support the

84 revision, the parliamentary majority preferred to maintain the status quo and rejected both proposals. Moreover, due to the strong opposition to the government reform proposal, the majority in both chambers of parliament decided not to enter a plenary debate but to reject the proposal entirely. The initiative committee deemed this development a partial success and decided to officially withdraw their popular initiative, as its main objective (to prevent a relaxation of forest protection policies) seemed already achieved.

In 2009, the parliamentary Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy in the Council of States (UREK-S) revived the largely undisputed part of the 2005 government proposal on legal reform and initiated a modification of the federal forest law on the specific issue of expanding forest areas in mountain regions. The parliamentary initiative was widely supported in parliament and finally resulted in a selective partial revision of the Federal Act on Forests (WP-FLEX) in 2012. The proposal was supported by a vast majority in both chambers of the federal parliament and was not disputed by environmental or forest organizations, including the timber industry.

As Table 4.1 illustrates, the three policy processes varied in terms of duration, the number of involved state and non-state actors, as well as the relative frequency of interactions among these actors over the course of the process. Particularly, the WAP-CH process deviated significantly from those of the WAG-TR and WP-FLEX. It included a wider range of actors and lasted more than a year longer, compared to the other two processes. Furthermore, the involvement of state and non-state actors was evenly distributed over the entire process, whereas the WAG-TR and WP-FLEX processes were dominated by state actors; a larger circle of non-state actors was practically only included at the outset of the policy process, that is, during formal consultation.

Table 4.1: Process characteristics

Policy process WAP-CH WAG-TR WP-FLEX (time period) (2000–2004) (2005–2008) (2009–2012) Duration (months) 47 34 34

State actors 15 (45%) 9 (39%) 10 (37%)

Non-state actors 18 (55%) 14 (61%) 17 (63%)

Contact frequency 17% 12% 22%

Note: Contact frequency is calculated as the percentage share of effective actor interactions in all theoretically possible interactions, given the number of actors and events in the process.

The differences in the process characteristics of WAP-CH, WAG-TR, and WP-FLEX were mainly institutional. Whereas WAG-TR and WP-FLEX comprised formal legislation processes resulting—if successful—in legally binding regulations, the WAP-CH process included the development of a policy program that aimed to provide a new foundation for the future forest policy between 2004 and 2015. The main goal was to develop possible solutions for accumulating problems, as well as new impulses for forest policy in a participative process, which should—where necessary—lead to proposals for modifications of the relevant forest policies.

In contrast to the WAG-TR process, the WP-FLEX process was not initiated by the public administration but by parliament. After a formal public consultation, the responsible parlia-

85 mentary committees of the two chambers of parliament formulated a proposal for a relaxation of the strict definition and protection of forest areas, as defined in the Federal Act on Forests. In the plenary sessions of the two chambers, the proposal for a selective revision of the Feder- al Act on Forests was finally accepted, allowing for a more flexible definition of forest areas in mountain regions.

A comparison across all three processes reveals that the WP-FLEX process exhibited the highest level of interaction, measured as relative contact frequency. The WAP-CH process was considerably longer in duration and involved a higher number and more diverse set of actors, but was then mainly shaped by the Forest Directorate (currently the Forest Division in the Federal Office for the Environment) and the forest and timber organizations.

Variances in actor involvement and interaction over the three policy processes resulted in different structural configurations that could be understood as manifestations of the Swiss forest policy network at different points in time. Based on the individual policy processes, the actors were strongly structured along their functions and roles in Swiss federal forest policy. At the center were the federal agency mainly in charge of forest policy (the Federal Office for the Environment) and the federal government (the Federal Council). An external consultancy firm coordinated the formulation of the WAP-CH forest program and was therefore centrally positioned in the policy process of that time, together with the Federal Office for the Envi- ronment. The parliamentary Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy of the Council of States (UREK-S) took center stage with the new definition of protected forest areas during the WP-FLEX process, whereas forest and timber industry organizations, as well as other trade and business associations, grouped around this network core. Additionally (only partially displayed in our network), the cantons had regular and institutionalized exchanges with the Federal Office for the Environment, for example, through the conference of the cantonal forest officials.

Over the three network stages, different processes of network closure can be observed (Ta- ble 4.2). From the WAP-CH to the WAG-TR stage, the policy network consolidated, as indicated by a decreasing network size and a simultaneous increase in network density. This consolidation was mainly due to the different formal characteristics of the two processes (as described above), with the WAP-CH organized as a broad participatory process and the WAG- TR being a more institutionally driven process that aimed to revise the Federal Act on Forests. From the WAG-TR to the WP-FLEX network stage, the overall network structure did not significantly change anymore.

The increasing network density from the WAP-CH to the WAG-TR stage came with a decreasing centralization of the policy network. Even though the WAP-CH process broadly involved other agencies from the public administration, as well as non-state actors from the forest area and adjacent sectors, it was relatively tightly steered by the main agency in charge, the Forest Directorate of the Federal Office for the Environment. The Federal Office for the Environment then lost some of its steering capacity over the subsequent policy processes when they were elevated from the administrative-executive to the legislative level.

In the WAG-TR process, the parliamentary committees became more central during the parliamentary deliberation of the government proposal for a revised Federal Act on Forests. During the WP-FLEX process, the most central positions in the processes shifted even more toward the parliament, with the responsible parliamentary committees of the two chambers of parliament now being most centrally positioned, together with the Federal Office for the Envi- ronment and the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communica-

86 tions. Due to these developments, network centralization increased from the WAG-TR to the WP-FLEX stage.

Increasing network density and centralization can be perceived as indicators of an overall process of network closure, that is, a development of increased interconnectivity among the relevant actors (density) that can depend, in varying degrees, on a few central actors (centralization) in the network (Hirschi 2010). Processes of closure at the level of the whole policy network were most pronounced from the WAP-CH to the WAG-TR stage, whereas the network became more open again from the WAG-TR to the WP-FLEX stage. The network’s dependence on its most central actors decreased between the WAP-CH and the WAG-TR process and then mostly stabilized.

Table 4.2: Indicators of network closure (main component)

Policy process WAP-CH WAG-TR WP-FLEX (time period) (2000–2004) (2005–2008) (2009–2012)

Network size (no. of actors) 28 21 24

Network density (%) 0.14 0.31 0.31 (no. of ties) (105) (131) (171)

Degree centralization (%) 0.87 0.63 0.70

Reciprocity (%) 0.44 0.90 0.73

Transitivity (%) 0.31 0.64 0.62

Note: Network density is defined as the proportion of observed relations to all possible relations. Degree centralization indicates the dependence of the network on one or a small number of actors. Reciprocity shows the share of ties (dyads) in the network that are “confirmed” between two actors. Transitivity displays the degree of ordered triples in which i—>j and j—>k. All network measurements were calculated using dichotomized data. Before calculating network centralization, the data were symmetrized.

At the level of actor dyads and triads, the degrees of reciprocity and transitivity were used to assess potential processes of network closure at the more micro level of individual actors and their immediate relational environment (Hirschi 2010). In fact, the network indicators in Table 4.2 show that similar processes and trends of network closure and opening can be observed at the more micro level of the policy network, too. Reciprocity and transitivity both significantly increased from the WAP-CH to the WAG-TR network stage. The degree of transitivity consolidated from the WAG-TR to the WP-FLEX stage, whereas reciprocity decreased again from a very high level to a level still significantly above that of the WAP-CH stage.

When we now examine the main forest policy preferences of the network actors, some changes regarding the central issues of Swiss forest policy become noticeable too. As Table 4.3 points out, during the first network stage with the WAP-CH process, there was already considerable support for a relaxation of the strict clearing ban in forest areas. More than half of the identified actors favored at least a moderate deregulation of the issue, that is, a more flexible definition of forest areas and/or a more flexible regulation of reforestation.

87 Table 4.3: Policy preferences, WAP-CH 2000–2004

Strong Moderate Moderate Strong No position/ Policy issue deregulation deregulation regulation regulation indifferent

Forest area 9 12 6 1 7 protection (26%) (34%) (17%) (3%) (20%)

4 8 11 3 9 Biodiversity (11%) (23%) (31%) (9%) (26%)

Ecological forest 4 8 11 3 9 (11%) (23%) (31%) (9%) (26%) management

Timber 13 4 5 3 10 production (37%) (11%) (14%) (9%) (29%)

The promotion of forest biodiversity and biodiversity services of forests were hardly con- tested as general policy goals. However, these issues were rather minor, compared to the debate on the definition and regulation of forest areas. The main differences in the related policy preferences were due to disagreements on how to approach biodiversity-oriented goals and objectives and more ecology-oriented forest management. While for some network actors, traditional forms of bans or command-and-control regulations were the preferred approach, others demanded financial support or subsidies for such forest services. Public support for timber production and processing was obviously a core issue for the timber and wood organizations; however, due to budget constraints, it remained primarily a question of the continuation of established funding instruments and subsidy schemes.

Since there was just a year’s difference between the finalization of the National Forest Pol- icy Program (WAP-CH) and the consultation phase of the partial reform of the Federal Act on Forests (WAG-TR), only minor changes in the actors’ policy preferences on the main forest policy issues at the second network stage can be observed (Table 4.4). The most noteworthy one was that the National Council and the parliamentary Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy in the National Council moved to the camp of the proponents of a moderate deregulation of the strict definition of protected forest areas. Additionally, the actor group comprising the main trade and business organizations took a more pronounced position against stronger regulations in biodiversity and ecological forest management. However, as this group of actors did not explicitly express its policy preferences on these two issues during the WAP-CH process, at least not according to the available data, this change in preferences should be interpreted with caution.

88 Table 4.4: Policy preferences, WAG-TR 2005–2008

Strong Moderate Moderate Strong No position/ Policy issue deregulation deregulation regulation regulation indifferent

Forest area 9 14 4 1 7 protection (26%) (40%) (11%) (3%) (20%)

4 8 12 3 8 Biodiversity (11%) (23%) (34%) (9%) (23%)

Ecological forest 4 8 12 3 8 (11%) (23%) (34%) (9%) (23%) management

Timber 13 4 5 3 10 production (37%) (11%) (14%) (9%) (29%)

From the second to the third stage of the Swiss forest policy network—that is, over the five-year period between the first attempt to revise the Federal Act on Forests (WAG-TR) and the successful, limited revision of the act in 2012 (WP-FLEX)—substantially more changes in the network actors’ policy preferences can be observed (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5: Policy preferences, WP-FLEX 2009–2012

Strong Moderate Moderate Strong No position/ Policy issue deregulation deregulation regulation regulation indifferent

Forest area 6 22 0 1 6 protection (17%) (63%) (0%) (3%) (17%)

4 10 11 3 7 Biodiversity (11%) (29%) (31%) (9%) (20%)

Ecological forest 4 10 11 3 7 (11%) (29%) (31%) (9%) (20%) management

Timber 14 5 5 3 8 production (40%) (14%) (14%) (9%) (22%)

The main change occurred in relation to the issue of the definition of protected forest areas (Figure 4.1). On one hand, several key actors, including the Social Democrats, the Green Par- ty, and the main environmental NGOs, moved from “moderate regulation” to a position of “moderate deregulation.” On the other hand, other actors switched from substantial deregulation to “moderate deregulation,” including a majority of the cantons, the Federal Office for Agriculture, the Swiss Association for Forest Economy, and the Swiss People’s Party.

89 Figure 4.1: Forest policy network and policy preferences on forest area protection

Note: The policy network displays the aggregated interactions among the network actors over the whole period of investigation from 2000 to 2012. The colors indicate the policy preferences of the network actors regarding the strict protection of forest areas: = support moderate to strong deregulation; = support moderate to strong regulation; = changed policy preference from stage 2 (2005–2008) to 3 (2009–2012), from moderate regulation to moderate deregulation; = no preference/indifferent.

In sum, the analysis reveals relatively small changes in both the structure of the policy network and the alignment of the policy preferences within it. This result corresponds to the overall stable core of Swiss forest policy without any paradigmatic shifts over the 2000–2012 period. However, the analysis also shows that several synchronic and diachronic changes in the level of network closure and the alignment of policy processes in the network can be observed, as follows:

From the WAP-CH to the WAG-TR stage, the forest policy network displayed a clear process of network closure, both in the overall network structure (with a lower number of actors but an increased network density) and at the more micro level, with increased reciprocity and transitivity between dyads and triads of network actors, respectively. At the same time, overall policy preferences remained mainly stable across the four identified central policy issues. This period coincided with a policy phase where a major reform of the Federal Act on Forests, initiated by the Federal Office for the Environment and supported by the Federal Council, failed in parliament and the status quo in Swiss forest policy was consolidated.

From the WAG-TR to the WP-FLEX stage, the policy network mainly consolidated its structure. The network density remained constant, with a moderate increase in the number of actors, indicating a more broadly supported policy process. The moderate opening of the network was also reflected at the more micro-level network structure with slightly lower degrees of reciprocity and transitivity. A considerable shift occurred in the policy preferences of the political left wing in parliament. Whereas left-wing parties and environmental organizations

90 previously defended the strict protection of forest areas, they now supported a more flexible definition of forest areas and a relaxation of the obligation for compensation in case of deforestation, although under restrictive conditions. However, this shift in preferences was limited to one issue; the other key issues remained stable.

4.5 DISCUSSION

Overall, Swiss forest policy-making over the 2000–2012 period can be characterized as a process of continuous evolution and extension without major shifts in policy goals. A recurring policy problem remained with the issue of the definition of forest areas and whether the strict clearing ban should be slackened. After the WAP-CH process, the government and public administration put the issue of extending forest areas and the question of re-regulating the definition of forest areas on the political agenda, after the parliament had taken up these points. However, in the WAG-TR process, these concerns became part of a much more ambitious reform project, including a set of more ecology-oriented measures and deregulating elements. Overall, this reform project would have led not only to alterations in existing instruments, but also to changes in the types of instruments and partially to revisions of long- established goals and objectives. Then (as became clear during the WAG-TR process) the proposal scarcely received support from parliament and was eventually not even debated—not the least due to the political pressure of a popular initiative that supported an even stricter protection of forests (Zimmermann and Widmer 2009). Additionally, during the consultation stage, several interest groups and stakeholders already complained about the proposal not adequately representing the “spirit” of the process under the National Forest Policy Program.

The particular issue of growing forests in mountain areas was largely undisputed, mainly due to a decline in the cultivation of agricultural lands in those regions. The Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy in the Council of States therefore revived the issue in 2009 with a parliamentary initiative and proposed a more flexible regulation—particularly in terms of the requirement for reforestation—to protect agricultural land, as well as ecologically valuable areas and landscapes (WP-FLEX, UREK-S 2010).

Our analysis shows that these policy developments were associated with different processes in the Swiss forest policy network, combined with changes in the policy preferences of a few key actors. From a structural perspective, different processes of network closure and opening can be observed in the Swiss forest policy network from 2000 to 2012. From the WAP-CH (2000–2004) to the WAG-TR (2005–2008) process, both at the macro structural level of the entire network and at the more micro level of small groups of actors, network closure increased. This network closure led to a higher connectivity within the forest policy network and a lower openness of the network toward state and non-state actors from outside the forest sector.

However, with a simultaneous decrease in network centralization, the steering capacity of the most central actors within the network also declined. From the WAG-TR (2005–2008) to the WP-FLEX (2009–2012) phase, the level of network closure mostly stabilized, whereas network centralization slightly increased again but with shifts in the network core. The main actors from the public administration (the Federal Office for the Environment and the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications) now represented the network core, together with the parliamentary Committee on Environment, Spatial Plan- ning and Energy in the Council of States, which formally initiated the selective reform of the Federal Act on Forests.

91 Concerning the network actors’ policy preferences toward the main issues of forest policy over the 2000–2012 period, the analysis reveals a high stability. The main shift occurred in the issues of how to define forest areas and how strictly the obligation for reforestation should be regulated. During the WP-FLEX process, the parliamentary factions of the Social Demo- crats and the Green Party, as well as major environmental organizations, supported the proposal for a more flexible definition of forest areas to provide better protection for agricultural land and ecologically valuable areas and landscapes. Agricultural circles, including the conservative Swiss People’s Party, also backed the proposal.

In sum, it can be shown that incremental policy change on the issue of the definition of forest areas was initially prevented, even though the underlying assessment of the problem was widely shared by the network actors. However, the actors in the policy network had different preferences about the appropriate instrumental adjustments to address the problem. Given the observed process of network closure from the WAP-CH (2000–2004) to the WAG- TR (2005–2008) stage of the forest policy network, policy change—even only an incremental advancement and modification of the main policy in place—was highly unlikely under these circumstances. Furthermore, the ambitious proposition on the partial revision of the Federal Act on Forests (WAG-TR) included a set of more ecologically oriented measures and elements of deregulation, which generally would have implied a substantial departure from the existing policy and was considered an unwanted paradigmatic shift in Swiss forest policy.

From the WAG-TR (2005–2008) to the WP-FLEX (2009–2012) stage, the policy network had mainly consolidated. Regarding the level of closure, a moderate opening of the network can be observed. The main actors in the policy network had modified their preferences about instrumental questions of how to address the issue of growing forests, particularly in mountain areas. This shift allowed them to consolidate their main forest policy goals, whether they were more ecologically oriented (as in the case of the political left wing in parliament and the environmental organizations) or more centered on agricultural policy goals (as in the case of agricultural organizations and the conservative right wing in parliament).

Thus, Swiss forest policy over the 2000–2012 period can be considered a paradigmatic case of a policy that changed in small, incremental steps. Applying a network approach to understand the developments in Swiss forest policy allowed us to overcome some of the main theoretical, analytical, and empirical challenges typically associated with studies on incremental policy developments. Theoretically, the network approach enabled us to integrate structural variables (as indicators of network changes at the macro and micro levels), as well as systematically coded information on policy preferences (as actor-attribute data), into a combined framework. Analytically, we were able to show that a policy process, although constant in its overall policy goals, may manifest significant, subordinated policy processes and changes if a longitudinal research design with a detailed investigation of several stages is chosen. Empiri- cally, the APES concept provided a useful method to generate empirical network data on several network stages and to compare them systematically across time.

Beyond the description of structural characteristics of policy sectors, a policy network approach can be used—at least conceptually—to explain and predict the evolution of policy processes and/or their specific outcomes (Daugbjerg 1998, Carlsson 2000, Adam and Kriesi 2007, Carlsson and Sandström 2008, Sandström and Carlsson 2008, Compston 2009, Daugbjerg and Mannemar Sønderskov 2012). However, a structural analysis alone is insufficient to assess a policy network’s disposition to change, as our analysis of the Swiss forest policy network reveals. The study of the role of policy preferences (Lowe et al. 2011), ideas (Carstensen 2011, Baumgartner 2013), and beliefs (Weible and Sabatier 2009) has a long tra-

92 dition in the social sciences as drivers for societal and political change and cannot be separat- ed from a policy network analysis. However, the integration of policy preferences (as in the form of actor-attribute data) into the analysis of policy networks has recently become more frequent (Weible and Sabatier 2005, Henry 2011, Hirschi et al. 2013). Taking better account of policy preferences, as demonstrated in this study, can serve two major empirical and analytical purposes. First, it identifies the basic policy ideas and their distribution within a policy subsystem. Second, combined with a structural analysis, it allows the examination of the direction and potential magnitude of a possible policy change. However, a key prerequisite is the availability of appropriate longitudinal data on both network variables and policy preferences.

4.6 CONCLUSION

Our study mainly confirms a simple theory of changes in the network and policy preferences to explain incremental developments in Swiss forest policy over the 2000–2012 period. Whereas during a phase of stability, the policy network first displayed processes of closure with mostly constant policy preferences, it stabilized at a later stage. This closure of the policy network prevented a more substantial change in Swiss forest policy when it aimed to revise the Federal Act on Forests (WAG-TR). A considerable shift in the policy preferences of critical actors then allowed a partial amendment of the act, with a more flexible definition of forest areas to better address the problem of growing forest areas in mountain regions. This way, we have been able to demonstrate that network closure and shared policy preferences each constitute a necessary but—if considered in isolation from each other—insufficient condition for incremental policy development. It has been shown that the main actors of the policy network supported policy changes only if these allowed them to consolidate their policy goals and position in the network.

As we illustrated, a network approach enhances the understanding of incremental policy changes. Theoretically, the network approach, with its mainly structural reconstruction of policy processes, can be combined with other actor-oriented models (e.g., Weible and Sabatier 2005), as well as theories based on the paradigm of methodological individualism (Kisby 2007, Henry 2011, Henry and Dietz 2011). This strategy allows for the integration of contextual and internal factors into the study of policy dynamics. Analytically, a longitudinal network study design over an extended period permits the comprehension of gradual changes in both policy outputs and (potential) explanatory factors. Methodologically, we applied the APES, which proved valuable in generating network data over time, based on document analysis and qualitative case studies.

93 LITERATURE CITED

Adam, S. and H. Kriesi. 2007. The Network Approach. Pages 129–154 in P. A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Bauer, A., J. Feichtinger, and R. Steurer. 2012. The Governance of Climate Change Adaptation in 10 OECD Countries: Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 14:279–304. Baumgartner, F. R. 2013. Ideas and Policy Change. Governance 26:239–258. Baumgartner, F. R., J. M. Berry, M. Hojnacki, D. C. Kimball, and B. L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change – Who Wins, Who Loses, And Why. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Baumgartner, F. R. and B. D. Jones. 2002. Positive and Negative Feedbacks in Politics. Pages 3–28 in F. R. Baumgartner and B. D. Jones, editors. Policy Dynamics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Bennett, A. 2004. Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages. Pages 19–55 in D. F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias, editors. Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Bennett, A. and C. Elman. 2006. Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis 14:250–267. Bennett, C. J. and M. Howlett. 1992. The Lessons of Learning: Reconsiling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change. Policy Sciences 25:275–294. Benoit, K. and M. Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Bisang, K. 2000. Historisches Screening institutioneller Regime der Ressource Wald (1870– 2000). IDHEAP Working Paper 4. IDHEAP, Chavannes-près-Renens. Bundesrat. 2007. Botschaft zur Änderung des Bundesgesetzes über den Wald und zur Volksinitiative "Rettet den Schweizer Wald" vom 28. März 2007. BBl 2007 3829–3877. Burt, R. S. 1983a. Network Data from Informant Interviews. Pages 133–157 in R. S. Burt and M. J. Minor, editors. Applied Network Analysis. SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA. Burt, R. S. 1983b. Network Data from Archival Records. Pages 158–174 in R. S. Burt and M. J. Minor, editors. Applied Network Analysis. SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA. BUWAL. 2004. Waldprogramm Schweiz (WAP-CH): Handlungsprogramm 2004–2015. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern. Capano, G. 2013. Policy dynamics and change: the never-ending puzzle. Pages 451–461 in E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu, editors. Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Carlsson, L. 2000. Policy Networks as Collective Action. Policy Studies Journal 28:502–520. Carlsson, L. and A. Sandström. 2008. Network Governance of the Commons. International Journal of the Commons 2:33–54. Carstensen, M. B. 2011. Ideas are Not as Stable as Political Scientists Want Them to Be: A Theory of Incremental Ideational Change. Political Studies 59:596–615. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94:95–120. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

94 Coleman, W. D., G. D. Skogstad, and M. M. Atkinson. 1996. Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture. Journal Of Public Policy 16:273–301. Compston, H. 2009. Network Resources, Political Strategy and Climate Policy. Environmental Politics 18:727–746. Daugbjerg, C. 1997. Policy Networks and Agricultural Policy Reforms: Explaining Deregulation in Sweden and Re-Regulation in the European Community. Governance 10:123–142. Daugbjerg, C. 1998. Linking Policy Networks and Environmental Policies: Nitrate Policy Making in Denmark and Sweden 1970–1995. Public Administration 76:275–294. Daugbjerg, C. and K. Mannemar Sønderskov. 2012. Environmental Policy Performance Revisited: Designing Effective Policies for Green Markets. Political Studies 60:399–418. Dowding, K. 1995. Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach. Political Studies 43:136–158. Dowding, K. 2001. There Must Be End to Confusion: Policy Networks, Intellectual Fatigue, and the Need for Political Science Methods Courses in British Universities. Political Studies 49:89–105. Feindt, P. H. 2010. Policy-Learning and Environmental Policy Integration in the Common Agricultural Policy, 1973–2003. Public Administration 88:296–314. Fowler, J. H., M. T. Heaney, D. W. Nickerson, J. F. Padgett, and B. Sinclair. 2011. Causality in Political Networks. American Politics Research 39:437–480. Gerring, J. 2004. What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Science Review 98:341–354. Hall, P. A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain. Comparative Politics 25:275–296. Hayes, M. T. 2006. Incrementalism and Public Policy. University Press of America, Lanham, MA. Heclo, H. 1978. Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. Pages 87–124 in A. King, editor. The New American Political System. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. Henry, A. D. 2011. Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 39:361–383. Henry, A. D. and T. Dietz. 2011. Information, networks, and the complexity of trust in commons governance. International Journal of the Commons 5:188–212. Hirschi, C. 2010. Strengthening Regional Cohesion: Collaborative Networks and Sustainable Development in Swiss Rural Areas. Ecology and Society 15:16 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss14/art16/. Hirschi, C., A. Widmer, S. Briner, and R. Huber. 2013. Combining Policy Network and Model–Based Scenario Analysis: An Assessment of Future Agricultural Ecosystem Goods and Services in Swiss Mountain Regions. Ecology and Society 18:42 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art42/. Hirschi, C. and T. Widmer. 2010. Policy Change and Policy Stasis: Comparing Swiss Foreign Policy toward South Africa (1968–94) and Iraq (1990–91). Policy Studies Journal 38:537– 563. Howlett, M. 2002. Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science 35:235–267.

95 Howlett, M. and B. Cashore. 2009. The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11:33–46. Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. 1993. Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience. Policy Studies Review 12:3–24. Huber, R., S. Briner, A. Peringer, S. Lauber, R. Seidl, A. Widmer, F. Gillet, A. Büttler, Q. B. Le, and C. Hirschi. 2013. Modeling Social-Ecological Feedback Effects in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Pasture-Woodlands. Ecology and Society 18:41 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art41/. Jones, B. D. and F. R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Kingdon, J. W. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd edition. Longman, New York, NY. Kisby, B. 2007. Analysing policy networks: Towards an ideational approach. Policy Studies 28:71–90. Kissling-Näf, I. and W. Zimmermann. 1996. Aufgaben- und Instrumentenwandel dargestellt am Beispiel der schweizerischen Forstpolitik. Swiss Political Science Review 2:35–72. Kübler, D., I. Kissling-Näf, and W. Zimmermann. 2001. Wie nachhaltig ist die Schweizer Forstpolitik? Ein Beitrag zur Kriterien- und Indikatorendiskussion. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel. Laumann, E. O. and D. Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Laver, M. 2001. Why should we estimate the policy positions of political actors? Pages 3–9 in M. Laver, editor. Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The Science of "Muddling Through". Public Administration Review 19:79–88. Lowe, W., K. Benoit, S. Mikhaylov, and M. Laver. 2011. Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:123–155. Lowi, T. J. 1964. American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics 16:677–715. Maggetti, M. 2009. The role of independent regulatory agencies in policy-making: a comparative analysis. Journal of European Public Policy 16:450–470. Mahoney, J. and K. Thelen. 2010. A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change. Pages 1–37 in J. Mahoney and K. Thelen, editors. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mair, P. 2001. Searching for the positions of political actors – A review of approaches and a critical evaluation of expert surveys. Pages 10–30 in M. Laver, editor. Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Marsh, D. and R. A. W. Rhodes. 1992. Policy Communities and Issue Networks: Beyond Typology. Pages 249–268 in D. Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes, editors. Policy Networks in British Government. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Marsh, D. and M. Smith. 2000. Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach. Political Studies 48:4–21. Newig, J., D. Günther, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2010. Synapses in the Network: Learning in Governance Networks in the Context of Environmental Management. Ecology and Society 15:24. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss24/art24/.

96 Nohrstedt, D. and C. M. Weible. 2010. The Logic of Policy Change after Crisis: Proximity and Subsystem Interaction. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 1:1–32. Ostrom, E. 2007. Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Pages 21–64 in P. A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Projektleitung WAP, B. B. 2004. Waldprogramm Schweiz (WAP-CH): Handlungsprogramm 2003–2015. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Schriftenreihe Umwelt 363, Bern. Sabatier, P. A. 1988. An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences 21:129–168. Sabatier, P. A., editor. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Sabatier, P. A. and C. M. Weible. 2007. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. Pages 189–220 in P. A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Sandström, A. and L. Carlsson. 2008. The Performance of Policy Networks: The Relation between Network Structure and Network Perfomance. Policy Studies Journal 36:497–524. Schlager, E. 2007. A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy Processes. Pages 293–319 in P. A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Scott, J. 2000. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. SAGE, London. Serdült, U. and C. Hirschi. 2004. From Process to Structure: Developing a Reliable and Valid Tool for Policy Network Comparison. Swiss Political Science Review 10:137–155. Smith, A. 1997. Integrated Pollution Control: Change and Continuity in the Industrial Pollution Policy Network. Ashgate, Aldershot. Smith, M. J. 1990. The Politics of Agricultural Support in Britain: The Development of an Agricultural Policy Community. Dartmouth, London. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players – How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press, New York, NY. UREK-S. 2010. Parlamentarische Initiative Flexibilisierung der Waldflächenpolitik: Vorentwurf und erläuternder Bericht der Kommission für Umwelt, Raumplanung und Energie des Ständerats vom 6. September 2010. Kommission für Umwelt, Raumplanung und Energie (UREK) des Ständerats, Bern. Van Waarden, F. 1992. Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research 21:29–52. Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Weber, R. P. 1990. Basic Content Analysis. 2nd edition. SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA. Weible, C. M. and P. A. Sabatier. 2005. Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal 33:181–201. Weible, C. M. and P. A. Sabatier. 2009. Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems. Policy Studies Journal 37:195–212. Widmer, T. and C. Hirschi. 2005. Stabilität im Wandel: Gestaltung der schweizerischen Südafrikapolitik von 1968 bis 1994. Rüegger, Zürich.

97 Widmer, T., C. Hirschi, U. Serdült, and C. Vögeli. 2008. Analysis with APES, the Actor Process Event Scheme. Pages 150–171 in M. M. Bergmann, editor. Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications. SAGE, Los Angeles, CA. Wood, R. S. 2006. The Dynamics of Incrementalis: Subsystems, Politics, and Public Lands. Policy Studies Journal 34:1–16. Zimmermann, W. 2010. Waldpolitischer Jahresrückblick 2009. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 161:161–170. Zimmermann, W. 2011. Waldpolitischer Jahresrückblick 2010. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 162:137–145. Zimmermann, W. 2012. Waldpolitischer Jahresrückblick 2011. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 163:145–154. Zimmermann, W. and A. Widmer. 2009. Waldpolitischer Jahresrückblick 2008. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 160:105–113.

98 APPENDIX

Appendix 1: List of actors

Acronym Actor ARE Federal Office for Spatial Development BAFU Federal Office for the Environment BFE Swiss Federal Office of Energy BRat Swiss Federal Council BLW Federal Office for Agriculture BK Federal Chancellery BU Brugger & Partner CONS Consulting CVP Christian Democratic Party FD Forest Directorate FDP Free Democratic Party FORoth Other Forestry & Timber Organizations GEM Communities GPS Green Party KANT Cantons HOLZ Timber Producer’s Association IK Popular Initiative Committee “Save the Forest” IGTIM Interest Group for Industrial Timber NR National Council OTH Other Associations and Organizations PAR Other Political Parties SBV Swiss Farmers’ Association SECO State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SFV Swiss Forestry Association SPS Social Democratic Party SR Council of States SVP Swiss People’s Party UMW Environmental Organizations UREK-N Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, National Council UREK-S Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, Council of States UVEK Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications WIRT Trade & Business Associations WISS Science & Education WVS Swiss Association for Forest Economy

99 Appendix 2: APES WAP-CH 2000–2004

100 Appendix 3: APES WAG-TR 2005–2008

101 Appendix 4: APES WP-FLEX 2009–2012

102 Appendix 5: Actor policy positions on four main forest policy issues (WAP-CH 2000–2004)

Forest area Ecological forest Timber Actor Biodiversity protection management production ARE 1 1 1 1 BAFU 1 1 1 -1 BDP 0 0 0 0 BFE 1 0 0 0 BK 0 0 0 0 BLW 2 -1 -1 -2 BRat 1 1 1 -1 BU 0 0 0 0 CONS 0 0 0 0 CVP 1 -1 -1 -2 FD 1 1 1 1 FDP 2 -1 -1 -2 FORoth 2 -2 -2 -2 GEM 1 1 1 1 GPS -1 2 2 2 HOLZ 2 -2 -2 -2 IGTIM 2 1 1 -2 IK -2 2 2 2 KANT 1 1 1 -1 NR -1 -1 -1 -2 OTH 0 0 0 0 PAR 0 0 0 0 SBV 2 -2 -2 -2 SECO 0 0 0 0 SFV 1 1 1 1 SPS -1 1 1 1 SR 1 -1 -1 -2 SVP 2 -2 -2 -2 UMW -1 2 2 2 UREK-N -1 -1 -1 -2 UREK-S 2 -1 -1 -2 UVEK 1 1 1 -1 WIRT -1 0 0 0 WISS 1 1 1 0 WVS 2 -1 -1 -2

Note: 2 = strong regulation; 1 = moderate regulation; 0 = no/indifferent position (neutral); -1 = moderate deregulation; -2 = strong deregulation.; overall = mean value.

103 Appendix 6: Actor policy positions on four main forest policy issues (WAG-TR 2005–2008)

Forest area Ecological forest Timber Actor Biodiversity protection management production ARE 1 1 1 1 BAFU 1 1 1 -1 BDP 0 0 0 0 BFE 1 0 0 0 BK 0 0 0 0 BLW 2 -1 -1 -2 BRat 1 1 1 -1 BU 0 0 0 0 CONS 0 0 0 0 CVP 1 -1 -1 -2 FD 1 1 1 1 FDP 1 -1 -1 -2 FORoth 2 -2 -2 -2 GEM 1 1 1 1 GPS -1 2 2 2 HOLZ 2 -2 -2 -2 IGTIM 2 1 1 -2 IK -2 2 2 2 KANT 2 1 1 -1 NR 1 -1 -1 -2 OTH 0 0 0 0 PAR 0 0 0 0 SBV 2 -2 -2 -2 SECO 0 0 0 0 SFV 1 1 1 1 SPS -1 1 1 1 SR 1 -1 -1 -2 SVP 2 -2 -2 -2 UMW -1 2 2 2 UREK-N 1 -1 -1 -2 UREK-S 2 -1 -1 -2 UVEK 1 1 1 -1 WIRT -1 1 1 0 WISS 1 1 1 0 WVS 2 -1 -1 -2

Note: 2 = strong regulation; 1 = moderate regulation; 0 = no/indifferent position (neutral); -1 = moderate deregulation; -2 = strong deregulation.; overall = mean value.

104 Appendix 7: Actor policy positions on four main forest policy issues (WP-FLEX 2009–2012)

Forest area Ecological forest Timber Actor Biodiversity protection management production ARE 1 1 1 1 BAFU 1 1 1 -1 BDP 1 -1 -1 -1 BFE 1 0 0 0 BK 0 0 0 0 BLW 1 -1 -1 -2 BRat 1 1 1 -1 BU 0 0 0 0 CONS 0 0 0 0 CVP 1 -1 -1 -2 FD 1 1 1 1 FDP 1 -1 -1 -2 FORoth 2 -2 -2 -2 GEM 1 1 1 1 GPS 1 2 2 2 HOLZ 2 -2 -2 -2 IGTIM 2 1 1 -2 IK -2 2 2 2 KANT 1 1 1 -1 NR 1 -1 -1 -2 OTH 0 0 0 0 PAR 0 0 0 0 SBV 2 -2 -2 -2 SECO 0 0 0 0 SFV 1 1 1 1 SPS 1 1 1 1 SR 1 -1 -1 -2 SVP 1 -2 -2 -2 UMW 1 2 2 2 UREK-N 1 -1 -1 -2 UREK-S 2 -1 -1 -2 UVEK 1 1 1 -1 WIRT 2 -1 -1 -2 WISS 1 1 1 0 WVS 1 -1 -1 -2

Note: 2 = strong regulation; 1 = moderate regulation; 0 = no/indifferent position (neutral); -1 = moderate deregulation; -2 = strong deregulation.; overall = mean value .

105

5. COMBINING POLICY NETWORK AND MODEL-BASED SCENARIO ANALYSIS: AN ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES IN SWISS MOUNTAIN REGIONS*

Christian HIRSCHI1, Alexander WIDMER1, Simon BRINER2, Robert HUBER3

ABSTRACT

In this article we argue that the often-proclaimed disregard of ex-ante assessments of the provision of ecosystem goods and services in policy-making processes is not only due to a neglect or a misinterpretation of the results of such assessments in the relevant political processes, but also due to an inaccurate inclusion of political variables into those assessments. To address this weakness, we combine a model-based scenario analysis with a policy network analysis. Analyzing the structure of the policy network and taking into account the policy preferences of the individual network actors allows us to assess the feasibility and likelihood of policy developments as derived from scenario-based modeling assessments. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach in an analysis of potential policy measures aimed at maintaining crucial ecosystem goods and services in Swiss mountain regions, with a specific focus on agriculture, which is arguably one of the most important sectors for various ecosystem goods and services in those regions. Our results show that a production-oriented agricultural policy still has strong political support and, consequently, a status-quo protection scenario is very likely. In contrast, a more environmentally friendly agricultural policy is unlikely if it leads to extensive new regulations for agricultural production. Even with a greening scenario performing best within a set of ex-ante model-based assessments of future policy options, our policy network analysis suggests that changes in agricultural policy would have to reconcile the support of the provision of non-marketable ecosystem goods and services with market deregulation policies in order to become politically feasible.

Key words: agricultural policy; ecosystem goods and services; ex-ante assessments; model- based scenario analysis; mountain regions; policy network analysis; Switzerland

Acknowledgments:

We are grateful to the editor in chief of Ecology and Society as well as the subject editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

* This article has been published in Ecology and Society 18 Art. 42. 1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich), Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Environmental Policy and Economics, Universitaetstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. 2 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich), Institute for Environmental Decisions, Agri-food & Agri-environmental Economics Group, Sonneggstrasse 33, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. 3 Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

107 5.1 INTRODUCTION

Agriculture and forest ecosystems in mountain regions provide a range of important services—in addition to food and timber also myriad forms of regulating and cultural services. However, these ecosystem goods and services are increasingly under stress due to ecological changes (IPCC 2001, Huber et al. 2005), unfavorable socio-economic conditions (European Commission 2004, Stucki et al. 2004) and limited institutional capacities (Young 2002, Young et al. 2008, Hirschi 2010, Kok and Veldkamp 2011). To guarantee the provision of these crucial ecosystem goods and services in the future, policy interventions are needed to steer these processes and mitigate their negative impacts on ecosystems and society (Huber et al. 2013b). Such policy interventions require accurate assessments of the relevant ecological, socio-economic, and political developments as well as of their potential future implications. For this purpose, impact assessments (Dilly and Pannell 2009, Bare 2011, Helming and Pérez- Soba 2011) and integrated assessments (Van Ittersum and Brouwer 2009, Bezlepkina et al. 2010) are widely used techniques to anticipate environmental consequences of socio- economic developments and policy decisions and vice versa.

However, the use of such ex-ante assessments in actual policy decision processes has been rather limited thus far. Whereas the ecosystem goods and services concept aims for a better consideration of ecological and social complexities in environmental management (among others, see Fischer et al. 2007), the majority of ex-ante assessment tools actually used in policy processes are of a rather simple and modest type (Nilsson et al. 2008, Hertin et al. 2009). More complex tools, on the other hand, have often remained black boxes to policy-makers rather than transparent analytical tools that could effectively inform policy decisions (De Smedt 2011). Also, political economists have repeatedly argued that specific sectoral interests—particularly in the agricultural sector—have often been reluctant to develop more effective policies if they could result in a change of status quo (Swimmen and van der Zee 1993, De Gorter and Swinnen 2002, Rausser and Goodhue 2002, Swinnen 2009, Anderson 2010).

In this article, we specifically argue that the often-proclaimed disregard of model-based ex- ante assessments of future provisions of ecosystem goods and services in policy-making processes is not only due to a neglect or misinterpretation of such assessments and their results in the relevant political processes, but also due to an inaccurate inclusion of political variables into those assessments. But the proclaimed better inclusion of political factors in ex-ante assessments remains a demanding undertaking. Policy interventions often have to be viewed in a wider political context. They typically represent a political compromise that results from bargaining processes between influential political interests (Imperial 1999). Also, in addition to the dynamics of the policy process, the scope of possible policy interventions is oftentimes dynamic itself, and, thus, is a “moving target” (Wittrock and de Leon 1986). To model such processes and their potential impacts on ecosystem goods and services provision as accurately as possible would require a permanent re-adjustment of the model parameters in order to follow the relevant developments, which is obviously an unrealistic task. Furthermore, and on a more fundamental level, public policy scholars have criticized the assumption of rational decision making that underlies most model-based scenario-analysis approaches (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993, Jones 1999, Davies et al. 2000, Sanderson 2002, Jones 2003, Widmer 2009).

We therefore aim to make both a conceptual and a methodological contribution to the a more accurate inclusion of political variables into ex-ante policy assessments by combining a model-based scenario analysis (Veldkamp and Lambin 2001, Westhoek et al. 2006, Verburg et al. 2010, Helming et al. 2011) with a policy network approach (Laumann and Knoke 1987,

108 Knoke 1990, Rhodes 1997, Adam and Kriesi 2007, Knoke 2011). Empirically, we apply this novel approach to the case of Swiss agricultural policy, which is arguably one of the key policies for the future provision of ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions in Switzer- land (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008, Huber et al. 2013b).

Specifically, we investigate the following three research questions:

— What are the expected impacts of different policy scenarios for the agricultural sector in Switzerland on the provision of important ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions? — Which policy scenario is most likely to be supported by the existing agricultural policy network? — Given that there are differences between the policy preferences represented by the existing agricultural policy network on the one hand and simulated scenario results on the other hand, what developments would be needed in the agricultural policy network to close or minimize this gap in order to enhance a sustainable provision of important ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions?

In the following sections, we first outline our conceptual framework and the applied methods. Then, we describe the three selected policy scenarios and assess their expected impacts on the provision of agricultural ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions. This is followed by the analysis of the feasibility of each scenario in terms of the agricultural policy network in Switzerland. Based on our results, we discuss the relevant consequences for Swiss agricultural policy and the changes necessary for sustaining crucial agricultural ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions. We conclude with a critical assessment of our integrative approach.

5.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODS

Figure 5.1 illustrates our conceptual approach. Typically, the scenario-based integrated assessment of ecosystem goods and services provision (Box 1 in Figure 5.1) and policy network analysis (Box 2 in Figure 5.1) are two separate research tasks even though the policy process and economic developments are in reality strongly interlinked (Rausser and Swinnen 2011). In this study, we integrate the analysis of agricultural policy-making in Switzerland and an ex- ante policy assessment of ecosystem goods and services provision in mountain regions in three steps. Firstly, we formulate three consistent agricultural policy scenarios (status quo, liberalization, greening) based on the IPCC (2000) scenarios and four consistent, national- level scenarios for Switzerland (Walz et al. 2014). Each scenario specifically addresses the three main political issues in the ongoing agricultural policy reform process in Switzerland, i.e., the question of better access to the agricultural market, the level of domestic support for the agricultural sector, and the extension of more targeted support for ecosystem goods and services in the form of “greening” the agricultural policy. Secondly, each scenario is implemented in a model-based assessment of global change impacts on the provision of ecosystem goods and services in two selected Swiss mountain regions, and each is then assessed with regard to its political feasibility and likelihood given the structure of the Swiss agricultural policy network and the policy preferences of the relevant political actors. This comparison between the model output and the policy assessment allows us to identify potential variations between the modeled ecosystem goods and services provision based on the scenarios on the one hand and on the policy preferences and political structures as represented in the policy network on the other. Based on the specification of these variations, we can then—in a third step—draw conclusions about the potentially necessary policy and/or the policy network

109 changes for improving sustainable ecosystem goods and services provision in Swiss mountain regions.

Figure 5.1: Conceptual framework

Box 1: Model-based scenario assessment

IPCC scenarios

Box 2: Policy network analysis 1) Policy Context scenarios for Alpine regions scenarios Policy structures and agricultural in Switzerland policy preferences

2) Output comparison Integrated assessment of EGS provision Political feasibility and likelihood in case study regions assessment

Policy adjustments and recommendations 3) Consequences for ESG provision

Below we describe each of these analytical steps and the underlying methodological approach in more detail.

5.2.1 Model-based assessment of the provision of mountain ecosystem goods and services

Modeling approach

Integrated assessments and modeling frameworks can be used to evaluate alternative scenarios before the introduction of new policies as ex-ante assessments of potential policy implications (Van Ittersum and Brouwer 2009). Thereby, economic, ecological, and social consequences of a new policy are generally taken into account. To assess the impacts of three policy scenarios (described in detail below) on the provision of ecosystem goods and services in our case study regions, we use a spatially explicit, agent-based, land-use model for alpine regions. The model is based on the sector-based dynamic land allocation model ALUAM (Briner et al. 2012) which has been modified to integrate different agents representing farmers (or groups of farmers) and their attitudes and preferences (Huber et al. 2013a). The goal of the extended ALUAM-AB (ALUAM Agent-Based) is to understand agricultural land-use changes triggered by market and policy changes and to quantify the changes in ecosystem goods and services provision on a landscape scale. The model is defined by interconnected human and environmental/agronomic subsystems.

The human subsystem is defined by farm agents, including variables for household composition, available resources (land, capital, and labor), and household preferences for agricultural activities. An agent’s decision mechanism is represented by an income optimization approach that governs the allocation of the agent’s available resources to production while con-

110 sidering natural and farm structural constraints as well as incentives and regulations from market and policy scenarios. Existing production capacities are considered as sunk costs representing path dependencies on farms. Economic interactions among the farm agents are represented by a land market module (Huber et al. 2013).

The environmental/agronomic subsystem is characterized by the agricultural production cycle in the case study area. Agronomic variables include plant nutrient requirements (N, P), manure production, and production coefficients such as fodder intake, growth, birth, deaths of animals and labor requirements that are based on national average data (Briner et al. 2012). In the modeled farm decision process (income optimization), the environmental variables are considered as material (fodder and nutrients) balances that link land-use activities with live- stock activities. As a result, land-use intensities can be defined in a spatially explicit manner. Crop rotation requirements and a labor balance are additional constraints that link the human and environmental/agronomic subsystems.

The impacts of policy scenarios were modeled up to the year 2030. To assess the future provision of ecosystem goods and services (aesthetic landscapes, CO2 balance, nitrogen emissions, habitat diversity, and food provision), we compared our modeling results with indicators for policy goals as they have been formulated by the federal public administration (FOEN and FOAG 2008).

Case study regions

We applied the model to two case study regions in Swiss mountain areas that differ with respect to natural conditions and farm structures.

The study region of Visp is located in a continental inner-alpine mountain area, with an elevation ranging from 648 to 4010 m. The region is rather dry; it has the least annual precipitation in Switzerland (<600 mm/y). The modeled area is 443.3 km2; 16% thereof is used for agriculture. In 2008, there were 186 active farms in the region, each averaging 9.6 ha (FOEN and FOAG 2008). Thus, farms in this region are small, and part-time farming has had a long tradition. In the ALUAM-AB model for this region, the farm agent represents a group of farmers with similar preferences and household compositions. Data on these agent-specific variables were collected through a standardized postal survey. The predominant products of the farms in the Valais region are milk and meat (from sheep and suckler cows).

The study region in the Jura Mountains is located at the Swiss–French boarder in the west of Switzerland. It is an oceanic mountain region at an elevation of 1200 m, with 30% of the area being agricultural. In this region, we studied a local community of eight farmers whose farms averaged 49 ha, which is larger than the Swiss average. In the applied ALUAM-AB model, agents in the Jura region represent individual farmers. Data for the agent-specific variables are based on semistructured, face-to-face interviews. On the studied farms, all farmers work full time on their farms. Milk production is the dominant agricultural activity in this region.

Policy scenarios

For the assessment of future ecosystem goods and services provision in mountain regions we elaborated three policy scenarios that are specifically formulated for the Swiss agricultural sector and which reflect the crucial policy issues in the ongoing agricultural policy process. The policy scenarios are consistent with national level scenarios developed by Walz et al.

111 (2014), which present potential pathways for national-level demographic development, socio- economic dynamics, and land use policy developments in relation to changing climate conditions based on global greenhouse emission scenarios (IPCC 2000, Abildtrup et al. 2006).

Scenario 1: Status quo

Our status-quo policy scenario for the Swiss agricultural sector is in accordance with the A2 scenario of the IPCC SRES which sees an increasing importance for regional centers with national implications that are characterized by a focus on self-reliance and the preservation of local conditions. In accordance with such a policy scenario, domestic support for the agricultural sector remains, overall, at current levels. The policy also includes production-oriented support such as payments per head for animals and/or payments related to specific crops. Eco- logical restrictions are linked to the fulfillment of the proof of ecological performance. Over- all, the total amount of financial transfer from the taxpayers to the farmers (via the official federal governmental budget) is assumed to be maintained at a high level. In addition, market access remains restricted, including tariffs and import quotas for grains and meat, respectively. As a consequence, agriculture (farm-gate) production prices in Switzerland remain higher than in neighboring countries, resulting in considerably higher consumer prices.

Scenario 2: Liberalization

The scenario of liberalization most likely takes place in a national-level and a global context of economic growth and increasing international convergence, as described in the IPCC’s A1FI scenario. In Swiss agricultural policy, the direct payment system is expected to be adjusted to the prescriptions of the World Trade Organization, with a possibility of a further liberalization of international markets within the World Trade Organization and/or a European framework. That is, only direct payments with no—or at most minimal—trade and production support would be in place. Thus, the overall amount of financial transfer from the taxpayers to the farmers will be reduced. As a result of the abolishment of tariffs and quotas, Swiss prices for agricultural commodities decline to the future prices on the European level.

Scenario 3: Greening

The greening policy scenario is characterized by an emphasis on strengthening sustainable ecological development and appropriate economic and social changes, as per the B1 and B2 scenarios of the IPCC SRES. Domestic support (direct payment system) would be reformed with a focus on ecological performance. Payments that remunerate the fulfillment of high ecological requirements (e.g., payments for less intensive agricultural activities) are expected to increase, even if the overall financial transfers from the taxpayer to the farmer remain at current levels. With respect to market access, the level of support in Swiss agriculture is reduced. Prices for agricultural commodities decline significantly but at a lower rate than in the liberalization scenario. This gives farmers more time to adapt to new circumstances, preventing them from making fast changes in production that could have a negative impact on the provision of ecosystem goods and services. However, some of the market instruments such as product standard regulations are still in place (e.g., for animal production methods that are forbidden in Switzerland). As a consequence, agricultural commodity prices will be lower than in the protection scenario but higher than those under the liberalization scenario.

112 5.2.2 Policy network analysis

Policy structures and preferences

In addition to the impact assessment of the three policy scenarios on the provision of ecosystem goods and services, we examined the political feasibility and likelihood of the three scenarios given the structure of the agricultural policy network and the preferences of the agricultural policy actors in Switzerland. Policy network studies of the agricultural sectors in Euro- pean countries go back to the early 1990s when scholars analyzed the first major liberalization steps in countries such as Britain (Smith 1990), Austria and Switzerland (Sciarini 1994), Sweden (Daugbjerg 1997), Finland (Jokinen 1997) and Denmark (Daugbjerg 1998). Coleman and colleagues (1996) have shown in a comparative study of the United States, Canada, and Australia how paradigmatic shifts in agricultural policy can result from a series of negotiations between state actors and group representatives of the agricultural sector. For European countries, Kriesi et al. (2006) demonstrated in a more recent study the increasing importance of the European Union's policies for domestic agricultural politics.

To analyze the current agricultural policy network in Switzerland, we applied the Actor- Process-Event Scheme (APES) developed by Serdült and Hirschi (2004) and Widmer et al. (2008). According to this conceptualization, every policy process can be understood as a sequence of linked political events in which political actors participate to various degrees. The resulting systematization of the agricultural policy process can be understood and formalized as an actor-event or affiliation network and then analyzed using network analytical concepts and techniques (Wasserman and Faust 1994: 291–343, Borgatti and Halgin 2011). Specifical- ly, we calculated network variables at the level of the whole agricultural network as well as at the actor and tie level. At the network level, we measured the network’s density and centralization to assess to what degree its overall structure is dependent on the position of the most central actors. These two indicators were used in previous studies to identify and characterize a so-called “policy community” in national agricultural policy sectors (Smith 1990, Coleman et al. 1996). At the level of individual actors and their relationships (ties), we used the degree of reciprocity and transitivity as additional indicators for network closure. A high degree of network closure—that is, a network with high density and mutual relationships among its members—builds up trust and mutual support, which generally increases the network’s stability and its capacity to resist external attempts of interference (Daugbjerg 1997).

Empirically, we first collected all available information (from official documents and media reports) on the most recently implemented agricultural reform in Switzerland (Agricultural Policy 2011, AP 2011), developed a detailed chronology of all related and observed political events (expert hearings, official consultations, committee meetings, administrative and governmental decisions, parliamentary sessions), and assigned the participating actors (Appendix 1) and their form of interaction to the identified political events. The resulting dyadic data with the specified forms of interactions that link pairs of actors was then aggregated to a policy network as delimited in Table 5.1. All data transformations and network analyses were done in UCINET 6.4 (Borgatti et al. 2002).

113 Table 5.1: Policy process delimitation and network characteristics

Stage Formulation Decision Overall

Decision of Federal Decision of Federal Council to start Referral of proposal to Council to start Start Parliament Consultation Consultation 17 May 2006 14 Sep 2005 14 Sep 2005

Final decision Final decision of Decision of Federal Parliament on reform Parliament on reform End Council on proposal Package package 17 May 2006 22 June 2007 22 June 2007

Length of stage 246 days 402 days 647 days

No. of actors 22 19 28

Political feasibility and likelihood assessment

To assess a policy network’s disposition for change, a structural analysis alone is not sufficient (for a recent discussion see Henry 2011). To analyze the structural characteristics of the Swiss agricultural policy network in conjunction with the three policy scenarios, we therefore integrated the policy preferences of the network actors into our assessment. Based on Laver (2001: 3) we understand the policy preferences of political actors as “their positions on matters of public policy,” that is, in our specific case the discussed policy issues of maintaining the current domestic support of the agricultural sector (status quo) as well as potential policy reforms of further deregulation (liberalization) or ecologization (greening) of the sector.

Empirically, we proceeded as follows. In a first step, we identified the crucial policy issues of the AP 2011 reform and described them with respect to domestic support (product and export subsidies), access to agricultural market (domestic market support, trade barriers), and the greening of agriculture (advancement of payments for ecological services; ecological product standards). We then coded the network actors’ policy preferences on these issues based on their consultation reports on the AP 2011 governmental proposal (Appendices 2, 3, and 4).

In a second step, the coded policy preferences were integrated as actor attribute data into the policy network analysis. We used a core–periphery model (Borgatti and Everett 1999) that distinguishes centrally positioned actors in the policy network from rather peripheral actors based on their connections to other actors in the network. Based on this model, we examine what policy preferences the core actors of the network have shown and which preferences are, rather, represented in the periphery of the policy network.

In a third step, the policy network structure and the policy preferences were institutionally contextualized. Specifically, we focus on the possibility of a referendum (effectively taken after a policy decision has been made or hypothetically used as a strategic threat during policy formulation) as a key “veto point” in Swiss politics (Immergut 1992, Fischer 2003). To take the veto power of the policy network actors in the potential situation of a referendum into

114 account, we included two additional actor characteristics as additional attribute data for non- state actors into our analysis (Appendix 5): 1) the “organizational capacity” of an actor to collect the required signatures for a potential referendum, operationalized by the size of the membership of an organization; and 2) the general “reputational power” of an actor at the level of the whole political system, i.e., the political resources an actor has to effectively run a national referendum campaign successfully (Fischer et al. 2009).

The identification of the structural characteristics of the policy networks, the policy preferences represented in the network by various actors and the actors’ power to actually push them through the policy process allowed us then to assess the likelihood for the policy network to change into one of the directions as represented by the different policy scenarios.

Possible policy adjustments and recommendations

The policy network’s dependence on its central actors (density and centralization), the policy preferences of the relevant actors (support of or opposition to specific policy issues), as well as the actors’ organizational capacity and general reputational power (veto power) are seen as important parameters for the political feasibility and likelihood of possible policy scenarios. Based on this assessment, the parameters could then be used to adjust the policy variables of the integrated assessment of ecosystem goods and services provision in order to derive a more accurate model, thus better taking into account the current political conditions. Alternatively, by using the output of the integrated assessment as a normative benchmark, policy recommendations could be formulated to modify current policies in order to enhance the sustainable provision of ecosystem goods and services.

5.3 RESULTS

We now turn to the results of our different analytical steps. First, we address the question of the expected impacts of the three policy scenarios on the provision of agricultural ecosystem goods and services.

5.3.1 Impacts on the provision of agricultural ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions

The model-based assessment revealed heterogeneous results with respect to the different ecosystem goods and services assessed in the two study areas (Tables 5.2 and 5.3).

Food production is expected to be reduced in all three scenarios for both regions, which— in general—will increase the provision of non-marketable ecosystem goods and services. As a consequence of a decreasing number of animals, greenhouse gas and ammoniac emissions are expected to decrease too, whereas the share of ecological areas (i.e., extensively cultivated grassland) would increase in the Visp region. In the Jura region, however, simulations predict a future increase of greenhouse gas and ammoniac emissions even for the greening scenario. These modeling results can be explained by the concomitant effects of the assumed acreage- based direct payments and a reduction of farm-gate prices. Lower prices trigger a shift from milk to meat production (heifers), which decreases fodder demand. If direct payments remain high, farmers will increase the number of heifers to maintain the agricultural area.

115 Table 5.2: Scenario-based ecosystem goods and services provision and public support in the Jura

Full-time farmers Policy EGS Indicator Protection Liberalization Greening goal Provision Food production in 100% 74% 19% 41% function wheat equivalent Climate CO equivalent in 2 80% 88% 22% 98% regulation 2010 Nutrient Kg NH3 in 2010 50% 84% 24% 105% cycling Habitat Ecological area in % 100% 130% 114% 250% diversity of total area 2010 Beauty and Open landscape in % 100% 100% 44% 100% tourism of total area 2010 Public support for agriculture 84% 9% 92%

Note: Shaded boxes indicate that the policy goals formulated by the federal publication administration (FOEN and FOAG 2008) are not achieved.

The degree of the reduction in food provision in our model is driven by the market access policy assumption in our scenarios. Based on the assumption of European farm-gate prices for Swiss agriculture—as is the case in the liberalization scenario—food production is expected to be reduced by 81% (Jura) and 75% (Valais). In the greening scenario, simulations show a reduction of 60%. However, food production is also reduced in the status quo-oriented protection scenario. This can be explained by our assumptions of increasing production cost on the one hand and by the effect of less intensive land-use triggered by structural change at the farm level on the other. The degree of changes in non-marketable ecosystem goods and services such as climate regulation, nutrient cycling, and habitat diversity is strongly correlated to the reduction in food production due to the jointness in production between marketable and non- marketable ecosystem goods and services in our modeling approach.

116 Table 5.3: Scenario-based ecosystem goods and services provision and public support in the Valais

Part-time farmers Policy EGS Indicator Protection Liberalization Greening goal Provision Food production in 100% 82% 35% 41% function wheat equivalent Climate CO equivalent in 2 80% 74% 43% 47% regulation 2010 Nutrient Kg NH3 in 2010 50% 68% 44% 49% cycling Habitat Ecological area in % 100% 181% 215% 193% diversity of total area 2010 Beauty and Open landscape in % 100% 99% 100% 100% tourism of total area 2010 Public support for agriculture 79% 68% 105%

Note: Shaded boxes indicate that the policy goals formulated by the federal publication administration (FOEN and FOAG 2008) are not achieved.

With respect to the maintenance of an open landscape, our findings indicate that acreage- based direct payments can compensate for the reduction in prices in the Jura region. Without these payments, more than half of the area is expected to be abandoned in the liberalization scenario. In contrast, the liberalization scenario does not lead to land abandonment in the Va- lais. This effect can be explained by the initial farm structure and the corresponding attitudes of the part-time farmers living in this region. Part-time farmers are less dependent on agricultural income. Furthermore, the farmers have stated in our survey that they will continue to farm their land even when the income from agricultural production is low.

In summary, the modeled liberalization scenario results in a massive reduction of public support for the agricultural sector and an increase in non-marketable ecosystem goods and services at the expense of food production in both regions. In contrast, the protection scenario shows the least impact on agricultural production, and, thus, would miss greenhouse gas and ammoniac reduction targets in the Jura region and the ammoniac target in the Valais. In addition, public support remains high. This result holds also with respect to the greening scenario, which performs best in the provision of less intensively used ecological areas. However, emission targets would still be missed in the Jura region.

Given the trade-offs in the provision of different ecosystem goods and services, no scenario could fulfill all the policy goals formulated by the federal public administration (FOEN and FOAG 2008). Technological change and an increase in productivity beyond the assumptions in the model might reduce this gap. However, our findings suggest that the differences in the provision of ecosystem goods and services in the two regions—based on natural conditions, initial farm structure, and the corresponding attitudes—will remain.

117 5.3.2 Policy network analysis

The policy network that has formed during the formulation and decision-making stages of the AP 2011 reform process is displayed in Figure 5.2. Each individual representation of the policy network shows the network structure combined with the actors’ policy preferences regarding the three identified key issues of Swiss agricultural policy. The network itself has mainly been shaped by two key elements of the process: firstly, by the broad consultation process that took place at the end of the year 2005 and in the beginning of 2006 with the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), the responsible ministry (Department of Economic Affairs, DEA), and the Federal Council (FC) being the central actors; and secondly, during the stage of the parliamentary deliberation and decision making on the governmental reform proposal, by the negotiations in and between the responsible parliamentary committees (PNC and PCS) and the two chambers of the parliament (NC and CS). The political parties and main interest organizations are embedded in the policy network to various degrees. The main sectoral interest organization (Swiss Farmers’ Association, SBV) is centrally positioned in the network and has close connections to both the federal public administration (mainly represented by DEA and FOAG) and the government (FC) and—via its parliamentary representatives—to the two chambers of the federal parliament. The political parties are, rather, positioned at the periphery of the network, even though they are certainly the main actors in parliament and, therefore, are also included in the parliamentary bodies of NC, CS, PNC, and PCS.

118 Figure 5.2: Policy network structure and policy positions

Domestic support Market access TRA PCS TRA PCS CON CON

SAB SAB SBV SVP SBV UNI UNI SVP PNS PNS KBV KBV CS CS ASS ASS SPS SPS FOA FOA NC NC FC ENV GRE FC ENV GRE FDP FDP FDEA FDEA

PAR PAR ECO ECO OTH DEL OTH DEL

CAN CAN CVP ANI CVP ANI FD FD FDJP FDJP

Greening

TRA PCS CON Legend: SAB Actor colors: policy preferences on the issues of “domestic support,” “market access”, and “greening” in SBV UNI SVP the realm of AP 2011 PNS Strong support for issue KBV Moderate support for issue CS ASS Moderate opposition against issue SPS Strong opposition against issue FOA No/indifferent position NC FC ENV Size of actors: formal veto power (high, moderate, low) for non-state actors (squares) in the political pro- GRE FDP cess FDEA Triangles: state actors PAR Thickness of line: tie strength based on the number of observed interactions between two actors in the realm of the AP 2011 policy process ECO DEL OTH For a list of actors with acronyms see Appendix 1.

CAN CVP ANI FD

119 FDJP

Table 5.4 shows the measurements for the two indicators for network density and centralization that have been used in previous studies to assess the existence of a “policy community.” The indicators reveal the sector’s strong focus on the government’s AP 2011 proposal. In particular, the formulation stage is almost entirely dependent on the central actors from the government and the federal public administration (FC, DEA, and FOA). These three actors steered the formulation process, as expressed by the high centralization of the policy network at that particular stage. During decision making in parliament, the network became denser and centralization decreased, which corresponds to the broadening of the political process during the parliamentary negotiation on the reform package. In addition, the measurements for reciprocity and transitivity show—rather surprisingly—a relatively low level of network closure, even though the mixed results for reciprocity and transitivity for the two analyzed network stages do not indicate a clear tendency.

Table 5.4: Network cohesion in reform formulation and decision-making

Stage Formulation Decision Overall Network size (no. of actors) 22 19 28 Network density (%) 0.17 0.21 0.17 (no. of ties) (79) (72) (128) Degree centralization (%) 0.82 0.66 0.80 Reciprocity (%) 0.36 0.18 0.31 Transitivity (%) 0.25 0.45 0.29

Note: Network density is defined as proportion of observed relations in relation to all possible relations. Degree centralization indicates the dependence of the network on one or a small number of actors. Reciprocity shows the share of ties (dyads) in the network that are “confirmed” between two actors. Transitivity displays the degree of ordered triples in which i—>j and j—>k. All network measurements were calculated using dichotomized data. Before calculating network centralization, the data were symmetrized.

In sum, the structural analysis of the agricultural policy network shows how the policy process was strongly shaped by the most central actors representing the executive and federal administration (during formulation) and legislative (decision-making) branches of the federal government. However, the policy network does not reveal a clear tendency to network closure, indicating a more open policy process than was initially assumed based on previously found “policy communities” in European agricultural policy sectors of the 1980s and 1990s.

5.3.3 Assessment of future scenarios considering the policy network variables

To assess the potential impacts of the structural characteristics of the policy network on the different scenarios for ecosystem goods and services provision in the future, we considered the policy preferences of the relevant political actors.

The interactions between structural and actor policy preferences are shown in Table 5.5 where the core–periphery analysis of the policy network structure is combined with a systematization of the actors’ policy preferences regarding the reduction of domestic support for agricultural products, the deregulation of international agricultural markets and the support of a further greening of the agricultural sector. For the preferences regarding the domestic support of Swiss agriculture and its potential further deregulation, the analysis reveals a strong cleavage between supporters and opponents of the AP 2011 reform. The supporting actors

120 include the majority of the legislative and executive branches of the Swiss government, all governmental agencies, and trade associations. The opponents consist of the Swiss Farmers’ Association (SBV) and the main political right-wing party SVP; the SVP has strong traditional ties with farmers and acts, together with the SBV, as their main political advocate. Regard- ing the issues of domestic support and international deregulation, the supportive actors are found in the core of the policy network, whereas opponents are located at the periphery. However, due to its organizational capacity and the generally high reputational power (displayed by the size of the actors in Figure 5.2), we expect the opponents to in fact have a stronger political influence than what emanates from our network data. In addition, it has to be assumed that informal contacts between the network actors will also impact the policy process. These informal contacts, however, are not displayed by our data.

Table 5.5: Policy positions of core actors

Reduction of domestic support Deregulation of international Greening of agricultural for agricultural products agricultural market sector

Strongly TRA TRA supportive

Supportive FC, FOA, FDEA, CS, PNC FC, FOA, FDEA, CS, PNC FC, FOA, FDEA, CS, PNS

Indifferent/ SBV, TRA ambivalent

Opposed

Strongly SBV, SVP SBV, SVP SVP opposed

Note: Core/periphery model (CORR algorithm) according to Borgatti and Everett (1999) based on a valued directed graph. Policy positions based on overall scores in Appendix 2, 3 and 4.

For the issue of greening, our results reveal a different picture. Again, the legislative and executive branches of government and all government agencies are supportive with regard to this issue. But unlike the other two issues, strong opposition arises only from the political party SVP. The SBV has an ambivalent opinion towards greening, meaning that its policy preferences are neither clearly supportive nor opposing. This ambivalence can be explained by the SBV’s preference for a key core policy that maintains the income level of farmers and sustains the agricultural sector, at least in its current economic size. Hence, the SBV supports a greening scenario if it results in maintaining or even expanding direct payments for the agricultural sector, but opposes it if the consequences would mean a complete switch from production-oriented to a purely ecologically based direct payment system. However, the SBV could also be forced to support at least some elements of a greening scenario if ecologically oriented interests successfully form an alliance with liberal and left-wing political parties. Such an alliance would pose a credible threat due its veto power at the national political level,

121 even though individual members of such a “green” alliance are rather peripheral actors in the agricultural policy network.

Given the structure of the current Swiss agricultural policy network and the policy preferences of the network actors, which of the three policy scenario seems most politically feasible and, thus, most likely?

Scenario 1: Status quo

The status-quo scenario seems very likely given the current structure of the policy network and the alignment of the policy preferences in the sector. Further steps towards a significant decrease in public support for the agricultural sector will most probably face strong opposition from the agricultural sector itself, which would be politically supported by the SVP. Giv- en the strong mobilizing power of the most important actors opposing such steps (SBV and SVP), it seems rather unlikely that the supporters of such a step will take the risk of a too- ambitious reform proposal. Furthermore, we expect the actors opposing a further liberalization and greening to be able to actively mobilize resources to protect the status quo against challengers. However, given the strong and relatively stable policy preferences of the actors on the relevant issues, neither can we expect an opposite trend towards a significant extension of public support for the agricultural sector. Rather, given the policy preferences of the relevant actors and their current position in the policy network, we expect a continuation of public support for the agricultural sector at current levels. Such a continuation could involve active attempts to punctually weaken some recent reforms during the implementation stage as well as policy adjustments to preserve the status quo against current and future technological or socio-economic developments (Baumgartner et al. 2009b: 247–250). Overall, the current policy network structure and the alignment of the policy preferences in the sector comply with the conditions necessary to maintain the status quo.

Scenario 2: Liberalization

The liberalization scenario seems rather unlikely. The argumentation here is very much in line with the one regarding the status quo scenario. Both the structure of the network and the policy preferences of the relevant actors indicate a center–periphery cleavage, with the SBV and the SVP currently being in a position to successfully veto further liberalization attempts. Again, since core aspects of the actors’ policy preferences are concerned, changes in the policy preferences of these actors with significant political power cannot be expected in the nearer future. Quite the contrary, it seems possible that policy reforms that were decided during the formulation of the previous agricultural reform could even be weakened during the implementation stage of the reform and/or that some reforms could even be reversed through future legislative acts. Given the current policy network structure, it can only be assumed that a major recomposition of the agricultural policy network, for example due to important developments at the broader national or international political level and/or through the entering of new and powerful political actors into the agricultural policy network, will lead to a major policy change towards an economic liberalization of the agricultural sector.

Scenario 3: Greening

With respect to the scenario of a further greening of the agricultural sector, the analysis reveals neither a strong core–periphery cleavage nor a significant cleavage among the key actors (with the exception of the SVP on the political right wing). Given the greening’s mainly

122 instrumental function for the main part of the agricultural sector itself, it seems realistic that the issue will stay on the political agenda as a (probably even more) central issue in future agricultural reforms. As illustrated by the position of the SBV, the agricultural sector seems, overall, to be willing to back this process as long the production-oriented support for the farmers does not get abolished entirely, and the economic level and significance of the agricultural sector can at least be maintained. However, given the opposition of the SBV towards a complete abolishment of production-oriented public support, a complete shift towards an entirely ecologically oriented direct payment scheme seems unlikely.

5.4 DISCUSSION

Our policy network analysis has shown how the central actors in the Swiss agricultural policy subsystem were able to use their political power resulting from shared policy preferences and closely coordinated political interactions to push the main parts of the AP 2011 reform through parliament. Even though the indicators for network closure revealed ambivalent results, the policy network still incorporates characteristics of a “policy community” (Smith 1990, Coleman et al. 1996) consisting of close and stable memberships, which typically includes the main responsible government ministry or agency in the policy subsystem and a few privileged producer groups and their interest organizations. Policy communities share an ideology about how major policy issues in the sector should be addressed. Across Europe, agricultural policy communities had used their political power to impede policy reforms towards a more market-oriented and sustainable development of the sector (Carter 2007: 188).

As in other countries, however, the dominant policy community in the Swiss agricultural sector had been weakened by the major agricultural reforms of the 1990s, as our network indicators clearly indicate; it is today more dependent on political alliances than in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Sciarini 1994, Sciarini et al. 2001). But still, as our network analysis shows, a status-quo scenario seems to be the most likely development. The actors’ preferences with regard to the main agricultural policy issues are currently relatively stable, which is why major transformations of the Swiss agricultural sector cannot be expected in the nearer future.

In contrast, a liberalization scenario appears very unlikely given the current policy network structure and the policy preferences of the key actors in the network, even though the reduction of financial transfers from consumers (and taxpayers) to farmers would be considerable. But the realization of the scenario would require a major policy change, which would face the strong opposition of the sector’s main interest organizations. Such a change seems politically realistic only in combination with major political pressure from other economically powerful sectors and/or broader national or international political developments (as seen with the major agricultural reforms in Switzerland in the early-1990s, see Sciarini 1994) or due to major political and/or economic crises (Swinnen 2009). Accordingly, a stronger liberalization of the agricultural sector (if politically desirable) would probably have to be integrated in a wider policy framework with issue linkages to other policy sectors, e.g., as a consequence of a deeper Swiss integration into European Union policies, or in the context of the World Trade Organization. However, such policy linkages would result in a conflictive domestic negotiation process within and between policy sectors (Coleman et al. 1996, Sciarini and Nicolet 2005) and would have a highly uncertain outcome.

The results from the model-based assessment of ecosystem goods and services provision in mountain regions support the likelihoods of the scenarios as found in the policy network

123 analysis. As with many others model-based assessments of ecosystem services (e.g., Rodriguez et al. 2006, Groot et al. 2007, Waldhardt et al. 2010, Helming et al. 2011), our findings reveal trade-offs between marketable and non-marketable ecosystem goods and services inherent to the agricultural production process (Abler 2004). In addition, natural conditions and the initial farm structures result in different levels of provision of ecosystem goods and services, as seen in the analysis of the two case study regions as well as in other studies of European mountain regions (Hanley et al. 2012, Flury et al. 2013). No scenario fulfills all the policy goals formulated by the federal public administration. As a consequence, policy changes that alter current production incentives (liberalization, greening) would reduce the provision of one of the modeled ecosystem goods and services, at least in one of the studied regions.

Hence, even though the greening scenario could become a more realistic scenario in the future according to the network analysis, the resulting reduction in the production level would probably still provoke opposition from the sector’s main interest organization, the Swiss Farmers’ Association (SBV). The conservative political right wing would most certainly not accept a scenario that leads to large-scale reductions in agricultural production (Huber et al. 2011). However, our findings also indicate that policy measures that would support an increase of non-marketable ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions may not be supported in the political process either because their impact does not generally increase the provision of all ecosystem goods and services within the different regions. In addition, the combination of different policy instruments in one policy scenario revealed the importance of a concomitant consideration of the different effects. In the greening scenario, the reduction in market access resulted in a considerable decrease of agricultural production, which, in turn, would reduce the likelihood of the scenario—even if payments for environmental services would find acceptance in the political process.

Methodologically, our study has demonstrated how a policy network approach provides a useful way to assess the feasibility and likelihood of policy developments as they can be derived from scenario-based ex-ante assessments using economic models. In addition to previous studies (Selin and VanDeveer 2007), we have extended the qualitative scenario storylines with predictions of ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions based on an integrative modeling approach. We are aware that the results of model-based scenario assessments are associated with uncertainty (Fischer et al. 2007) and may change considerably if underlying parameters and assumptions are adjusted (Sterman 1991). Sensitivity analysis and a more integrated assessment (e.g., Van Ittersum and Brouwer 2009), optionally combined with closer stakeholder involvement (e.g., Brand et al. 2013), may increase the accuracy of the future provision of ecosystem services. But more fundamentally, the policy network taken into consideration in our study was not just assumed but measured empirically. This allowed us to conceptually include political variables into our assessment of possible future developments of Swiss agricultural policy. Empirically, the network characteristics provide—in combination with a categorization of the policy preferences—a more accurate and realistic picture of actual political processes than in previous model-based ex-ante assessments.

5.5 CONCLUSION

The analysis of potential agricultural policy developments based on a policy network study shows that a production-oriented agricultural policy still has strong political support—despite potential negative ecological and economic effects. Furthermore, the proponents of the policy have the capacity to preserve the status quo, even though they might be forced occasionally to

124 make punctual concessions to oppositional actors that demand a more ecological and stronger free-market-oriented policy. Major attempts to fundamentally challenge the current policy, however, would most certainly mobilize the defenders of the status quo, who are in a strategi- cally favorable position to also effectively defend it. Given this political constellation, a status-quo scenario seems therefore very likely. A scenario of greening could provide a politically realistic alternative given the policy preferences of the main political actors in the current agricultural policy network if the proponents of a greening scenario succeed in getting the main political representative of the sector (organized in the Swiss Farmers’ Association) on board. This seems politically realistic if a more ecologically oriented direct payment scheme would guarantee compensation for decreased product-oriented support and agricultural production would not be reduced dramatically. However, our model-based assessment shows—at least for mountain regions—that agricultural production would decrease considerably in a greening scenario, which, again, increases the likeliness of a status-quo scenario. Thus, if politically desired, the implementation of more environmentally friendly agricultural policy measures has to reconcile the support of the provision of non-marketable ecosystem goods and services with concomitant policy changes (such as market deregulation) which directly affect the level of agricultural production.

The combination of a policy network approach with an ex-ante policy assessment model proved suitable and revealed the importance of concomitant policy measures in the implementation of policy instruments that potentially increase the provision of ecosystem goods and services in mountain regions. It allowed us to systematically include political variables into the assessment of possible future developments of Swiss agricultural policy and, thus, to overcome one of the major inaccuracies of ex-ante policy assessments: the neglect or misrep- resentation of the underlying political structures. Nevertheless, some limitations of our approach should be mentioned too. Despite the systematic analysis in the individual parts of our conceptual framework (ex-ante optimization model, policy network analysis, analysis of the actors’ policy preferences as well as the consideration of organizational and institutional characteristics), the links between these analytical components are based on mainly qualitative descriptions of the underlying mechanisms. Even though such a qualitative approach is common practice in scenario analysis (Garb et al. 2008, Pulver and VanDeveer 2009), these connections would need more scrutiny in order to be able to examine causal relationships (Gerring 2010, Glynn and Quinn 2011). A further step in the linkage between the policy- making process on the one hand and economic and ecological impacts on the other hand could include the insights from the policy network analysis directly in the ex-ante model- based assessment using quantified network measures. This, however, would ask for a different modeling approach, such as genetic algorithms that are able to systematically consider different combinations of policy alternatives instead of conventional scenario analysis.

125 LITERATURE CITED

Abildtrup, J., E. Audsley, M. Fekete-Farkas, C. Giupponi, M. Gylling, P. Rosato, and M. Rounsevell. 2006. Socio-economic scenario development for the assessment of climate change impacts on agricultural land use: a pairwise comparison approach. Environmental Science & Policy 9:101–115. Abler, D. 2004. Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy. Agriculture and Resource Economics Review 33:8–18. Adam, S. and H. Kriesi. 2007. The Network Approach. Pages 129–154 in P. A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Anderson, K. 2010. The Political Economy of Agricultural Price Distortions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bare, J. 2011. Recommendation for land use impact assessment: first steps into framework, theory, and implementation. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 13:7–18. Baumgartner, F. R., J. M. Berry, M. Hojnacki, D. C. Kimball, and B. L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, And Why. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Bezlepkina, I., P. Reidsma, S. Sieber, and K. Helming. 2010. Integrated assessment of sustainability of agricultural systems and land use: Methods, tools and applications. Agricultural Systems 104:105–109. Borgatti, S. P. and M. G. Everett. 1999. Models of Core/Periphery Structures. Social Networks 21:375–395. Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA. Borgatti, S. P. and D. S. Halgin. 2011. Analyzing Affiliation Networks. Pages 417–433 in J. Scott and P. J. Carrington, editors. The SAGE Hanbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE, Los Angeles, CA. Brand, F., R. Seidl, Q. B. Le, J. Brändle, and R. W. Scholz. 2013. Constructing Consistent Multiscale Scenarios by Transdisciplinary Processes: The Case of Mountain Regions Facing Global Change. Ecology and Society 18:43 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art43/. Briner, S., R. Huber, C. Elkin, and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2012. Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: A spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 149:50–63. Carter, N. 2007. The Politics of the Environment – Ideas, Activism, Policy. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Coleman, W. d., G. D. Skogstad, and M. M. Atkinson. 1996. Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture. Journal Of Public Policy 16:273–301. Daugbjerg, C. 1997. Policy Networks and Agricultural Policy Reforms: Explaining Deregulation in Sweden and Re-Regulation in the European Community. Governance 10:123–142. Daugbjerg, C. 1998. Linking Policy Networks and Environmental Policies: Nitrate Policy Making in Denmark and Sweden 1970–1995. Public Administration 76:275–294. Davies, H. T. O., S. M. Nutley, and P. C. Smith. 2000. What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. The Policy Press, Bristol.

126 De Gorter, H. and J. Swinnen. 2002. Political economy of agricultural policy. Pages 1893– 1943 in B. L. Gardner and G. C. Rausser, editors. Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. De Smedt, P. 2011. The Use of Impact Assessment Tools to Support Sustainable Policy Objectives in Europe. Ecology and Society 14:30. Dilly, O. and D. J. Pannell. 2009. Sustainability impact assessment and land-use policies for sensitive regions. Environmental Science & Policy 12:1075–1076. European Commission. 2004. Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis of mountain areas in EU member states, acceeding and other European countries. European Commission, Brussels. Fischer, A. 2003. Vetospieler und die Durchsetzbarkeit von Side-Payments: Der schweizerische innenpolitische Entscheidungsprozess um flankierende Massnahmen zur Personenfreizügigkeit mit der Europäischen Union. Swiss Political Science Review 9:27– 58. Fischer, A., L. Petersen, C. Feldkötter, and W. Huppert. 2007. Sustainable Governance of Natural Resources and Institutional Change: An Analytical Framework. Public Administration and Development 27:123–137. Fischer, M., A. Fischer, and P. Sciarini. 2009. Power and Conflict in the Swiss Political Elite: An Aggregation of Existing Network Analyses. Swiss Political Science Review 15:31–62. Flury, C., R. Huber, and E. Tasser. 2013. The Future of Mountain Agriculture in the Alps. Pages 105–126 in S. Mann, editor. The Future of Mountain Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. FOEN and FOAG. 2008. Umweltziele Landwirtschaft: Hergeleitet aus bestehenden rechtlichen Grundlagen. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), Bern. Garb, Y., S. Pulver, and S. D. VanDeveer. 2008. Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of story-driven environmental modeling. Environmental Research Letters 3:045015. Gerring, J. 2010. Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But... Comparative Political Studies 43:1499– 1526. Glynn, A. N. and K. M. Quinn. 2011. Why Process Matters for Causal Inference. Political Analysis 19:273–286. Grêt-Regamey, A., A. Walz, and P. Bebi. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Landscape Planning in Alpine Regions. Mountain Research and Development 28:156– 165. Groot, J. C. J., W. A. H. Rossing, A. Jellema, D. J. Stobbelaar, H. Renting, and M. K. van Ittersum. 2007. Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality – A methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 120:58–69. Hanley, N., S. Acs, M. Dallimer, K. J. Gaston, A. Graves, J. Morris, and P. R. Armsworth. 2012. Farm-scale ecological and economic impacts of agricultural change in the uplands. Land Use Policy 29:587–597. Helming, K., K. Diehl, T. Kuhlman, T. Jansson, P. H. Verburg, M. Bakker, M. Perez-Soba, L. Jones, P. J. Verkerk, P. Tabbush, J. Breton Morris, Z. Drillet, J. Farrington, P. LeMouël, P. Zagame, T. Stuczynski, G. Siebielec, S. Sieber, and H. Wiggering. 2011. Ex Ante Impact Assessment of Policies Affecting Land Use, Part B: Application of the Analytical Framework. Ecology and Society 16:29 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss21/art29/.

127 Helming, K. and M. Pérez-Soba. 2011. Landscape Scenarios and Multifunctionality: Making Land Use Impact Assessment Operational. Ecology and Society 16:50 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss51/art50/. Henry, A. D. 2011. Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 39:361–383. Hertin, J., J. Turnpenny, A. Jordan, M. Nilsson, D. Russel, and B. Nykvist. 2009. Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessments and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. Environment and Planning A 41:1185–1200. Hirschi, C. 2010. Strengthening Regional Cohesion: Collaborative Networks and Sustainable Development in Swiss Rural Areas. Ecology and Society 15:16 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss14/art16/. Huber, R., S. Briner, A. Peringer, S. Lauber, R. Seidl, A. Widmer, F. Gillet, A. Büttler, Q. B. Le, and C. Hirschi. 2013a. Modeling Social-Ecological Feedback Effects in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Pasture-Woodlands. Ecology and Society 18:41 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art41/. Huber, R., M. Hunziker, and B. Lehmmann. 2011. Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54:93–113. Huber R., A. Rigling , P. Bebi, F. Brand, S. Briner, A. Büttler, C. Elkin, F. Gillet, A. Grêt- Regamey, C. Hirschi, H. Lischke, R. Scholz, R. Seidl, T. Spiegelberger, A. Walz, W. Zimmermann, and H. Bugmann. 2013b. Sustainable land use in mountain regions under global change: Synthesis across scales and disciplines. Ecology and Society 18:36 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art36/. Huber, U. M., H. K. M. Bugmann, and M. A. Reasoner, editors. 2005. Global Change and Mountain Regions: Overview of Current Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York, NY. Immergut, E. M. 1992. The rules of the game: The logic of health policy-making in France, Switzerland, and Sweden. Pages 57–89 in S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, and F. Longstreth, editors. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Imperial, M. T. 1999. Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management 24:449– 465. IPCC. 2000. IPCC Special Report Emissions Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva. IPCC. 2001. Special Report on The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva. Jokinen, P. 1997. Agricultural Policy Community and the Challenge of Greening: The Case of Finnish Agri-Environmental Policy. Environmental Politics 6:48–71. Jones, B. D. 1999. Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science 2:297–321. Jones, B. D. 2003. Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy. Journal of Public Adminstration Research and Theory 13:394–412. Knoke, D. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Knoke, D. 2011. Policy Networks. Pages 210–222 in J. P. Scott and P. Carrington, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE, London.

128 Kok, K. and T. A. Veldkamp. 2011. Scale and Governance: Conceptual Considerations and Practical Implications. Ecology and Society 16:23 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss22/art23/. Kriesi, H., S. Adam, and M. Jochum. 2006. Comparative analysis of policy networks in Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 13:341–361. Laumann, E. O. and D. Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Laver, M. 2001. Why should we estimate the policy positions of political actors? Pages 3–9 in M. Laver, editor. Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. Routledge, London and New York, NY. Nilsson, M., A. Jordan, J. Turnpenny, J. Hertin, B. Nykvist, and D. Russel. 2008. The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sciences 41:335–355. Pulver, S. and S. D. VanDeveer. 2009. 'Thinking About Tomorrows': Scenarios, Global Environmental Politics, and Social Science Scholarship. Global Environmental Politics 9:1–13. Rausser, G. C. and R. E. Goodhue. 2002. Public policy: Its many analytical dimensions. Pages 2057–2102 in B. L. Gardner and G. C. Rausser, editors. Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Rausser, G. C. and J. Swinnen. 2011. Governance Structures, Political Economy and Public Policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93:310–316. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham. Rodriguez, J. P., T. D. J. Beard, E. M. Bennett, G. S. Cumming, S. J. Cork, J. Agard, A. P. Dobson, and G. D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services. Ecology and Society 11:28 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss21/art28/. Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Sanderson, I. 2002. Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-based Policy Making. Public Administration 80:1–22. Sciarini, P. 1994. La Suisse face à la Communauté Euopéenne et au GATT: Le cas test de la politique agricole. Editions Georg, Genève. Sciarini, P. and S. Nicolet. 2005. Internationalization and Domestic Politics: Evidence from the Swiss Case. Pages 221–238 in H. Kriesi, P. Farago, M. Kohli, and M. Zarin-Nejadan, editors. Contemporary Switzerland: Revisiting the Special Case. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Sciarini, P., S. Nicolet, and A. Fischer. 2001. L'impact de l'internationalisation sur les processus de décision en Suisse: une analyse quantitative des actes législatif 1995–99. Papier présenté au Congrès annuel de l'Association suisse de science politique, Fribourg, 8–9 novembre 2001, Chavannes-près-Renens. Selin, H. and S. D. VanDeveer. 2007. Political Science and Prediction: What's Next for U.S. Climate Policy? Review of Policy Research 24:1–27. Serdült, U. and C. Hirschi. 2004. From Process to Structure: Developing a Reliable and Valid Tool for Policy Network Comparison. Swiss Political Science Review 10:137–155. Smith, M. J. 1990. The Politics of Agricultural Support in Britain: The Development of an Agricultural Policy Community. Dartmouth, London.

129 Sterman, J. D. 1991. A skeptic's guide to computer models. Pages 209–229 in G. O. Barney, W. B. Kreutzer, and M. J. Garrett, editors. Managing a Nation: The Microcomputer Software Catalog. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Stucki, E. W., O. Roque, M. Schuler, and Perlink. 2004. Contents and impacts of mountain policies Switzerland: National report for the study on "Analysis of mountain areas in the European Union and in the applicant countries" (Report commissioned by the SECO, Federal Department of Economic Affairs). State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Bern. Swimmen, J. and F. A. van der Zee. 1993. The political economy of agricultural policies: A survey. European Review of Agricultural Economics 20:261–290. Swinnen, J. F. M. 2009. The Growth of Agricultural Protection in Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries. World Economy 32:1499–1537. Van Ittersum, M. K. and F. Brouwer. 2009. Integrated assessment of agricultural and environmental policies – concepts and tools. Environmental Science & Policy 12:543–545. Veldkamp, A. and E. F. Lambin. 2001. Predicting land-use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 85:1–6. Verburg, P. H., D. B. van Berkel, A. M. van Doorn, M. van Eupen, and H. A. R. M. van den Heiligenberg. 2010. Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landscape Ecology 25:217–232. Waldhardt, R., M. Bach, R. Borresch, L. Breuer, T. Dietkötter, H.-G. Frede, S. Gäth, O. Ginzler, T. Gottschalk, S. Julich, M. Krumpholz, F. Kuhlmann, A. Otte, B. Reger, W. Reiher, K. Schmitz, P. M. Schmitz, P. Sheridan, D. Simmering, C. Weist, V. Wolters, and D. Zörner. 2010. Evaluating Today's Landscape Multifunctionality and Providing an Alternative Future: A Normative Scenario Approach. Ecology and Society 15:30 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss33/art30/. Walz, A., J. M. Braendle, D. J. Lang, F. Brand, S. Briner, C. Elkin, C. Hirschi, R. Huber, H. Lischke, and D. R. Schmatz. 2014. Experience from downscaling IPCC-SRES scenarios to specific national-level scenarios for ecosystem service management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 86:21–32. Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Westhoek, H. J., M. van den Berg, and J. A. Bakkes. 2006. Scenario development to explore the future of Europe's rural areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:7–20. Widmer, T. 2009. The Contribution of Evidence-Based Policy to the Output-Oriented Legitimacy of the State. Evidence & Policy 5:351–372. Widmer, T., C. Hirschi, U. Serdült, and C. Vögeli. 2008. Analysis with APES, the Actor Process Event Scheme. Pages 150–171 in M. M. Bergmann, editor. Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications. SAGE, Los Angeles, CA. Wittrock, B. and P. de Leon. 1986. Policy as a Moving Target: A Call for Conceptual Realism. Review of Policy Research 6:44–60. Young, O. R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Young, O. R., L. A. King, and H. Schroeder, editors. 2008. Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

130 APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Actor list

Acronym Actor

ANI Animal Protection Organizations ASS Other Professional Associations CAN Cantons COM Referendum Committee CON Consumer Organizations CS Council of States CVP Christian Democratic Party DEL Swiss Delegation WTO Negotiations ECO Economiesuisse ENV Environmental and Development Organizations FC Swiss Federal Council FD Finance Delegation NC-CS FDEA Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDJP Federal Department of Justice and Police FDP Free Democratic Party FOA Federal Office for Agriculture GRE Green Party KBV Cantonal Farmers’ Associations NC National Council OTH Other Associations or Organizations PAR Other Political Parties PCS Parliamentary Committee Economy and Dues CS PNC Parliamentary Committee Economy and Dues NC SAB Swiss Association for Mountain Regions SBV Swiss Farmers’ Association SPS Social Democratic Party SVP Swiss People’s Party TRA Trade Associations UNI Trade Unions

131 Appendix 2: Actor policy positions on decreasing domestic support for agricultural products

Support for the reduction of public support for agricultural products Actor Dairy Meat Fruits/Veg. Grain Overall ANI 0 0 0 0 0.00 ASS 0 0 0 0 0.00 CAN -1 1 -2 -1 -0.75 CON 1 1 1 1 1.00 CS -1 1 1 1 0.50 CVP 1 -1 -1 -1 -0.50 DEL 1 1 1 1 1.00 ECO 1 1 1 1 1.00 ENV 1 1 1 1 1.00 FC 1 1 1 1 1.00 FD 0 0 0 0 0.00 FDEA 1 1 1 1 1.00 FDJP 0 0 0 0 0.00 FDP 2 2 2 2 2.00 FOA 1 1 1 1 1.00 GRE 1 1 1 1 1.00 KBV -2 -2 -1 -1 -1.50 NC -1 1 1 1 0.50 OTH 0 0 0 0 0.00 PAR 0 0 0 0 0.00 PCS -1 1 1 1 0.50 PNS -1 1 1 1 0.50 SAB -2 -2 -2 -2 -2.00 SBV -2 -2 -1 -1 -1.50 SPS 1 1 1 1 1.00 SVP -2 -2 -2 -2 -2.00 TRA 2 2 2 2 2.00 UNI -2 -2 -2 -2 -2.00 Note: 2 = AP 2011 does not far enough (strong reduction of domestic support for agricultural products); 1 = support for measures proposed in AP 2011 (reduction of domestic support for agricultural products); 0 = no/indifferent position; -1 = maintaining status quo (maintaining support level prior AP 2011); -2 = status quo prior AP 2011 already too low (extension of public support). Overall = mean value.

132 Appendix 3: Actor policy preferences on deregulating agricultural trade

Reduction of domes- Reduction of domes- Reduction of tariffs Overall Actor tic export support tic market support on agricultural goods (mean) ANI 0 0 0 0.00 ASS 0 0 0 0.00 CAN -1 -1 -1 -1.00 CON 1 1 1 1.00 CS 1 1 1 1.00 CVP -1 1 1 0.33 DEL 2 1 1 1.33 ECO 1 1 1 1.00 ENV 1 1 1 1.00 FC 2 1 1 1.33 FD 0 0 0 0.00 FDEA 2 1 1 1.33 FDJP 0 0 0 0.00 FDP 2 2 2 2.00 FOA 2 1 1 1.33 GRE 1 1 1 1.00 KBV -2 -2 -2 -2.00 NC 1 1 1 1.00 OTH 0 0 0 0.00 PAR 0 0 0 0.00 PCS 1 1 1 1.00 PNS 1 1 1 1.00 SAB -2 -2 -2 -2.00 SBV -2 -2 -2 -2.00 SPS 1 1 1 1.00 SVP -2 -2 -2 -2.00 TRA 2 2 2 2.00 UNI -2 -2 -2 -2.00

Note: Reduction of domestic export/market support: 2 = AP 2011 does not far enough (strong support for reduction of domestic support); 1 = support for measures proposed in AP 2011 (moderate support for reduction of domestic support); 0 = no/indifferent position; -1 = maintaining status quo (maintaining support level prior AP 2011 = moderate opposition against reduction of domestic support); -2 = status quo prior AP 2011 already too low (strong opposition against reduction of public support or even claim for extension of public support). Reduc- tion of tariffs on agricultural goods: 2 = AP 2011 does not go far enough (strong support of market access); 1 = support for measures proposed in AP 2011 (support of market access); 0 = no/indifferent position; -1 = contra AP 2011 proposal (moderate opposition against better market access); -2 = status quo already overboard (strong opposition against better market access). Overall = mean value.

133 Appendix 4: Actor policy positions on greening the agricultural sector

Increasing direct payments Increasing eco-standards for Overall Actor for ecological services agricultural products (mean) ANI 2 2 2.00 ASS 0 0 0.00 CAN 1 -1 0.00 CON 0 2 1.00 CS 1 0 0.50 CVP 1 1 1.00 DEL 1 1 1.00 ECO 0 -1 -0.50 ENV 2 2 2.00 FC 1 1 1.00 FD 0 0 0.00 FDEA 1 1 1.00 FDJP 0 0 0.00 FDP 0 0 0.00 FOA 1 1 1.00 GRE 2 2 2.00 KBV 1 -1 0.00 NC 1 0 0.50 OTH 0 0 0.00 PAR 0 0 0.00 PCS 1 1 1.00 PNC 1 1 1.00 SAB 1 1 1.00 SBV 1 -1 0.00 SPS 1 1 1.00 SVP -2 -2 -2.00 TRA 0 0 0.00 UNI 1 1 1.00

Note: 2 = AP does not go far enough (strong support/increase of payments/standards); 1 = support for measures proposed in AP 2011 (support/increase of payments/standards); 0 = no/indifferent position (neutral); -1 = maintaining status quo (refusal of further increase of payments/standards); -2 = status quo prior AP 2011 already overboard (strong refusal/decrease of payments/standards). Overall = mean value.

134 Appendix 5: Organizational capacity and reputational power of non-state actors in the agricultural sector

Organizational Reputational Actor Overall score capacity power ANI 1 0 2 ASS 0 0 1 CAN - - - COM - - - CON 0 0 1 CS - - - CVP 1 1 3 DEL - - - ECO 1 1 3 ENV 1 0 2 FC - - - FD - - - FDEA - - - FDJP - - - FDP 1 1 3 FOA - - - GRE 1 0 2 KBV 1 0 2 NC - - - OTH - - - PAR 0 0 1 PCS - - - PNC - - - SAB 0 0 1 SBV 1 0 2 SPS 1 1 3 SVP 1 1 3 TRA 1 1 3 UNI 0 0 1

Note: Organizational capacity: As a facultative referendum in Switzerland demands the collection of 50,000 signatures within 100 days, organizations with more or equal than 100,000 members were coded 1, otherwise 0. Reputational power: Organizations with a reputational power (Fischer et al. 2009) above or equal 0.50 were coded 1, otherwise 0. Organization having both high organizational capacity and reputational power were coded as 3, those fulfilling only one of two criteria as 2, and those meeting neither of the two criteria as 1. Governmen- tal agencies, parliamentary institutions and the residual category (others) were not coded.

135

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Stefanie Engel for the opportunity to write this thesis and for her patient guidance, support, encouragement, confidence, and advice throughout the thesis. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Christian Hirschi. His encouragement, support, professional advice, suggestions, and insightful comments were critical in innumera- ble aspects for the accomplishment of my PhD project. My deep gratitude equally goes to Prof. Dr. Willi Zimmermann. Without his support, this thesis would not have been possible, and through his outstanding experience I gained many important insights into environmental and forest policy that go far beyond this thesis. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Karl Hogl (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, BOKU, Vienna) who kindly agreed to attend as co-examiner of my thesis and who provided helpful suggestions and comments for further advancing the subjects addressed in this thesis.

I also would like to thank my past and present colleagues at the Chair of Environmental Policy and Economics at ETH Zurich for their friendship, the enjoyable time, and their support.

This thesis was financially supported by the Competence Centre Environment and Sustain- ability (CCES) of the ETH Domain, Switzerland, as part of the research project MOUNT- LAND. I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to all members of the MOUNTLAND project for providing an inspiring environment that supported the accomplishment of this thesis. Special thanks go to Dr. Robert Huber (WSL Birmensdorf/ETH Zur- ich) and Dr. Simon Briner (Federal Office for Agriculture/ETH Zurich), who co-authored one chapter of this thesis.

I would also like to thank my parents Christa and Martin Widmer, my sister Caroline Widmer Schurte and her husband René Schurte, as well as André Ourednik, Florian Huber, Markus Domeisen, Andres Pfister, and Jacqueline Pfister Ruch for supporting and encourag- ing me during this PhD project.

Last but not least I would like to thank my partner, Caroline Diemand, for all her support and love throughout the endeavors of my thesis.

Zurich, August 2014 Alexander Widmer