Pub Date : 2025-09-25DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100292
Véronique Fournier
{"title":"Advising decision-makers: a new typology of scientific bodies in global environmental governance","authors":"Véronique Fournier","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100292","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100292","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100292"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145158335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-19DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100291
Valbona Muzaka
This Perspective offers some reflections on how multiple times are entangled in the current moment of living on a planet pushed beyond its limits and the way in which the present instability provides the basis not for radical action but for continued speculation and value creation. Promising to turn living whales into assets, the whale bond – an idea towards which various some private actors have quietly been working for some years – is one of the many strange products of the current speculative delirium. Bringing together insights from maritime environmental science, political economy, and literature, this Perspective reflects on the different times embodied in whales as commodity/asset as a device to highlight the fallacy of putting our hopes for escaping the current predicament on the subjugation of the living – and ‘ecosystem services’ more generally – into asset forms.
{"title":"Of time, whales, and other assets","authors":"Valbona Muzaka","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100291","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100291","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This Perspective offers some reflections on how multiple times are entangled in the current moment of living on a planet pushed beyond its limits and the way in which the present instability provides the basis not for radical action but for continued speculation and value creation. Promising to turn living whales into assets, the whale bond – an idea towards which various some private actors have quietly been working for some years – is one of the many strange products of the current speculative delirium. Bringing together insights from maritime environmental science, political economy, and literature, this Perspective reflects on the different times embodied in whales as commodity/asset as a device to highlight the fallacy of putting our hopes for escaping the current predicament on the subjugation of the living – and ‘ecosystem services’ more generally – into asset forms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100291"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145095579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-12DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100288
Hyeyoon Park , Jakob Skovgaard
In recent decades, global green finance governance institutions (GGFGIs) have developed diverse frames for understanding climate-related risks. Understanding these risk frames is crucial because they lead to distinctive “de-risking” policies, empowering different types of actors. This paper examines how GGFGIs produce different climate risk frames, and what the prevailing climate risk frame is and whose risk it addresses. We investigate these questions by analyzing the current global green finance governance complex applying a constructivist approach emphasizing contestation over normative issues and a Critical Political Economy perspective. Our mapping based on 74 GGFGIs shows exercise that a risk framing focusing on climate impact on business actors became prevalent over other types of climate risks imposed on people and nature. Our finding shows the dominant influence of the Task Force on the Climate-Related Financial Disclosure created by G20's Financial Stability Board. This development reflects broader trends of climate capitalism.
{"title":"Whose risk counts? Climate risk frames in global green finance governance complex","authors":"Hyeyoon Park , Jakob Skovgaard","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100288","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100288","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent decades, global green finance governance institutions (GGFGIs) have developed diverse frames for understanding climate-related risks. Understanding these risk frames is crucial because they lead to distinctive “de-risking” policies, empowering different types of actors. This paper examines how GGFGIs produce different climate risk frames, and what the prevailing climate risk frame is and whose risk it addresses. We investigate these questions by analyzing the current global green finance governance complex applying a constructivist approach emphasizing contestation over normative issues and a Critical Political Economy perspective. Our mapping based on 74 GGFGIs shows exercise that a risk framing focusing on climate impact on business actors became prevalent over other types of climate risks imposed on people and nature. Our finding shows the dominant influence of the Task Force on the Climate-Related Financial Disclosure created by G20's Financial Stability Board. This development reflects broader trends of climate capitalism.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100288"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145045148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-10DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100285
Konrad Gürtler
Energy transformations not only reveal multi-dimensional claims for just distribution, recognition, and procedures, but also how justice claims depend on and shape the spatial context that they address. Stakeholders involved in the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) with South Africa share the commitment to a just energy transition in the country, yet have differing conceptions of justice in mind. In this contribution, expectations and ideas of justice that various societal actors associate with the JETP are examined. The paper therefore asks what notions of spatial justice stakeholders bring up in the public debate about the JETP in South Africa. Conceptually, the focus is on four spatial justice aspects, namely on scalar, center-periphery, interterritorial, and infrastructure-related justice considerations. Based on qualitative expert interviews, a spectrum of spatial justice claims is revealed. The contribution finds that, firstly, the energy transition in South Africa has to address severe pre-existing injustices in South African society in a transformative manner, and therefore has to go beyond merely maintaining the status quo. Secondly, spatial justice debates have thus far been heavily focused on international relations, particularly on the negotiations within the International Partners Group and on the conditions of the JETP. Thirdly, subnational debates on spatial justice are only beginning to gain momentum, revolving around changes in center-periphery relationships, energy infrastructures, procedural justice, and ownership. The spatial perspective proves to be a helpful lens to illuminate the different, at times contradictory perspectives on justice in transitions.
{"title":"What space for justice? The just energy transition partnership with South Africa","authors":"Konrad Gürtler","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100285","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100285","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Energy transformations not only reveal multi-dimensional claims for just distribution, recognition, and procedures, but also how justice claims depend on and shape the spatial context that they address. Stakeholders involved in the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) with South Africa share the commitment to a just energy transition in the country, yet have differing conceptions of justice in mind. In this contribution, expectations and ideas of justice that various societal actors associate with the JETP are examined. The paper therefore asks what notions of spatial justice stakeholders bring up in the public debate about the JETP in South Africa. Conceptually, the focus is on four spatial justice aspects, namely on scalar, center-periphery, interterritorial, and infrastructure-related justice considerations. Based on qualitative expert interviews, a spectrum of spatial justice claims is revealed. The contribution finds that, firstly, the energy transition in South Africa has to address severe pre-existing injustices in South African society in a transformative manner, and therefore has to go beyond merely maintaining the status quo. Secondly, spatial justice debates have thus far been heavily focused on international relations, particularly on the negotiations within the International Partners Group and on the conditions of the JETP. Thirdly, subnational debates on spatial justice are only beginning to gain momentum, revolving around changes in center-periphery relationships, energy infrastructures, procedural justice, and ownership. The spatial perspective proves to be a helpful lens to illuminate the different, at times contradictory perspectives on justice in transitions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100285"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145026572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-07DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100290
Gaspard Lemaire
Unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions threaten countless lives worldwide, yet conventional terminology such as “global warming” or “climate disruption” fail to capture the human suffering involved, whereas terms like “climate crisis” misleadingly suggest a temporary condition. In response to these gaps, this paper proposes reframing climate violence as a “climate atrocity”. Although climate harm does not fit neatly within traditional atrocity categories such as genocide or crime against humanity, the concept of mass atrocity—large-scale and systematic violence inflicted knowingly on civilian populations—aligns with the outcome of current greenhouse gas emissions trajectories. The evolving nature of the atrocity notion, already expanded to include ethnic cleansing and potentially ecocide, creates space for recognizing climate harm as a new form of atrocity that stands apart as a “total atrocity” due to its unprecedented magnitude. This framework clarifies institutional responsibility and opens news pathways for climate governance, climate law and public advocacy.
{"title":"The climate atrocity paradigm","authors":"Gaspard Lemaire","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100290","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100290","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions threaten countless lives worldwide, yet conventional terminology such as “global warming” or “climate disruption” fail to capture the human suffering involved, whereas terms like “climate crisis” misleadingly suggest a temporary condition. In response to these gaps, this paper proposes reframing climate violence as a “climate atrocity”. Although climate harm does not fit neatly within traditional atrocity categories such as genocide or crime against humanity, the concept of mass atrocity—large-scale and systematic violence inflicted knowingly on civilian populations—aligns with the outcome of current greenhouse gas emissions trajectories. The evolving nature of the atrocity notion, already expanded to include ethnic cleansing and potentially ecocide, creates space for recognizing climate harm as a new form of atrocity that stands apart as a “total atrocity” due to its unprecedented magnitude. This framework clarifies institutional responsibility and opens news pathways for climate governance, climate law and public advocacy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100290"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145007726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article shows how long-term development programs struggle to institutionalize renewable energy solutions in the Global South. Our contribution is twofold: (1) Conceptually, we propose and apply a framework to investigate under what conditions and with what effects development partners institutionalize their renewable energy interventions. For the conditions, we build on institutionalization literature and particularly on the Earth System Governance research lens on architecture and agency. For the outcome, we distinguish between rhetorical, policy-related, organizational and practical changes. (2) Empirically, we mobilize this framework to analyze three long-term renewable energy programs initiated by development partners in Indonesia through a qualitative approach. Although these programs trigger rhetorical and partly policy-oriented changes, they struggle to foster new organizational structures or mainstream new political practices. We conclude that scholars must engage more seriously with agency and architecture as critical conditions for externally driven efforts to promote renewable energy solutions in the Global South.
{"title":"Long-term programs, short-term effects? How development partners struggle to institutionalize renewable energy solutions in Indonesia","authors":"Jens Marquardt , Fajar Wardani Wijayanti , Reza Fathurrahman","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100282","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100282","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article shows how long-term development programs struggle to institutionalize renewable energy solutions in the Global South. Our contribution is twofold: (1) Conceptually, we propose and apply a framework to investigate under what conditions and with what effects development partners institutionalize their renewable energy interventions. For the conditions, we build on institutionalization literature and particularly on the Earth System Governance research lens on architecture and agency. For the outcome, we distinguish between rhetorical, policy-related, organizational and practical changes. (2) Empirically, we mobilize this framework to analyze three long-term renewable energy programs initiated by development partners in Indonesia through a qualitative approach. Although these programs trigger rhetorical and partly policy-oriented changes, they struggle to foster new organizational structures or mainstream new political practices. We conclude that scholars must engage more seriously with agency and architecture as critical conditions for externally driven efforts to promote renewable energy solutions in the Global South.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100282"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144988818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-02DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100287
Yilin Huang , Eva Lieberherr , Khammeun Nandee , Chaloun Bounithiphonh , Jasmin Krähenbühl , Phonevilay Sichanthongthip , Fritz Kleinschroth
Effective land-use management is crucial for addressing sustainability challenges. Participatory landscape planning can facilitate this by integrating diverse stakeholders and local knowledge. Our study explores the use of drone-captured aerial imagery to enhance shared understanding and knowledge co-production in 27 village councils in Laos. We show that this imagery supports participatory planning by making spatial information more interpretable. Using Participatory Action Research (PAR), we evaluate the effectiveness of aerial imagery, comparing nadir and oblique drone images with satellite images to assess their interpretability by local stakeholders. We found that nadir images provided highest identification rates of natural and built features, while oblique imagery was preferred for self-localization and contextual understanding. The study demonstrates that such images help stakeholders understand the landscape from new perspectives, essential for informed land-management decisions. Our findings highlight the need to integrate technological tools with local knowledge to ensure inclusive environmental governance grounded in community experience.
{"title":"Aerial imagery to support participatory landscape decision-making","authors":"Yilin Huang , Eva Lieberherr , Khammeun Nandee , Chaloun Bounithiphonh , Jasmin Krähenbühl , Phonevilay Sichanthongthip , Fritz Kleinschroth","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100287","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100287","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Effective land-use management is crucial for addressing sustainability challenges. Participatory landscape planning can facilitate this by integrating diverse stakeholders and local knowledge. Our study explores the use of drone-captured aerial imagery to enhance shared understanding and knowledge co-production in 27 village councils in Laos. We show that this imagery supports participatory planning by making spatial information more interpretable. Using Participatory Action Research (PAR), we evaluate the effectiveness of aerial imagery, comparing nadir and oblique drone images with satellite images to assess their interpretability by local stakeholders. We found that nadir images provided highest identification rates of natural and built features, while oblique imagery was preferred for self-localization and contextual understanding. The study demonstrates that such images help stakeholders understand the landscape from new perspectives, essential for informed land-management decisions. Our findings highlight the need to integrate technological tools with local knowledge to ensure inclusive environmental governance grounded in community experience.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100287"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144925917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-02DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100289
Maria Jernnäs
Climate change and inequalities are intrinsically linked, both in terms of unequal responsibilities for causing emissions, and who bears the brunt of its effects. The impact of and consequences for inequalities also need to be considered when policy responses to climate change are designed, but such consideration is hitherto underdeveloped in both research and practice. In this article, the construction of interlinkages between climate action and inequalities states’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement is put under scrutiny. In light of growing calls to enhance coherence between the 2030 Agenda and the climate goals, and as a counterweight to the oftentimes technocratic accounts of policy coherence, this study examines how states problematize climate action and inequalities by studying both how interactions are portrayed, and which interventions are suggested to address them. As states gear up for the consideration of a next round of NDCs, this study contributes a critical analysis of how cross-cutting issues are incorporated and identifies opportunities and challenges for inclusion and assessment of inequalities in the NDC process of the Paris Agreement.
{"title":"Resolving climate action and inequality in tandem? A global review of states’ climate pledges to the Paris Agreement","authors":"Maria Jernnäs","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100289","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100289","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate change and inequalities are intrinsically linked, both in terms of unequal responsibilities for causing emissions, and who bears the brunt of its effects. The impact of and consequences for inequalities also need to be considered when policy responses to climate change are designed, but such consideration is hitherto underdeveloped in both research and practice. In this article, the construction of interlinkages between climate action and inequalities states’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement is put under scrutiny. In light of growing calls to enhance coherence between the 2030 Agenda and the climate goals, and as a counterweight to the oftentimes technocratic accounts of policy coherence, this study examines how states problematize climate action and inequalities by studying both how interactions are portrayed, and which interventions are suggested to address them. As states gear up for the consideration of a next round of NDCs, this study contributes a critical analysis of how cross-cutting issues are incorporated and identifies opportunities and challenges for inclusion and assessment of inequalities in the NDC process of the Paris Agreement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100289"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144925918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100286
Chris Arsenault , Raphael Deberdt , Philippe Le Billon
Framing Chinese dominance in low-carbon supply chains as a strategic threat, Western governments have responded by deploying a range of subsidies to secure end-to-end supply chains, from critical minerals to batteries and EV production. This article addresses Canadian subsidies' approach to onshoring green manufacturing, with a focus on EV supply chains in Ontario. Based on 20 interviews with government officials and industry leaders and a literature review, we find several challenges to subsidizing supply chain integration – (1) opposition to new mining and infrastructure projects, in particular from some Indigenous communities, (2) policy makers lacking understanding of the complexity of low-carbon products’ supply chains, and (3) slowing global EV demand and regional trade barriers at a time of uncertainty for the sector under the second Trump administration. These challenges are responsible for the suspension or cancellation of projects which have received subsidies, undermining the broader onshoring strategy.
{"title":"Onshoring low-carbon supply chains: Can subsidies meet the challenge?","authors":"Chris Arsenault , Raphael Deberdt , Philippe Le Billon","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100286","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100286","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Framing Chinese dominance in low-carbon supply chains as a strategic threat, Western governments have responded by deploying a range of subsidies to secure end-to-end supply chains, from critical minerals to batteries and EV production. This article addresses Canadian subsidies' approach to onshoring green manufacturing, with a focus on EV supply chains in Ontario. Based on 20 interviews with government officials and industry leaders and a literature review, we find several challenges to subsidizing supply chain integration – (1) opposition to new mining and infrastructure projects, in particular from some Indigenous communities, (2) policy makers lacking understanding of the complexity of low-carbon products’ supply chains, and (3) slowing global EV demand and regional trade barriers at a time of uncertainty for the sector under the second Trump administration. These challenges are responsible for the suspension or cancellation of projects which have received subsidies, undermining the broader onshoring strategy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100286"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144921413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the adoption of EU nature conservation legislation, Central and Eastern European countries have witnessed accelerated biodiversity declines in recent decades. This paper explores the reasons behind the relatively weak integration of biodiversity policy into the agricultural sector, with Croatia serving as a case study. Conceptually, this study contributes to the understanding of biodiversity policy integration (BPI) by applying an adapted analytical framework that reveals how institutional and structural constraints shape the depth of integration in post-socialist contexts, offering insights for future EU enlargements and vertical policy integration. The study involved a comprehensive review of national legislation and an analysis of interviews with stakeholders and experts. Historically, Croatia's biodiversity conservation efforts were primarily concentrated on protected areas, with limited involvement of farmers. Agri-environmental schemes (AES) for biodiversity were introduced during the 2014–2022 CAP period, but were implemented on less than 2 % of farmland. Factors such as limited institutional capacity, a lack of biodiversity data, and insufficient experience in designing conservation programs resulted in relatively poorly tailored measures. Despite increased flexibility in the post-2023 CAP, few significant policy changes have been made, primarily due to a lack of stakeholder collaboration and inadequate institutional support for new approaches.
{"title":"Failure or success? Biodiversity policy integration into the agricultural policy of the new EU Member States – the Croatian experience","authors":"Lucija Pečurlić , Emil Erjavec , Tihana Sudarić , Tanja Šumrada","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100284","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100284","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the adoption of EU nature conservation legislation, Central and Eastern European countries have witnessed accelerated biodiversity declines in recent decades. This paper explores the reasons behind the relatively weak integration of biodiversity policy into the agricultural sector, with Croatia serving as a case study. Conceptually, this study contributes to the understanding of biodiversity policy integration (BPI) by applying an adapted analytical framework that reveals how institutional and structural constraints shape the depth of integration in post-socialist contexts, offering insights for future EU enlargements and vertical policy integration. The study involved a comprehensive review of national legislation and an analysis of interviews with stakeholders and experts. Historically, Croatia's biodiversity conservation efforts were primarily concentrated on protected areas, with limited involvement of farmers. Agri-environmental schemes (AES) for biodiversity were introduced during the 2014–2022 CAP period, but were implemented on less than 2 % of farmland. Factors such as limited institutional capacity, a lack of biodiversity data, and insufficient experience in designing conservation programs resulted in relatively poorly tailored measures. Despite increased flexibility in the post-2023 CAP, few significant policy changes have been made, primarily due to a lack of stakeholder collaboration and inadequate institutional support for new approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100284"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144893835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号