The Role of Sub-National Governments for Vertical Policy Integration of Biodiversity

Responsible: Dipl.-Ing. Fabian Pröbstl

Funded by: Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)

This PhD project aims to investigate the potentials and barriers of sub-national levels for policy integration of biodiversity. At the international level, members of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), including Germany, have committed themselves to halting the loss of biodiversity. However, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this can only be achieved by "advancing and aligning local, national and international sustainability efforts and mainstreaming biodiversity [...]" (IPBES 2019, 17).

Theoretical framework

Analytically, the policy integration of biodiversity can be examined both along policy levels (vertically) and into individual sectors (horizontally). Especially in federal countries such as Germany, the consideration of such coordination processes at all political levels is crucial, especially since federal states and municipalities have central competencies in biodiversity policy.
The theoretical starting point for this work is an analytical scheme by Candel (2019), which identifies four dimensions to classify the degree of policy integration (policy frame; subsystem involvement; policy goals; policy instruments) and cites integrative capacities and integrative leadership as explanatory variables.

Work steps

The PhD project focuses on the policy integration of biodiversity within the framework of German multi-level governance. The overarching aim is to examine the role of sub-national levels (particularly the federal states) in this context and to identify barriers and levers for more comprehensive biodiversity protection.

The first research section focuses on the level of state policy and uses the context of so-called “Sub-national Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans” (SBSAPs). The theoretical background is provided by the work of Candel (2019) and Candel and Biesbroek (2016), who offer an analytical framework for identifying levers and barriers in this context. The explanatory variables include so-called integrative capacities and integrative leadership. Based on 16 interviews with all state environmental ministries, key obstacles and levers for Biodiversity Policy Integration (BPI) are identified and related to their underlying causes. State biodiversity policies appear to be trapped in institutional lock-ins, which manifest in weak coordination structures, lack of resources, and low integrative leadership. Although evaluation mechanisms exist, they do not lead to accountability. As a result, political change seems inevitably tied to the individual commitment of political decision-makers or external influence through public or European initiatives.

The second research section focuses on the joint implementation of the Habitats Directive (FFH) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the context of river restoration at the sub-national administrative level. The goal is to bring together the discourses of BPI and administrative literature and to enrich the former with explanatory approaches from the latter. Using the practical case study of the two European directives, interviews and focus groups as well as qualitative and quantitative surveys with different stakeholder groups are conducted to gain further insights into processual and individual goal conflicts. In particular, the coordination process and the use of administrative discretion, as well as individual-level barriers, emerge as key challenges. However, a classic black-and-white picture between the authorities does not emerge, which again reveals implications for the BPI discourse and shows that clear sectoral separability only applies to a limited extent. At the same time, this case study shows that current conservation approaches and administrative structures are often still not ready to dynamically implement modern nature conservation or to integrate it with climate protection measures.

In the third research phase, a comparative case study of peatland policies across four federal states is planned. This will involve assessing the policy mix in this area in each state, as well as explaining potential differences using the political process inherent dynamics approach (PIDA). The data basis consists of online and document analyses, official inquiries to agencies, and interviews. The goal is to assess the engagement of both peat-rich and peat-poor federal states in rewetting efforts and to explain potential causes for differences.

From a theoretical perspective, the doctoral project aims to enrich the discourse on policy integration by identifying underlying political and institutional causes for the weak policy integration of biodiversity. The underlying understanding of policy integration is processual and rational and seeks to consider both vertical and horizontal aspects. The work navigates between the discourses of policy coordination, policy coherence, and transformative governance and attempts to synthesize insights from these areas for the field of modern biodiversity protection.

Personal aim & supervision

The personal aim is to not only make the resulting recommendations for a more effective cooperation available to the scientific discourse, but also to introduce them directly into socio-political decision-making processes through appropriate publications and direct exchange with policy makers and the public.

The work is funded by a grant from the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) and formally supervised by Prof. Dr. Michael Böcher at Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, and Dr. Yves Zinngrebe and Dr. Frank Hüesker at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) Leipzig.

Sources

Candel, J. J. L., & Biesbroek, R. (2016). Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sciences, 49(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y

Candel, J. (2019): The expediency of policy integration. Policy Studies, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/01442872.2019.1634191.

IPBES - Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019): The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services – Summary for Policymakers. IPBES Secretariat. Bonn.