The Policy Coherence Framework Approach in a Multi-Level Analysis of European, German and Thuringian Climate Policy with a Special Focus on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)

Justus Eberl, E. Gordeeva, N. Weber
{"title":"The Policy Coherence Framework Approach in a Multi-Level Analysis of European, German and Thuringian Climate Policy with a Special Focus on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)","authors":"Justus Eberl, E. Gordeeva, N. Weber","doi":"10.3390/world2030026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work sets out to apply the Policy Coherence Framework (PCF) to the case of climate policy, taking into account the European, German and Thuringian political levels of analysis. It combines an analysis of vertical coherence between these levels and horizontal coherence within and between different sectoral policies. The study demonstrates disparities between coherence within climate policy itself and between other policy sectors as regards forest area development. It further reveals some contradictions between economic and ecological goals in German climate policy, particularly as concerns the role of forests. According to the authors, this observation can, at least in part, be explained by the national security obligations of Germany as a nation state. This assumption is supported by the observation that the regional level of Thuringia is more consistent with the supranational level of the European Union, both of which can “afford” to favour ecology over economy due to not being nation states. Another finding suggests that the broad and ambiguous definition of climate policy causes many contradictions, leading to an “omnipresence” of climate policy, and in doing so, strips it of its meaning and, consequently, practical relevance.","PeriodicalId":49307,"journal":{"name":"Microlithography World","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microlithography World","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/world2030026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This work sets out to apply the Policy Coherence Framework (PCF) to the case of climate policy, taking into account the European, German and Thuringian political levels of analysis. It combines an analysis of vertical coherence between these levels and horizontal coherence within and between different sectoral policies. The study demonstrates disparities between coherence within climate policy itself and between other policy sectors as regards forest area development. It further reveals some contradictions between economic and ecological goals in German climate policy, particularly as concerns the role of forests. According to the authors, this observation can, at least in part, be explained by the national security obligations of Germany as a nation state. This assumption is supported by the observation that the regional level of Thuringia is more consistent with the supranational level of the European Union, both of which can “afford” to favour ecology over economy due to not being nation states. Another finding suggests that the broad and ambiguous definition of climate policy causes many contradictions, leading to an “omnipresence” of climate policy, and in doing so, strips it of its meaning and, consequently, practical relevance.
政策一致性框架方法在欧洲、德国和图林根州气候政策多层次分析中的应用——特别关注土地利用、土地利用变化和林业(LULUCF)
这项工作旨在将政策一致性框架(PCF)应用于气候政策的案例,同时考虑到欧洲、德国和图林根的政治分析水平。它结合了对这些级别之间纵向一致性和不同部门政策内部和之间横向一致性的分析。该研究表明,气候政策本身的一致性与其他政策部门在森林地区发展方面的一致性之间存在差异。它进一步揭示了德国气候政策中经济目标和生态目标之间的一些矛盾,特别是在森林的作用方面。作者认为,这种现象至少可以部分地用德国作为一个民族国家的国家安全义务来解释。这一假设得到了以下观察结果的支持:图林根州的地区层面与欧盟的超国家层面更为一致,两者都可以“负担得起”由于不是民族国家而更重视生态而不是经济。另一项发现表明,对气候政策的宽泛而模糊的定义造成了许多矛盾,导致气候政策“无所不在”,从而剥夺了气候政策的意义,从而失去了实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信