Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration at the landscape level. A framework illustrated with an analysis of landscape governance in Rwanda

Cora van Oosten*, Assumpta Uzamukunda, Hens Runhaar

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) refers to the incorporation of environmental concerns into sectoral policies in order to reduce policy incoherence and achieve synergies to more effectively address environmental problems such as environmental degradation. Landscape governance can be considered as a specific, spatial manifestation of EPI: it aims to balance agricultural production, nature conservation and livelihood needs at the landscape level through multi-stakeholder decision making. Despite their common focus on policy conflicts, both concepts have been elaborated in largely isolated bodies of literature, while little is known about their common concern of how actors at the landscape level deal with these policy conflicts. This paper addresses this under-explored theme, by drawing from both EPI and landscape governance theories, and adding new insights from institutional and innovation literature. We develop a framework specifying how actors at local, district and national levels deal with policy conflicts and employ strategies to overcome them. We illustrate the analytical framework with a case from Rwanda, where landscape restoration has become a new policy area which has brought sectoral policy conflicts to the fore. We characterise these policy conflicts, and analyse the ways in which local, district and national actors manage to overcome them, by using the landscape as a functional regulatory space for policy integration. What we learn from this case is that EPI is not just designed at national levels by formally assigned policy makers, but it happens in landscapes where landscape actors define their priorities and set hierarchically defined policy objectives to their hand. They flexibly fit in and conform to existing rules yet informally combining these to suit their spatial context; or they entrepreneurially stretch and transform the rules, while seeking alliances with policy makers to have the outcomes institutionalised. In both cases they contribute to solving policy conflicts in both the horizontal and the vertical sense. By doing so, we show the usefulness of the framework for identifying policy conflicts and contributing to policy integration at the landscape level.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-70
JournalEnvironmental Science and Policy
Volume83
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2018

Fingerprint

Rwanda
environmental policy
governance
integration policy
district
analysis
policy integration
policy
policy area
agricultural production
environmental damage
synergy
restoration
livelihood
environmental impact
analytical framework
conservation
stakeholder
environmental degradation
conflict

Keywords

  • Institutional entrepreneurship
  • Institutional/productive bricolage
  • Landscape governance
  • Landscape restoration
  • Policy incoherence
  • Policy integration

Cite this

@article{2105a7e69765405680768e4a80ed4dbc,
title = "Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration at the landscape level. A framework illustrated with an analysis of landscape governance in Rwanda",
abstract = "Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) refers to the incorporation of environmental concerns into sectoral policies in order to reduce policy incoherence and achieve synergies to more effectively address environmental problems such as environmental degradation. Landscape governance can be considered as a specific, spatial manifestation of EPI: it aims to balance agricultural production, nature conservation and livelihood needs at the landscape level through multi-stakeholder decision making. Despite their common focus on policy conflicts, both concepts have been elaborated in largely isolated bodies of literature, while little is known about their common concern of how actors at the landscape level deal with these policy conflicts. This paper addresses this under-explored theme, by drawing from both EPI and landscape governance theories, and adding new insights from institutional and innovation literature. We develop a framework specifying how actors at local, district and national levels deal with policy conflicts and employ strategies to overcome them. We illustrate the analytical framework with a case from Rwanda, where landscape restoration has become a new policy area which has brought sectoral policy conflicts to the fore. We characterise these policy conflicts, and analyse the ways in which local, district and national actors manage to overcome them, by using the landscape as a functional regulatory space for policy integration. What we learn from this case is that EPI is not just designed at national levels by formally assigned policy makers, but it happens in landscapes where landscape actors define their priorities and set hierarchically defined policy objectives to their hand. They flexibly fit in and conform to existing rules yet informally combining these to suit their spatial context; or they entrepreneurially stretch and transform the rules, while seeking alliances with policy makers to have the outcomes institutionalised. In both cases they contribute to solving policy conflicts in both the horizontal and the vertical sense. By doing so, we show the usefulness of the framework for identifying policy conflicts and contributing to policy integration at the landscape level.",
keywords = "Institutional entrepreneurship, Institutional/productive bricolage, Landscape governance, Landscape restoration, Policy incoherence, Policy integration",
author = "{van Oosten}, Cora and Assumpta Uzamukunda and Hens Runhaar",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.002",
language = "English",
volume = "83",
pages = "63--70",
journal = "Environmental Science & Policy",
issn = "1462-9011",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration at the landscape level. A framework illustrated with an analysis of landscape governance in Rwanda

AU - van Oosten, Cora

AU - Uzamukunda, Assumpta

AU - Runhaar, Hens

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) refers to the incorporation of environmental concerns into sectoral policies in order to reduce policy incoherence and achieve synergies to more effectively address environmental problems such as environmental degradation. Landscape governance can be considered as a specific, spatial manifestation of EPI: it aims to balance agricultural production, nature conservation and livelihood needs at the landscape level through multi-stakeholder decision making. Despite their common focus on policy conflicts, both concepts have been elaborated in largely isolated bodies of literature, while little is known about their common concern of how actors at the landscape level deal with these policy conflicts. This paper addresses this under-explored theme, by drawing from both EPI and landscape governance theories, and adding new insights from institutional and innovation literature. We develop a framework specifying how actors at local, district and national levels deal with policy conflicts and employ strategies to overcome them. We illustrate the analytical framework with a case from Rwanda, where landscape restoration has become a new policy area which has brought sectoral policy conflicts to the fore. We characterise these policy conflicts, and analyse the ways in which local, district and national actors manage to overcome them, by using the landscape as a functional regulatory space for policy integration. What we learn from this case is that EPI is not just designed at national levels by formally assigned policy makers, but it happens in landscapes where landscape actors define their priorities and set hierarchically defined policy objectives to their hand. They flexibly fit in and conform to existing rules yet informally combining these to suit their spatial context; or they entrepreneurially stretch and transform the rules, while seeking alliances with policy makers to have the outcomes institutionalised. In both cases they contribute to solving policy conflicts in both the horizontal and the vertical sense. By doing so, we show the usefulness of the framework for identifying policy conflicts and contributing to policy integration at the landscape level.

AB - Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) refers to the incorporation of environmental concerns into sectoral policies in order to reduce policy incoherence and achieve synergies to more effectively address environmental problems such as environmental degradation. Landscape governance can be considered as a specific, spatial manifestation of EPI: it aims to balance agricultural production, nature conservation and livelihood needs at the landscape level through multi-stakeholder decision making. Despite their common focus on policy conflicts, both concepts have been elaborated in largely isolated bodies of literature, while little is known about their common concern of how actors at the landscape level deal with these policy conflicts. This paper addresses this under-explored theme, by drawing from both EPI and landscape governance theories, and adding new insights from institutional and innovation literature. We develop a framework specifying how actors at local, district and national levels deal with policy conflicts and employ strategies to overcome them. We illustrate the analytical framework with a case from Rwanda, where landscape restoration has become a new policy area which has brought sectoral policy conflicts to the fore. We characterise these policy conflicts, and analyse the ways in which local, district and national actors manage to overcome them, by using the landscape as a functional regulatory space for policy integration. What we learn from this case is that EPI is not just designed at national levels by formally assigned policy makers, but it happens in landscapes where landscape actors define their priorities and set hierarchically defined policy objectives to their hand. They flexibly fit in and conform to existing rules yet informally combining these to suit their spatial context; or they entrepreneurially stretch and transform the rules, while seeking alliances with policy makers to have the outcomes institutionalised. In both cases they contribute to solving policy conflicts in both the horizontal and the vertical sense. By doing so, we show the usefulness of the framework for identifying policy conflicts and contributing to policy integration at the landscape level.

KW - Institutional entrepreneurship

KW - Institutional/productive bricolage

KW - Landscape governance

KW - Landscape restoration

KW - Policy incoherence

KW - Policy integration

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.002

M3 - Article

VL - 83

SP - 63

EP - 70

JO - Environmental Science & Policy

JF - Environmental Science & Policy

SN - 1462-9011

ER -