ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Understanding transboundary climate risk ownership in Norwegian agri- and aquaculture

Policy Analysis
Public Policy
Climate Change
Comparative Perspective
Policy Change
Katrine Skagen
Universitetet i Oslo
Katrine Skagen
Universitetet i Oslo
Solveig Aamodt
CICERO Center for International Climate Research
Erlend A. T. Hermansen
CICERO Center for International Climate Research

Abstract

Norwegian agriculture and aquaculture are highly dependent on imported soy and wheat. In this paper we investigate to what extent the transboundary climate risks (TCRs) embedded in this dependence are understood, owned (or not), and mitigated by Norwegian sector actors. Here, transboundary climate risks relate to climate changes and associated risks that propagate along international value chains. We first present a theoretical framework for analysing TCR ownership building on the risk ownership literature and horizontal coordination between governmental ministries and agencies. Second, we present an analysis of the TCRs embedded in agricultural imports to Norway, identifying soy and wheat as the products Norwegian agriculture and aquaculture depend most on, and assess the vulnerability to climate impacts in the areas exporting these products to Norway. Third, we employ the theoretical framework to analyse the TCR ownership in the agriculture and aquaculture sectors. We conduct a comparative analysis spanning national level public and private institutions and actors in the two sectors. Through comparative document analysis we find that climate risk was first mentioned in policy documents in 2010, and that climate risks embedded in imported products are not mentioned until 2015. Through further in-depth case studies and interviews we find that transboundary climate risk is rarely addressed in either sector. But there is great difference between the agricultural and aquaculture sectors. Preliminary findings indicate that the agricultural sector is less concerned about such risks. There is an underlining understanding that agricultures exceptionalist status will justify governmental support, should there be disruptions in import opportunities. In the aquaculture sector there is larger emphasis on phasing out imported soy, explained through various sustainability demands and through their status as an export industry on the international arena.