Which environmental problems get policy attention? Examining energy and agricultural sector policies in Sweden

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241 – 255 www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Which environmental problems get policy attention? Examining energy and agricultural sector policies in Sweden Rebecka Engström a,⁎,1 , Måns Nilsson b , Göran Finnveden a a

Division of Environmental Strategies Research — fms, Department of Urban Planning and Environment, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH, SE 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden b Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Kräftriket 2B, SE 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden Received 19 July 2007; received in revised form 18 October 2007; accepted 18 October 2007 Available online 18 December 2007

Abstract Not all environmental problems get the same level of policy attention. An interesting question is thus why certain aspects receive attention and others do not. This paper studies the level of policy attention given to different environmental aspects in agriculture and energy policy in Sweden and explores empirically some factors that can explain the level of attention. The first step was to explore the link between environmental issue characteristics and the level of policy attention. The level of policy attention was measured through a content analysis of Swedish government bills. The results from the content analysis are clear and stable over the studied time period. In the agriculture sector biodiversity and toxicity are in focus whereas in the energy sector climate change and resources are given the attention. Besides these aspects, the attention is limited. These results were compared with the results from sector-wide environmental assessments of the same sectors. These assessments were based on hybrid input–output analysis and life cycle assessment methodologies. A main finding from the study is that issue importance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for policy attention. Other explanations are needed to understand which environmental issues get attention in sectoral policy. Our assessment showed that while the level of knowledge does not provide an explanation, the presence of strong and well-organised stakeholders within the sector, with an interest in having a certain issue on the agenda, might be decisive for issue attention. Path dependency and limited attention capacity are other important factors. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Agriculture; Energy; Environmental systems analysis; Policy attention

1. Introduction Some environmental problems receive more attention from policymakers than others. Why certain aspects ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 16 544 2201; fax: +46 16 544 2099. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Engström), [email protected] (M. Nilsson), [email protected] (G. Finnveden). 1 Present address: Swedish Energy Agency, P.O. Box 310, SE 631 04 Eskilstuna, Sweden. 0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.10.001

receive attention and others do not is an important strand of study in the political sciences over the last three decades. Several authors, such as Downs (1972), Kingdon (1995), Sabatier (1988) and Beder (2002), have been interested in the question of issue attention and agenda setting for environmental protection policies and how environmental information is used in policy making. Different perspectives, from synoptic–rationalistic ones to more ideational or interest-based ones have been deployed to shed light on this issue. This paper aims to contribute to this discussion on policy agendas and issue attention, and will in particular

242

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

use Sweden as a critical case for the setting of rationalistic (or science-based) policy agendas. Swedish environmental policy has often been portrayed as strongly rationalist and realist and has been characterised as a seminar culture, suggesting that scientific deliberation is the dominant process in policy making (Lundqvist, 2001). A synoptic rationality in issue attention would suggest that the most important environmental issues (as measured in some objective way) in the sector would get the most policy attention. However, as we will see below, a number of contrasting perspectives have also been put forward in the literature. Downs (1972) suggests that issues such as environmental concern go through an ‘issue–attention cycle’, with rising and falling public attention. However, he emphasises that even though attention to a problem often decreases after a time, institutions, programmes and policies might have been introduced during the period of intensive attention, and these continue to work even after interest has diminished. Downs (1972) also suggests that the general concern about issues that have gone through the attention cycle is almost always higher than about those that are still in the pre-discovery stage, which means there is a certain amount of institutionalisation going on in the system. Such ideas of path dependency has also grown out of institutional research, in particular from the historical institutionalism, and suggest that due to the stickiness of institutions, patterns of institutional influence and arrangements tend to follow a certain path (Steinmo et al., 1992). Applied to questions of agenda setting it suggests that there is normally relatively little change in the policy agenda over time. Sabatier (1988), in his Advocacy Coalition Framework, predicted the same kind of consistency in policy attention over time. However, he bases his prediction on ideas rather than institutions, through a theory of how ideas and values are competing in the policy arena, and that only under exceptional external influences, such as a crisis or some kind of chock, will there be more fundamental changes in core policy positions. Taking a more actor- and interest-based approach, Beder (2002) discusses the role of different actors in environmental agenda setting. He suggests that actors with inside access to decision-makers have more influence on both so-called primary (what to think about) and secondary (how to think about it) environmental agenda setting than those actors using an outside-initiative model aimed at broad public support to get an issue on the formal agenda. To get inside access demands sufficient resources to devote to years of policy development and promotion. Beder (2002) exemplifies this kind of actor with think tanks, while actors with

lesser means, for example citizens' groups, have to rely on the outside-initiative model. Not explicitly concerned with issue attention, but rather with the impact of scientific knowledge in policy, Underdal (1989) proposes a number of criteria for when the impact of scientific inputs is likely to be strong. These include: when there is ‘definite’ or at least consensual knowledge of the problem; when a feasible ‘cure’ can be presented; when effects are close in time and space; when the problem is affecting the ‘social centre’ of society; when the problem is developing rapidly and surprisingly; when the effects are being experienced by, or at least visible to, the public; when the political conflict is low; and when there is a institutionalised setting and iterative decision-making. Although not explicitly concerned with environmental issues, Kingdon (1995) went further than most in devising a theory to explain agenda setting. In his ‘multiple-streams theory’, Kingdon tried to determine why some issues are given attention in policy while others are neglected. He identified three separate streams in the policy system: Problems, policies and politics. The problem stream is concerned with how officials learn about issues. In the present case, it is concerned with whether robust knowledge of the environmental conditions is available, for example from research programmes, indicator systems or programme evaluation. The policies stream is concerned with ideas and proposals that float around in the policy system from various interest groups. The politics stream is related to national moods, pressure groups and administrative factors, such as turnover in the government. Here, attention to a particular issue is partly a function of the number of issues competing for policymakers' attention. There is a limited capacity for how many issues can receive attention at the same time. 2. Framework and research questions The aim of this paper is to measure the level of policy attention that different environmental aspects get in the agriculture and energy sectors in Sweden and to study empirically some factors that can explain the level of attention. In doing this, the link between environmental issue characteristics and the level of policy attention is explored. As already indicated, environmental policy in Sweden has been coloured by rationalistic and science-based deliberations. Indeed, environmentalism in Sweden grew out of the sciences rather than from ideologies and radicalism, which was a more common pattern in other European countries (Strandberg, 1995). Taking a

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

historical view, Swedish environmental policy has followed two main tracks. The first one was concerned with nature protection and conservation, and emerged strongly out of a social movement of nature romanticism coupled with the public and political concern over the rapid exploitation of hydropower in the early 20th Century. The second one was concerned with pollution of water and air in industrial and urban settings. In the 1960s, the two tracks came together (Nilsson and Eckerberg, 2007, Strandberg, 1995) forming a joint environmental protection law. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the issue of nuclear power was the dominant energy political issue (Anshelm, 2000, Nilsson, 2006). At many moments of time it has been the dominant political issue overall. However, as a political agreement was formed between the Social Democrats, the Centre Party and the Socialist Party, the issue was settled for the time being. At the same time, the hydropower conflict has lived on, as industry has pressed on for more and cheaper energy against conservation interests. However, remaining rivers have been under legal protection so it has been less of an agenda item. These and other recent developments may indicate that the tradition of rationalism and science-based policy making has been challenged in recent times. This leads us to an overarching question: is some notion of objective rationalism still reflected in contemporary Swedish environmental policy? Or is the political attention to certain agendas driven by other factors, as has been suggested in a wide literature? This paper will unpack this question and hopefully provide some hints to how it can be answered. This will be done through addressing a series of more specific research questions. The first research question within the study is: What issues receive much attention in sector policymaking, and which are less represented on the agenda? This question is explored with an analysis of environmental policy integration in selected policy documents during a recent period. The next step is to seek explanations for the results from the policy attention analysis. In doing that, the study does not aim for a complete evaluation of all the factors that can influence the policy arena. Instead the focus is on some aspects which can be believed to explain the results from the analysis of policy attention. In doing this, a number of hypotheses have been developed and tested. The first prediction, is that high importance of an issue in terms of potential environmental impact lead to high levels of attention and that issues that are not important problems do not receive attention. In this paper, the term environmental hotspot is employed

243

when discussed and the potentially most important impacts from the sectors investigated are discussed. Examining this, the question: What are the environmental hotspots in the Swedish agriculture and energy sectors? is asked. This question is explored with data from environmental assessments of the two sectors. After this, the paper will explore a few different predictions that different policy theories have generated, to see which theoretical perspective, or combination thereof, is capable of explaining as much of the empirical data as possible. These are inspired by the theoretical work of Kingdon (1995) and other researchers introduced above. To test the hypotheses a set of analytical questions is applied. The hypotheses and questions are presented below, together with a brief description of how each question is analysed. First, based on Kingdon (1995) and Underdal (1989), it is postulated that a high level of knowledge of an issue leads to a high level of attention. Knowledge in this case includes understanding of cause and effect, as well as knowledge of emission sources and possibilities for reduced impact. Thus it is a question of knowledge both on a general level, and in the specific sector. How wellknown are the causes and effects related to the issue, and are observed effects in line with what could be predicted on the basis of current knowledge? These are mainly questions of knowledge on a general level, although there could also be sector-specific angles. They are explored using the literature, mainly overviews and descriptions from Sweden, but in some cases also international reviews. Furthermore, what is known about possible measures to reduce impacts from the sectors? Answers to this question derive from environmental sector analyses. Second, based on Downs (1972) and Kingdon (1995), it is suggested that the limited capacity of the policy system limits the amount of issues that can receive attention at the same time. If the quota is filled, that will lead to lower levels of attention for other issues. With a content analysis of policy documents it is explored how many issues has received solid attention simultaneously during recent years. Third, based on Downs (1972), it is predicted that there is a pattern of institutionalisation of issues and path dependency, suggesting that if a problem received attention in one year, it is more probable that it will do so again in the following year. It is therefore investigated how policy attention has changed in recent years. The answer derives from content analysis of policy documents. Fourth, based on Kingdon (1995) and Beder (2002), it is proposed that the presence of stakeholders inside the sector that benefit from putting a specific issue on the agenda will lead to high levels of attention. We believe it

244

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

to be important that the stakeholders are inside the sector, as they then have greater possibilities for inside access to the decision-makers in the sector (cf. Beder, 2002). In order to get inside access, it also seems important that they be well-organised, so as to be able to frame their issue in a successful way. The stakeholders that are looked for in relation to this question are not defined as those who suffer from the consequences of the problem, and thus benefit from a reduction in it. Instead, we define them as those providing an alternative that do not contribute to the specific environmental problem. The identification of actors present and active in the sectoral policy making process, and their core interests, have been derived from empirical work presented elsewhere (Nilsson, 2006; Nilsson & Eckerberg, 2007). It is expected, as in Beder (2002), that actors inside the policy process will be more likely to influence it than actors that merely benefit from a certain policy. Being on the “inside” of the sector is therefore an important factor in the analysis. These theoretical propositions were examined by means of information on the Swedish agriculture and energy sectors. These two sectors are of particular interest because they are intimately linked to many of the key sustainability challenges currently featured in the policy discourse, and they constitute the major culprits for some of the most severe environmental problems in Europe; hence, solutions to integration are urgently needed. These sectors have also been at the forefront of more active environmental integration efforts in recent years, e.g. through the Cardiff process (Nilsson and Eckerberg, 2007). They are also useful and interesting for comparative analysis because they represent different contexts in terms of actors, institutions and issues. In the text below, first the framework for our analysis is introduced, together with materials and methods used in applying the framework in the case study. Second, an evaluation of environmental hotspots (the most important impacts) in the sectors is presented. Third, it is analysed which issues receive policy attention, and fourth, the correlation between the hotspots and the policy attention. Fifth, the questions in the analytical framework are applied in order to explore patterns in issues receiving attention and issues being overlooked. 3. Materials and methods 3.1. Environmental analysis Environmental impacts of the sectors were investigated with the help of a method based on a combination of Environmentally Extended Input–Output Analysis (IOA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). These are

methods commonly used for environmental assessments using a systems perspective (see for example Finnveden and Moberg (2005) and Wrisberg et al. (2002) for recent overviews of such methods). Employing the systems view meant in this case that the sector assessments included not only the activities in the actual statistically delimited sector, but also upstream and downstream effects from production in the sectors. The quantitative assessment based on IOA and LCA was also complemented by more qualitative information using the Swedish national environmental quality objectives as a checklist. In this way the analysis provided a comprehensive picture of impacts arising from the sectoral production in one year. For example, in the agricultural sector, the study covered impacts from agriculture itself, but also impacts from producing all inputs needed on farms, such as machinery, pesticides and fertilisers, and impacts from processing, transport and consumption of agricultural products. This definition might at first seem unnecessarily wide. However, impacts from all upstream and downstream effects arise from the activities in the sector and if the aim is to produce energy carriers and agricultural produce with effective resource use and low levels of pollution, it is important to include all these effects. Otherwise the problems might be moved upstream or downstream in the production chain, rather than being truly reduced. Since the analysis covered a certain year (in this case 1999), it is an account of the activities in that year, rather than an estimate of possible impacts in the future. Although impacts that seem important to bear in mind when considering current trends are discussed, the primary aim was not to make risk assessments concerning potential future impacts. The aim of the assessments was to make a holistic assessment of potential environmental impacts from the sectors, and to identify the potentially most important environmental aspects, as well as the key actors involved. Environmental aspects included were Non-renewable resources, Global warming, Air quality, Acidification, Eutrophication, Toxicity and Biodiversity. For the agriculture sector also Soil fertility, Animal health and Genetically modified organisms were added. The method and detailed results for the agriculture sector are described in Engström et al. (2007) and results from the energy sector assessment are further described in Engström and Wadeskog (2007). The energy sector did not include the transport sector, although transport needed for production and distribution of fuels was included. In order to identify environmental hotspots from the analysis, weighting methods developed in LCA methodology were used. All such weighting methods are based on

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

245

Table 1 Contents analysis in the annual budget — agriculture sector

Resources Climate Eutrophication Toxicity Biodiversity Air quality Acidification Environment Total pages

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 0 1 30 29 0 1 134 67

0 0 0 23 26 0 1 137 71

0 0 4 17 24 0 2 154 96

0 0 6 28 23 0 3 193 115

0 0 0 16 27 0 0 236 95

0 0 8 25 26 0 0 224 93

0 0 12 35 27 0 0 233 101

0 0 3 37 22 0 0 187 108

2 4 19 42 27 0 0 289 124

values about which kinds of impacts are the worst; thus such methods do not give objective results. In order to reduce subjectivity, we used several methods as a basis for hotspot identification. Three different weighting methods were used: Ecotax 2002 (Finnveden et al., 2006), which uses weighting factors derived from Swedish ecotaxes as a measure of how Swedish society values different impacts; Ecoindicator 99 (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000), where results are weighted using an expert panel; and EPS 2000 (Steen, 1999), which uses willingness-to-pay measures. The impact from each sector was also set in relation to the aggregated environmental impact, from all activities, in Sweden. An aspect was regarded as an environmental hotspot if it was identified as being of major importance according to at least one of the methods. The identification of environmental hotspots was used to explore correlations between potential environmental impacts and policy attention, which is further described in the Results section. The detailed results from the sector analyses were also used to explore some of the analytical questions described previously. 3.2. Other material Besides the environmental sector analyses, also literature sources for the evaluation of the checklist questions were used. These mainly concerned the question of knowledge base, but were used also as a complement for analysing some other questions. The literature consisted mainly of reports from Swedish authorities, and references are cited in relation to each issue. The basis for the analysis of the level of policy attention was a quantitative content analysis of the major policy bills from the period 1997 to 20042, to trace the emergence of the different environmental issues in the policy bills (Stemler, 2001). For the energy sector, data were based on the major energy bills ‘En uthållig 2

The time period was chosen for practical reasons, since 1997 was the first year when the documents were available as pdf-files.

energiförsörjning’ (Swedish Government, 1997a) and ‘Samverkan för en trygg, effektiv och miljövänlig energiförsörjning’ (Swedish Government, 2002), as well as the energy chapter in the annual budget bill for the last 9 years. For the agricultural sector, data were based on the agricultural chapters in the annual budget bill for the last 9 years, as well as the major agricultural bills ‘Hållbart Jordbruk och Fiske’ (Swedish Government, 1997b) and ‘Miljö och landbygdsutvecklingsprogrammet 2000–2006’ (Swedish Government, 2000). The classification scheme is based on eight analytical categories (see Table 1). For instance, climate change is a category where words like greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and greenhouse effect have been counted. For acidification, words related to the criteria pollutants have been counted, as well as variations of the core concept. One limitation of the approach is that government bills only constitute the end product of the policy process. Therefore, we only reveal the final outcome of the process, although issue attention is naturally a phenomenon present throughout the policy process. A more comprehensive analysis would include the documents of various policy preparations including Committees of Inquiry. Such an analysis would render a richer and more complex image of issue attention, including understanding in more detail the role of different actors — and their resources — in influencing the presence or absence of policy attention. However, regardless of process features, we maintain that it is the outputs that matter most, and the fact that issues have been filtered away during the process and do not show up in the final policy documents is a more significant finding than to find out whether indeed the issues were present at some stage. 4. Results 4.1. Policy attention The content analysis of the annual budget was the basis for evaluation of policy attention. Here it should first be

246

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

Table 2 Contents analysis in the annual budget — energy sector

Resources Climate Eutrophication Toxicity Biodiversity Air quality Acidification Environment Total pages

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

3 9 0 0 0 0 0 16 21

21 28 0 0 0 0 0 13 27

25 52 0 0 0 0 0 26 48

31 52 0 0 0 0 0 44 60

60 58 0 0 0 0 0 56 75

55 56 0 0 1 3 2 51 72

59 63 1 0 1 4 3 79 84

69 57 0 0 3 1 3 86 92

88 58 0 0 0 3 2 90 98

noted that for energy, the volume of text increased significantly from 21 pages in 1997 up to 98 pages in 2005, and for agriculture less dramatically from 67 to 124 pages in the same period. Increases in contents of environmental themes must be put in relation to this overall increase. Still, there were some marked changes in the way environmental issues were treated. In agriculture, there was relatively little change, with an overall focus on toxicity (the use of agrochemicals) and biological diversity throughout the time period (see Table 1). Acidification appears to have been removed from the agenda. Furthermore, in the major agricultural bills of 1997 and 2000, there was a complete negligence of climate change. Not until 2005 did this issue emerge at all. In energy, there was a persistent focus on climate change and on renewable resource use, and an overall negligence of any other issues until 2002, when issues such as biological diversity, air quality and acidification began to be discussed (Table 2). The same patterns were apparent in the major energy bills of 1997 and 2002. To conclude, Table 1 shows that policy attention in agriculture has mainly been directed at toxicity and biodiversity, with an emergence of eutrophication in recent years. Table 2 shows that policy attention in energy has mainly been directed at resource use and climate change, with some attention given to air quality and acidification. The findings of this content analysis confirm earlier studies that analysed environmental policy integration into the energy and agricultural sectors. Nilsson and Persson (2003) and Nilsson (2005) showed that environmental concerns in energy policy have shifted over the years and have in later years become dominated by the climate change agenda and the renewable energy agenda. These studies suggest that the attention to these issues has led to a crowding out of other relevant environmental issues, such as rural landscapes, air pollution and biological diversity. Söderberg (2005) and Eckerberg and Wide (2001) show that the agricultural policy agenda has first and foremost been geared towards

biological diversity and rural landscapes (the latter however a category not captured in the sector environmental analysis described above). 4.2. Environmental hotspots The potentially most important impacts from Swedish agriculture according to the analysis were eutrophication, global warming and resource use (Engström et al., 2007). The agricultural sector produces a large share of the Swedish emissions causing both global warming and eutrophication. In addition, current agricultural methods cause problems with loss of biodiversity. Toxicity might also be a hotspot in the sector, but because of data gaps it was difficult to decide definitely on this issue. The impacts abroad were in many cases as large as the domestic impact, although only imports for Swedish agricultural produce, and not imported food products, were considered (Engström et al., 2007). Although the analysis did not provide detailed information for a division of impacts on different products from the sector, some impacts could be tied to a certain product group. The clearest example is animal products. Cattle raising entails release of methane and ammonia from the animals and their excretions, while fodder production causes many of the problems linked to cultivation, such as nutrient leakage. Table 3 Environmental hotspots in the agriculture and energy sectors (x =hotspot) Agriculture Acidification Air quality Animal health Biodiversity Climate change Eutrophication Resource use Soil fertility Toxicity

Energy x

x x x x ?

x x x

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

The assessment of the energy sector showed that main problems were the use of non-renewable resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and substances affecting air quality (Engström and Wadeskog, 2007). Environmental impacts from production of energy carriers originate from the power, gas and heat sector, and from producers in other countries from which Sweden imports energy carriers. However, even larger impacts come from the use of energy. Steel and metal works and pulp and paper industries are large users in Sweden, but it also appears distinctly that combined emissions from many small users — households, public institutions and many small sub-sectors — overshadow emissions from the large users (Engström and Wadeskog, 2007). Households and public institutions are also the main users of power, gas and heat. The largest energy carriers in Sweden are fossil fuels3 (277 000 TJ), biofuels4 (248 000 MJ), and hydropower and nuclear for electricity production (together 520 000 TJ5, about half from hydro and half from nuclear) (Engström and Wadeskog, 2007). Although Sweden has a fairly low dependence on fossil fuels, these energy carriers stand out as the most problematic, and a further exchange from those to other fuels is one of the most important measures in the sector. Besides contributing to resource depletion and air pollution, fossil fuels are also toxic to both humans and nature. The environmental sector analysis was the basis for identification of environmental hotspots in each sector. These are shown in Table 3. 4.3. First synthesis Comparing the findings concerning policy attention with the hotspots in Table 3 indicates that the policy attention correlated reasonably well with the important impacts in the sectors, although there were also some interesting deviating patterns. All issues on the agenda were important issues, but not all important issues were on the agenda. It appears that issue importance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for policy attention. It is also noticeable that the hypotheses of attention capacity and path dependency appears to be confirmed. In both sectors, attention was limited almost exclusively to two issues, and those issues remained the same from year to year.

3 4 5

Coal, coke, fuel oil, kerosene, natural gas and town gas. Peat, tall oil, waste liquor and wood fuels. Produced electricity.

247

4.4. Analysis of issue characteristics In determining the factors influencing whether an issue made it onto the agenda originally, the assessment was continued by exploring two aspects of issue characteristics: knowledge levels and stakeholder interests. In the following paragraphs these aspects are discussed, divided per issue and per sector. Each section discusses first what is known of the problems in general, and second, the main sources of pollution for each sector and the ways in which the impacts could be reduced. To explore this the findings from the environmental sector analyses were employed. The same discussion also identifies the stakeholders in the sector who benefit from having a certain issue on the agenda. Table 4 summarizes the results from this section concerning issue characteristics of the environmental hotspots in relation to the hypotheses on knowledge level and stakeholders. 4.4.1. Non-renewable resources Many kinds of resources are used in the two sectors investigated, and those assessed here were energy carriers, phosphorus, water, land and soil, and genetic resources/biodiversity. Use of phosphorous, water, land and soil was not regarded as an important aspect for Swedish circumstances, and is therefore not discussed further in this paper. Biodiversity is discussed as a separate issue, which means that resources covered in this paragraph are fossil fuels and uranium. The magnitude of fossil fuel resources are fairly wellknown, although exact amounts, as well as the possibility of extraction, are contentious issues (see for example Campbell and Laherrére, 1998). Uranium resources are also quite well-known, see e.g. World Nuclear Association (2004). 4.4.1.1. Agriculture. Most of the fossil fuels in the agriculture sector are used abroad for the production of imported goods, while within the country most are used in power and heating plants. The use of uranium also occurs in power plants. Production of power and heat occurs on behalf of other actors in the sector using these products. The main users of electricity within Sweden, associated with the agriculture sector, are households and the food industry. The food industry is also a large user of fossil fuels. Reducing the impact from the sector mainly involves reducing total energy use, or inducing a change towards renewable fuels. Stakeholders in the sector who would benefit from putting resource use on the policy agenda are those providing alternative energy carriers produced on agricultural areas, mainly biofuels and wind power. However, these

248

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

Table 4 Issue characteristics of hotspots in the agriculture and energy sectors Agriculture Hotspot Level of policy attention

Acidification Air quality

No No

Low Low

Biodiversity

Yes

High

Energy Level of Measures knowledge to reduce impact

Insufficient Organic farming practices Fair Reduced consumption of animal products

Inside Hotspot Level Level of Measures of policy knowledge to reduce stakeholders benefiting attention impact from having the issue on the agenda

Organic farmers

No Yes

Low Low

No

Low

Yes Producers of poultry and pork, vegetarian food and health food No Producers Eutrophication Yes Emerging Insufficient Reduced consumption of vegetarian food and of animal health food products Yes Farmers Resource use Yes Low Fair Renewable producing energy, biofuels and reduced wind power energy consumption Possibly Toxicity Possibly High Insufficient Reduced use Organic of pesticides, farmers cleaner fertilisers Climate change

Yes

Low

producers might not be fully perceived as stakeholders within the agriculture sector, since the products, although produced on farm land, are energy carriers rather than agricultural products. This was confirmed in a recent assessment of Swedish bioenergy policy, where it was found that coordination between the agriculture sector and the energy sector concerning this issue has been poor (Söderberg, 2005). 4.4.1.2. Energy. Use of fossil fuels and uranium makes resource use a hotspot in the energy sector too, and the issue is also on the agenda. Uranium is used for power production, while fossil fuels are mainly used by many small actors — households as well as companies — and in steel and metal works. Households are also the

High

Inside stakeholders benefiting from having the issue on the agenda

Fair

Reduced use of fuels, improved combustion technique

Producers of power except from fossil and bio fuels, producers of heat pumps, suppliers of natural gas

Fair

Reduced use of fossil fuels

Producers of energy from renewable sources and from nuclear

Low

High

Low

Fair

Renewable energy, reduced energy consumption Insufficient Reduced use of fossil fuels

Producers of energy from renewable sources Producers of energy from renewable sources and from nuclear

main electricity users. Reducing the impact from the sector includes a change to renewable fuels or reduction of energy use. Reduced energy use could be attained by enhancing efficiency, for example through increased insulation of houses or technological development of electrical supplies, or by changed behaviour, such as lower indoor temperature or using the electrical supplies more seldom. Stakeholders benefiting from having the issue on the agenda include producers of renewable energy carriers, such as biofuels, wind and hydropower. 4.4.2. Climate change According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is very high confidence that

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

human activities since 1750 has lead to global warming: ’Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’. (IPCC, 2007). The same report states that the understanding of anthropogenic influences has increased since the previous assessment (in 2001), and observations as well as modelling has improved quantitative estimates of radiative forcing. 4.4.2.1. Agriculture. Climate change is a hotspot in the sector, not only because of energy use but also because of emissions from other sources: methane from ruminants and nitrous oxide from soil processes. A reduction in the number of animals and the area under cultivation could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (AEA Technology Environment, 1998a; 1998b; SJV, 2004). Such reductions could be achieved by importing food from other countries for Swedish consumption, which would not provide a genuine solution, but would instead move the problem to another part of the world. Another way would be to change production composition through changed diets among consumers: for example a diet with less animal products requires not only less animals, but also less acreage of arable land for growing feed for the animals (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). Poultry and pork need less feed per kg of consumable product than beef (Goodland, 1997), and broilers and pigs also do not emit methane as ruminants do. This makes the consumers important actors, given that the sector gradually will adjust to consumer demand. Emissions of carbon dioxide in the sector are mainly from imports. The emissions of greenhouse gases abroad, caused by import of commodities to agriculture and processing and consumption of exported Swedish agricultural products, were nearly as large as the emissions from the sector activities in Sweden. If imports were reduced, the products would have to be produced in Sweden instead, and the same emissions would then occur in Sweden. However the transport, with associated emissions, could be reduced. Since much of the imports consist of feed for animals, a changed diet in favour of less meat could also in this case contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector could be avoided by decreasing animal products, especially cattle. Thus producers of alternative products would benefit from having the issue on the agenda. Vegetarian alternatives are often pointed out as healthy alternatives, which means that the health food industry would also benefit from a focus on climate change in the

249

agriculture sector. A brief search on the internet for Swedish companies providing vegetarian food and health food gave the result that none of these use environmental reasons as sales arguments for their products. This led us to the conclusion that these producers can not be perceived as well-organised in this perspective. 4.4.2.2. Energy. Climate change is a hotspot in the energy sector too. Greenhouse gas emissions from production of energy carriers originate from the power, gas and heat sector, and from producers in other countries, from which Sweden imports energy carriers. However, even more emissions come from the use of energy, and combined emissions from many small users — households and other small users — overshadow emissions from the large users. Households and public institutions are also the main users of power, gas and heat, for which reason emissions from the production of these could also be ascribed to these actors. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy production and use could be achieved by changing energy carriers from fossil fuels to other sources, or by reduced use of energy. Stakeholders in the energy sector benefiting from having the climate issue on the agenda are partly the same as for resource use, i.e. the producers of renewable energy sources. However, in this case the nuclear industry is also involved, as nuclear power emits only small amounts of carbon dioxide. 4.4.3. Eutrophication According to a recent description of the eutrophication problem in Sweden, there are large unanswered scientific questions regarding nutrient flows on land, accumulation in groundwater and subsoil water and the proportion of nutrients in sea bed sediments that can be restored to marine ecosystems through microbial processes and bioturbation (Environmental Advisory Council, 2005). Knowledge of flows and ground processes of phosphorus in particular is insufficient (Ministry of Environment, 2000a). Recovery of highly eutrophied lakes has been very slow since the late 1970s, although measures have been implemented according to current knowledge, and emissions have been reduced (ibid). None of the trends observed in surface water in the Baltic during recent decades can be linked to changed loads from land (Larsson and Andersson, 2004). Thus it is not known what reductions are required in order to improve the situation in the Baltic. It has been suggested that the ecosystem in the Baltic has undergone a regime shift, and now entered a eutrophic state, unlike the former oligotrophic regime, and it will thus be very difficult to restore the old ecosystem

250

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

(Environmental Advisory Council, 2005; Ministry of Environment, 2003). 4.4.3.1. Agriculture. Agriculture contributes almost half of the eutrophying emissions from Swedish sources. To reduce nutrient leakage, farmers can be educated on strategic techniques for handling and applying nutrients, while regulations can be implemented on where to allow cattle and crops known to cause large nutrient leakage. Furthermore, a diet including a large share of animal products leads to substantially more emissions of nitrogen to air and water during production and sewage treatment than a diet with only vegetables (Swedish EPA, 1996). Thus a change in composition of the diet and domestic agricultural production could potentially lead to a reduction in eutrophication. If reducing eutrophication from agriculture means reduced consumption of animal products, producers of vegetarian alternatives and the health industry could benefit, as discussed under ‘climate change’ above. 4.4.3.2. Energy. Although the energy sector causes emissions of nitrogen oxides from fuel burning, eutrophication does not appear as an important problem in the sector in the environmental assessment, nor is the issue on the political agenda. A reduction in the emissions would involve a reduction in fossil fuel use, which has been previously discussed, as well as reduced use of biofuels. The emissions could also be reduced by stricter emission control techniques. Stakeholders benefiting from reduced fossil fuel use are discussed above. 4.4.4. Toxicity The knowledge of toxic substances occurring in society is limited (Ministry of Environment, 2000a; 2000b). No one knows exactly how many chemical substances there are on the Swedish market, and knowledge is lacking of the health and environmental effects of many substances (Ministry of Environment, 2000b). Because of this lack of knowledge, ecologically damaging and health-hazardous substances cannot be identified, nor can risk assessments or measures to limit the risks be made to an adequate extent (ibid). Effects of toxic substances are in some cases delayed for decades. Before effects are discovered, levels in the environment might have accumulated and it could take a very long time before measures to reduce the substances have effects. Toxic substances that were possible to assess included emissions of metals to water from municipal wastewater treatment and use of risk- and hazardous-classified chemicals (including agricultural pesticides). Ideally,

the toxicity category should include emissions to air, water and soil from both diffuse and point sources, but it was not possible to include all these aspects in the assessment. Emissions of organic compounds are missing from the analysis, as are airborne emissions of metals. Concerning chemicals, only the use of chemicals is known, not the occurrence in the environment and range of the risks associated with human exposure. Diffuse sources, such as airborne emissions from transport that eventually end up in the water, were not accounted for, nor were emissions that never reach the sewage treatment. Analyses have shown that the diffuse sources make up a considerable part of all sources in wastewater treatment (Sörme and Lagerkvist, 2002). Thus, there is a general lack of knowledge and data. 4.4.4.1. Agriculture. The environmental assessment showed that the largest use of risk-classified chemicals6 in the agriculture sector occurred in the sector ‘glass, cement and ceramic goods’, where the largest source was cement production. It is interesting to note that the use of pesticides only constituted a small part of the total chemicals use in the food chain. However, compared to the use of chemicals for cement production, which mostly occurs in closed systems, pesticides are used in the environment, with the purpose of affecting it. Thus there are other risks associated with the use of pesticides, which runs the risk of influencing i.e. biodiversity and human health. Large amounts of chemicals are also used abroad because of the Swedish agricultural production. Reducing harmful effects of chemicals would involve exchanging substances currently used for less toxic substances (with the reservation that all effects of these might not be discovered yet), handling them in closed cycles (which does not apply to pesticide use), or reducing their overall use. Another toxicity problem is cadmium in agricultural soils, emanating from the use of contaminated P-fertiliser and manure (where cadmium in imported concentrate feed causes enrichment). Reducing this problem would involve developing ‘cleaner’ fertilisers or reducing their overall use. Because of the lack of knowledge, it is difficult to evaluate whether toxicity is a hotspot in the sector or not. Still, because of the closeness to food, human health and nature, our judgment is that it should be considered a potential hotspot. Farmers using organic farming practices benefit from having this problem on the agenda, as they do not use either pesticides or chemical fertilisers. 6

Excluding fossil fuels.

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

4.4.4.2. Energy. In the energy sector too, knowledge of the issue is quite poor, and data used in the environmental analysis were far from satisfactory. What is known is that fossil fuels themselves are toxic, and their production involves a lot of other chemicals. Thus it is identified as a hotspot issue, and the measure needed is a reduction in fossil fuel use. Stakeholders benefiting from reduced use of fossil fuels have been discussed previously. 4.4.5. Biodiversity The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), based on the work of more than 2000 authors and reviewers worldwide, establishes that ‘changes in important components of biological diversity were more rapid in the past 50 years than at any time in human history’ (p. 2). An important driving force is that a production increase in ecosystems, such as in agriculture, requires simplification of natural systems in favour of high yields (ibid). Still, many things in this field are unknown. The role of biodiversity for enhancing ecosystem resilience is for example described as ‘established but incomplete’. Many of the negative effects associated with biodiversity depletion are slow to become apparent — a reduction in ecosystem resilience might not be visible until there is a significant change in the surrounding circumstances, and the lost ability to recover is evident (ibid). 4.4.5.1. Agriculture. More than half of the threatened species of mammals, birds and several large groups of insects and almost 90% of the threatened vascular plants in Sweden are associated with the agricultural landscape (Statistics Sweden and LRF, 2001), and thus dependent on farming practices for their survival. A review of 76 studies comparing the impact on biodiversity of organic and conventional farming practices showed that a wide range of taxa, from birds and mammals to microorganisms, have been found to benefit from organic practices (Hole et al., 2005). In 2000, 13% of the arable land in Sweden was registered as organic farming (Statistics Sweden, 2003). The agriculture sector also affects ecosystems in other countries because of the import of seed and feed. The cultivation of soybean in Brazil has caused losses of biodiversity due to deforestation (Cordeiro, 2000), and a large part of the manufactured feed used in Sweden comes from Brazilian soybean. In the rest of the food chain too, land use has impacts on biodiversity. One example is infrastructure for transportation. Roads affect habitats both directly through the conversion of land cover into artificial surfaces, and indirectly due to fragmentation and degradation (e.g. noise, pollution and light) (Geneletti,

251

2003). Although roads are not built exclusively for food transport, getting food to different parts of the country is one important reason for building roads. Since organic farming has been shown to enhance biodiversity, farmers using such practices benefit from having the issue on the agenda. 4.4.5.2. Energy. Impacts on biodiversity from the energy sector are primarily from hydropower and biofuel exploitation. Hydropower dams affect nearby ecosystems both in areas upstream that are submerged, and in downstream areas that are periodically drained (see e.g. Hjelm, 2004). Although the exploited rivers are severely affected, assessments of impacts of dams in Swedish rivers have not found that any species or biotopes have been made extinct (Ministry of Housing, 1974). This is because four Swedish river systems are protected from exploitation, and on species and biotope level the different river systems are relatively similar. However, genetic diversity between the rivers risks being lost (ibid). Hydropower constitutes around half of Swedish electricity production. Biofuels constitute around 40% of all fuels used in stationary sources7, and most of these derive from forest areas. Modern forestry methods affect biodiversity negatively in many cases. For example, the total number of species in a virgin forest in central Sweden has been estimated at around 8000, while a spruce plantation in the same region barely contains more than 2000 species (Swedish EPA, 1994). Provided certain safeguards are observed, extended use of felling relics has not been found to give any additional negative effect on biological diversity, although long-term effects have not been properly investigated (Egnell et al., 1998). Biodiversity was not considered to be a hotspot issue in the sector, since extended use of felling relics has not been found to increase impacts from silviculture, and none of the protected river systems were exploited in our study year, 1999. Still, this is not a hard and fast conclusion, and biodiversity aspects could very well be a hotspot in the years ahead, depending on decisions regarding extended biofuel cultivation and hydropower exploitation. Biodiversity depletion, as an effect of future climate change, is another possible major impact from the sector. However, such effect was judged to be still too poorly known to be included in the assessment. All stakeholders providing energy carriers with less impact on biodiversity than hydropower and biofuels would benefit from having this issue on the sector agenda. These include producers of renewables, such as 7

Biofuels include wood fuels, tall oil, waste liquor and peat.

252

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

wind power, photovoltaic cells and solar heating systems, but also nuclear power. 4.4.6. Air quality According to the Swedish Ministry of Environment (2000a), the emission reductions needed to fulfil air quality objectives in densely populated areas are fairly well-known. Air pollutants assessed in the IOA in the environmental assessment were sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. 4.4.6.1. Agriculture. This issue was not identified as a hotspot issue, nor is it on the agenda. It is however not totally insignificant: food transport in the sector contributes to air quality degradation, both in Sweden and in other countries. Reduced transport or changed fuels could decrease this impact. Stakeholders who could benefit from having this problem on the agenda are those promoting local and regional food, i.e. producers with short transport distances to consumers. 4.4.6.2. Energy. The energy sector in total is a large contributor of some air pollutants, with for example 40% of the emissions of volatile organic compounds and 49% of the emissions of sulphur dioxide. Many of the pollutants come from fossil fuel combustion, mainly from power and heat production, and from fuel use in households and by other small actors. Pulp and paper industries and steel and metal works release much sulphur dioxide. Emissions in the countries from which Sweden imports energy carriers are in most cases larger than those from any single domestic actor. A reduction in fossil fuel use would help reduce all of these emissions. Particles were not included in the IOA, but are an issue of growing concern. Main emission sources of particles smaller than 10 μm (PM10) are traffic (exhaust gases, whirl up, and from wear of tires, brakes and roadways) together with fuel combustion for heating, especially wood fuels (Areskoug, 2000). Emissions from wood stoves are principally a local problem in residential districts with high densities of old wood stoves (Forsberg et al., 2005). The share of biomass in the Swedish energy system is increasing, and although there are commercially available techniques that fulfil current environmental demands, the proportion of boilers with old technology is still increasing (Hansson, 2003). A reduction in biofuel use or an increased use of better technologies would help reduce particle emissions. Stakeholders who could benefit from having this issue on the agenda are producers of energy carriers

other than fossil fuel and biofuel. These include producers of heat pumps, suppliers of natural gas and producers of power from sources other than fossil and biofuels, as it is common to use electricity for heating in Sweden. 5. Discussion and conclusions The comparison between environmental hotspots and policy attention showed that all issues on the agenda were also environmental hotspots. Acidification, formerly a problem connected to both the agriculture and energy sectors, disappeared from the agenda, and is also no longer identified as a hotspot. However, not all environmental hotspots identified in the environmental sector analyses were present on the policy agenda in the two sectors, which calls for a further exploration of reasons for issue attention. The content analysis of policy documents showed a clear pattern in both sectors: only two issues in each sector received solid attention over several years and the issues that were discussed remained very much the same. Some issues came and went between the years, but the number of issues did not show an increasing trend. Thus, there is some validity in the predictions generated by theories of attention capacity and path dependency. A comparison between the level of knowledge and the policy attention (Table 4, second and third column in each sector), did not reveal a close correlation. In the agriculture sector, the relatively poorly known issues of biodiversity and toxicity received solid attention, while the more well-known issues, such as climate change and resource use, seemed not to be discussed. On the other hand, in the energy sector the use of toxic chemicals is more well-known because of the fossil fuels themselves, but did not receive the same level of attention as in the agriculture sector. Air pollution, a well-known issue, was not present on the energy sector agenda. Thus the prediction that there should be a connection between knowledge level and policy attention does not seem to hold in practice. However, none of the issues are totally unknown — a certain level of knowledge has to be attained before the issue can attract awareness. Of course, it is difficult to give a judgment on the level of knowledge. Our judgements on the basic knowledge level in this paper are based on assessments in literature by other authors. However, an issue that we today seem to know reasonably well might suddenly appear in a different light, where the resultant effects could not be foreseen with the knowledge we had before. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea could be an example of this, where measures applied during the last 20 years have

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

not had the intended effects. The issue of climate change has been considered fairly well-known by the IPCC, but still the full-scale effects have not been seen, and not until they do will it be clearer whether we had good knowledge or not. The last theory introduced above suggested that an issue would occur on the agenda if there were organised stakeholders inside the sector who would benefit from having that issue on the agenda. The assessment of this issue in the paper is made on a comprehensive level and cannot give deep insights in relations and power structures in the sectors. Still, the analysis gives some support for the theory. In the agriculture sector organic farmers, who are organised by the Swedish Ecological Farmers organisation, benefit from having biodiversity and toxicity on the agenda. In contrast, the stakeholders within the sector benefiting from having the issues climate change, eutrophication and non-renewable resource use, do not have corresponding organisations. For the energy sector, bioenergy producers are organised by the Swedish Bioenergy Association, which benefits from having climate change and resource use on the agenda. Nuclear energy producers would also benefit from a climate change debate. Thus there are stakeholders within the sector who benefit from having these issues on the agenda. However, for the issues given less attention (air quality and toxicity) there are also stakeholders who would benefit from having the issues on the agenda, notably the natural gas suppliers. However, these are often associated with petroleum or power producers, who also provide products contributing to air quality and toxicity problems. Thus they may have problems discussing air quality and toxicity with credibility and enthusiasm. To conclude the discussion on stakeholders, our results seem to indicate that there is a connection between policy attention and organised stakeholders inside the sector. So how come organic farmers and bioenergy producers have been successful in putting their issues on the agenda? The clue to their success might be found in coalitions with other, more powerful, interests. Nilsson (2005) found that the emergence of a strategic interest coalition between diverse actors from agriculture, forestry and the engineering sector (promoting biofuels) and the nuclear industry (promoting nuclear) contributed to climate becoming well integrated in energy policy. In the agriculture sector, such a coalition was not discernible. However, it is plausible that the values and concerns associated with organic farming practices have a strong presence and support in central government, for example through recruitment of civil servants from the environmental movement.

253

Our assessment showed that a rationalistic approach, suggesting that the most important problems are those present on sectoral policy agendas, does not provide a full explanation. It also appeared that there is competition between issues, as the attention capacity is limited, and that once issues have made it onto the agenda, they will probably remain there for a while. This could be explained by the forming of institutions that keep issues on the agenda once they are introduced. In searching for a clue as to what makes some issues more successful than others in getting this attention, we also assessed the knowledge level and stakeholder interests. Our evaluation did not show any link between the issues with high attention and the level of knowledge. A stronger link was established with the presence of strong and wellorganised stakeholders within the sector. In fact this turned out to be rather decisive for the success of an issue. Our study did not provide answers regarding why and how these processes work, it could only point out that it would be interesting to take a closer look at this area. The results from the content analysis were very clear. This paper discusses some issues that we believe can explain the results. We have however not aimed for a review of all possible factors that can explain them. The results are therefore open for further interpretation and discussion. We have approximated policy attention through a quantitative contents analysis of governmental bills. An alternative and possibly more disclosing measure could be the spending on various issues. However, such a measure might be misleading because the budgetary spending is only a minor part of the policy instruments at the government's disposal and therefore it would not really correlate with policy attention. Spending would capture research and development, subsidies and cleanup measures, but would fail to grasp both regulatory measures such as bans or thresholds, taxes and fees, and various forms of procedures that are put in place to handle the environment. The choice of instruments, which in turn relates to the institutional, contextual and historical characteristics of different sectors might instead be the decisive factor shaping the spending pattern. Furthermore, although the spending pattern could have been interesting as a complement to the contents analysis, the published sector budgets do not disclose in a comprehensive or systematic way the spending related to various environmental issues and it would therefore be associated with severe data difficulties. In this study, policy attention and issue characteristics were investigated. An alternative way would be to study policy outcome, i.e. measures connected to any of

254

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255

the environmental issues, rather than policy attention as we have investigated it. Such assessments might give different results, and could provide supplementary information. The issues discussed in this paper operate in complex, dynamic settings that are difficult to unpack fully. There are certainly angles that could provide alternative interesting clues to the issues discussed here, which we could not include in our assessment. Still, the evaluation we could make based on our assessments of the Swedish agriculture and energy sectors provided some interesting information on the connections between policy attention and issue characteristics. We find that the issues of agenda setting and policy attention benefit from being assessed empirically as in this paper, taking an interdisciplinary approach in combining data on environmental performance with estimates of issue attention among decision-makers. Further investigations of this kind could provide increased knowledge of these issues. Acknowledgements This work was carried out within the framework of the PINTS project funded by Formas. The manuscript was discussed with other researchers within the team, as well as with the scientific reference group. The results were also a part of Rebecka Engström's PhD thesis and presentment at the SETAC–Europe annual conference in Porto 2007. The paper benefited substantially from all these discussions, and we are most grateful for all comments and suggestions that we have received. References AEA Technology Environment. Options to reduce methane emissions. AEAT-3773:Issue 3. Brussels: DGXI; 1998a. AEA Technology Environment. Options to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. AEAT-4180:Issue 3. Brussels: DGXI; 1998b. Anshelm J. Mellan frälsning och domedag: om kärnkraftens politiska idéhistoria i Sverige 1945–1999 [Between salvation and armageddon: on nuclear political history in Sweden 1945–1999], Stockholm, Brutus Östlings Bokförlag; 2000. Areskoug H. Particles in the ambient atmosphere. Scand J Work, Environ Health, Suppl 2000;26(supplement 1):5–22. Beder S. Agenda setting for environmental protection policies. In: Kerr S, Buhrs T, Dann C, editors. Green governance: from periphery to power. Christchurch: Linclon University; 2002. Campbell CJ, Laherrére JH. The end of cheap oil. Sci Am March 1998:78–83. Carlsson-Kanyama A. Climate change and dietary choices: how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy 1998;23(3–4):277–93. Cordeiro A. Sustainable agriculture in the global age. lessons from brazilian agriculture. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation; 2000.

Downs A. Up and down with ecology. the “issue–attention cycle”. The Public Interest 1972;28:38–50. Eckerberg K, Wide J. The nature of rural development: Sweden. Umeå: Umeå University: Department of Political Science; 2001. Egnell G, Nohrstedt H-Ö, Weslien J, Westling O, Örlander G. Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning (MKB) av skogsbränsleuttag, asktillförsel och övrig näringskompensation (EIA of wood fuel harvesting, ash application and other nutrient compensation). In Swedish. Rapport 1 1998. Jönköping, Sweden: National Board of Forestry; 1998. Engström R, Finnveden G, Wadeskog A. Environmental assessment of Swedish agriculture. Ecol Econ 2007;60:550–63. Engström R, Wadeskog A. Environmental impact from a sector: production and consumption of energy carriers in Sweden. Progress in Industrial Ecology — An International Journal 2007;3:451–70. Environmental Advisory Council. Strategi för hav och kust utan övergödning (In Swedish). Promemoria 2005:1. Stockholm: Miljövårdsberedningen; 2005. Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J. Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes. development of a mid point method and experiences from a case study. Int J LCA 2006;11(Special issue No 1):81–8. Finnveden G, Moberg Å. Environmental systems analysis tools — an overview. J Clean Prod 2005;13(12):1165–73. Forsberg B, Hansson HC, Johansson C, Areskoug H, Persson K, Järvholm B. Comparative health impact assessment of local and regional particulate air pollutants in Scandinavia. Ambio 2005;34(1): 11–9. Geneletti D. Biodiversity impact assessment of roads: an approach based on ecosystem rarity. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2003;23: 343–65. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology Report, third edition. Amersfoort: PRé Consultants B.V.; 2000. Goodland R. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol Econ 1997;23(3):189–200. Hansson HC. Biobränsle- Hälsa- Miljö. Preliminär slutrapport, Sammanfattning (Biofuel- Health- Environment Preliminary final report, Summary) In Swedish. Stockholm: ITM; 2003. Hjelm S. Vattenkraft- miljöpåverkan och åtgärder (Hydro powerenvironmental impacts and measures). In Swedish. Stockholm: Elforsk / Swedish Energy Agency; 2004. Hole DG, Perkins AJ, Wilson JD, Alexander IH, Grice PV, Evans AD. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol Conserv 2005;122: 113–30. IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquie, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper-Collins; 1995. Larsson U, Andersson L. Varför fosfor ökar och kväve minskar i egentliga Östersjöns ytvatten (Why phosphorous increases an nitrogen decreases in surface water in the Baltic sea) In Swedish. Stockholm: Stockholm University; 2004. Lundqvist L. Implementation from above: the ecology of power in Sweden's environmental governance. Governance 2001;14:319–37. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: biodiversity synthesis. Washington DC.: World Resources Institute; 2005.

R. Engström et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 241–255 Ministry of Environment. Framtidens miljö- allas vårt ansvar! SOU 2000:52. Stockholm: Swedish Government; 2000a. Ministry of Environment. Non-hazardous products: proposals for implementation of new guidelines on chemicals policy. SOU 2000:53. Stockholm: Swedish government; 2000b. Ministry of Environment. The sea-time for a new strategy. SOU 2003:72. Stockholm: Swedish government; 2003. Ministry of Housing. Vattenkraft och miljö. Ett betänkande om vattenkraftutbyggnad i Klarälven, Dalälven, Ljusnan, Ljungan och Indalsälven. (Hydro power and the environment. A report on expansion of hydro power in the rivers Klarälven, Dalälven, Ljusnan, Ljungan and Indalsälven). In Swedish. SOU 1974:22. Stockholm: Swedish government; 1974. Nilsson M, Persson Å. Framework for analysing environmental policy integration. Journal Environ Policy Plan 2003;5(4):333–59. Nilsson M. Learning, frames and environmental policy integration: the case of Swedish energy policy. Environ Plan C 2005;23:207–26. Nilsson M. The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: a study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sci 2006;38:225–49. Nilsson M, Eckerberg K. Environmental policy integration in practice. Shaping Institutions for Learning. London: Earthscan; 2007. Sabatier P. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 1988;21:129–68. Steinmo S, Thelen K, Longstreth F, editors. Structuring politics: historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Prac Assess, Res Eval 2001;7. Strandberg H, editor. Människa och miljö: Om ekologi, ekonomi och politik. (Man and environment: on ecology, economics, and politics). Stockholm: Tidens förlag; 1995. SJV. Förutsättningar för en minskning av växthusgasutsläppen från jordbruket (Requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture). In Swedish. Jordbruksverket Rapport 2004:1. Jönköping: Swedish Board of Agriculture; 2004. Statistics Sweden and LRF. Miljöredovisning för svenskt jordbruk 2000. (Environmental account for Swedish agriculture). In Swedish. Statistics Sweden and The Federation of Swedish Farmers, Jönköping; 2001. Statistics Sweden. Jordbruksstatistisk årsbok 2003 (Statistics for agriculture 2003) In Swedish. Örebro: Statistics Sweden; 2003. Steen B. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 — models and data of the default method. Chalmers, Göteborg: CPM; 1999.

255

Swedish EPA. Biological diversity in Sweden: a country study. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; 1994. Swedish EPA. Biff och bil?: om hushållens miljöval (Beef and a car? About environmental choices of households). In Swedish. Report 4542. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; 1996. Swedish Government. En uthållig energiförsörjning (A sustainable energy supply). In Swedish. Regeringens proposition1996/97:84. Stockholm: The Government Offices; 1997a. Swedish Government. Hållbart fiske och jordbruk (Sustainable fisheries and agriculture). In Swedish. Regeringens proposition 1997/98:2. Stockholm: The Government Offices; 1997b. Swedish Government. Miljö och landsbygdsutvecklingsprogrammet 2000–2006 (Environmental and Rural Development Plan for Sweden 2000–2006). In Swedish. Förordning 2000:577. Stockholm: The Government Offices; 2000. Swedish Government. Samverkan för en trygg, effektiv och miljövänlig energiförsörjning (Co-operation for safe, efficient and environmentally friendly energy supply). In Swedish. Regeringens proposition 2001/02:143. Stockholm: The Government Offices; 2002. Söderberg C. Much ado about nothing? Energy forest cultivation in Sweden: on policy coordination and EPI in a multisectoral issue. Paper presented at the ISA RC 24 Conference, Double Standards and Simulation: Symbolism, Rhetoric and Irony in Eco-Politics. University of Bath, September 1–4, 2005 and at the European Consortium for Political Research, 3rd General Conference, Environmental Politics Section 'The Politics of Renewables', Panel 19–4. Corvinus University of Budapest, September 8–10, 2005; 2005. Sörme L, Lagerkvist R. Sources of heavy metals in urban wastewater in Stockholm. Sci Total Environ 2002;298:131–45. Underdal A. The politics of science in international resource management: a summary. In: Andresen S, Ostreng W, editors. International Resource Management: The Role of Science And Politics. London: Belhaven; 1989. World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75. htm. 2005-07-01; 2004. Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA, Triebswetter U, Eder P, Clift R. Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective. The Combined Use of Analytical Tools. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.