TY - JOUR

T1 - Dynamics in national agri-environmental policy implementation under changing EU policy priorities

T2 - Does one size fit all?

AU - Vesterager, Jens Peter

AU - Frederiksen, P.

AU - Kristensen, Søren Bech Pilgaard

AU - Vadineanu, A.

AU - Gaube, V.

AU - Geamana, N. A.

AU - Pavlis, V.

AU - Terkenli, T. S.

AU - Bucur, M. M.

AU - van der Sluis, T.

AU - Busck, Anne Gravsholt

PY - 2016/11/30

Y1 - 2016/11/30

N2 - Over the past 30 years, Agri-Environmental Policies (AEP) in the EU have developed with relative nationalautonomy and according to the subsidiarity principle. The environmental directives represent an increasein EU-level environmental ambitions and challenge the current implementation of EU AEP by creatingan increasingly demanding set of regulations with which each member state must comply. National AEPimplementation may, however, maintain original characteristics and fail to adopt or transform as EUpolicy implementation proceeds or when EU policies develop. This creates a potential gap between EUpolicies and national policy implementation resulting in the ensuing national policy dynamics and adaptationsbecoming issues of interest. This raises a central question regarding the extent to which nationalAEP implementation can help us predict whether AEP will be suitable to achieve environmental directiveobjectives nationally in the future. In this paper, we first investigate the dynamics in the implementationof national Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) through changes in (i) AES policy objectives over time,(ii) administrative implementation structures, and (iii) administrative policy decision structures in theNetherlands, Denmark, Greece, Austria and Romania. Second, we examine the extent to which variousfactors have influenced the development of national policies over time. The study identifies developmentbased on the theory of ‘process of institutional change’, i.e. we qualitatively estimate the costs of changebased on proposed factors including economic conditions in relation to AES implementation, politicalinstitutional capacity, policy legacy, policy preferences, and current discourse. On this background, weidentify differences in implementation strategies or outcomes in terms of inertia, absorption and transformation,which are characteristic of the national responses to changing AEP at the EU level. We discussAES dynamics; whether policy content or structures should be in focus for future policy design and theimplications of these findings for the future role of AEP in fulfilling environmental directives and arguewhy a one size fits all rule does not adequately cover current AES development.

AB - Over the past 30 years, Agri-Environmental Policies (AEP) in the EU have developed with relative nationalautonomy and according to the subsidiarity principle. The environmental directives represent an increasein EU-level environmental ambitions and challenge the current implementation of EU AEP by creatingan increasingly demanding set of regulations with which each member state must comply. National AEPimplementation may, however, maintain original characteristics and fail to adopt or transform as EUpolicy implementation proceeds or when EU policies develop. This creates a potential gap between EUpolicies and national policy implementation resulting in the ensuing national policy dynamics and adaptationsbecoming issues of interest. This raises a central question regarding the extent to which nationalAEP implementation can help us predict whether AEP will be suitable to achieve environmental directiveobjectives nationally in the future. In this paper, we first investigate the dynamics in the implementationof national Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) through changes in (i) AES policy objectives over time,(ii) administrative implementation structures, and (iii) administrative policy decision structures in theNetherlands, Denmark, Greece, Austria and Romania. Second, we examine the extent to which variousfactors have influenced the development of national policies over time. The study identifies developmentbased on the theory of ‘process of institutional change’, i.e. we qualitatively estimate the costs of changebased on proposed factors including economic conditions in relation to AES implementation, politicalinstitutional capacity, policy legacy, policy preferences, and current discourse. On this background, weidentify differences in implementation strategies or outcomes in terms of inertia, absorption and transformation,which are characteristic of the national responses to changing AEP at the EU level. We discussAES dynamics; whether policy content or structures should be in focus for future policy design and theimplications of these findings for the future role of AEP in fulfilling environmental directives and arguewhy a one size fits all rule does not adequately cover current AES development.

KW - EU

KW - Agri-environmental policy

KW - Agri-environmental schemes

KW - Policy change

KW - National implementation

KW - Policy structures

KW - Policy objectives

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.014

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.014

M3 - Journal article

VL - 57

SP - 764

EP - 776

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

SN - 0264-8377

ER -