Climate policy integration as a process: from shallow to embedded integration

Figures & data

Table 1. Climate integration logics.

	Climate Integration Logic
	Multifunctional	Market failure	Sociotechnological transition
Frame	Win–win solutions	Making emission-intensive activities less profitable	All sectors need to transform
Goals	Preserving traditional agriculture, while meeting env. and climate targets	Cutting GHG emissions from agriculture when least costly	Minimizing CO2 emissions from agriculture
Instruments	Agreements within existing decision-making procedures	Carbon pricing, R&D	Sector-specific policy packages and procedures
Subsystem involvement	All policy making within the agri. field	No involvement	Climate and agricultural fields involved

Table 2. Logics between 2006 and 2009 in agricultural demand (X) and government offer (O).

	Climate integration logic
	Multifunctional	Market failure	Socio-tech. transition
Frame	X O
Goals	X O
Instruments
Subsystem Involvement

Table 3. Logics between 2010 and 2015 in agricultural demand (X) and government offer (O).

	Climate integration logic
	Multifunctional	Market failure	Socio-tech. transition
Frame	X O	O
Goals	X	O
Instruments	X	O
Subsystem involvement	X O

Table 4. Logics between 2016 and 2021 in agricultural demand (X) and government offer (O).

	Climate integration logic
	Multifunctional	Market failure	Socio-tech. transition
Frame	X O	O	X O
Goals	X		O
Instruments	X O	O	O
Subsystem involvement

Table 5. Four types of policy integration processes.

		INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS
		Sector-specific logic dominates	Multiple climate policy integration logics
POLICY ELEMENTS	New issue only integrated into frames and goals	Shallow Process Norwegian Agriculture 2006–2009	Contested Process Norwegian Agriculture 2016–2021
New issue integrated into frames, goals, instruments, and subsystem involvement	Consistent Process Norwegian Agriculture 2010–2015	Embedded Process