Path Events and Loop Events – An Investigation of Policy Change in Climate Agreements

Curbing climate change requires unprecedented and radical changes in policy and society, across a range of issue areas and sectors and under turbulent conditions. Traditionally privileged areas that have been shielded from climate policy, such as agriculture, also need radical emission reductions to be able to limit global average temperature increases. Several theories on policy change aim at explaining how and why policy changes might occur, theorizing on what may trigger change and the various elements that impact the process. The following explores the circumstances surrounding policy changes that create new policy paths, comparing them to the circumstances around policy decision that leads nowhere, a ‘policy loop’. To do so, this paper investigates climate agreements in the agricultural sectors in Denmark and Norway. These countries have similar climate ambitions, but differ in terms of agricultural climate policy. Through a document analysis and interviews with key actors, the paper investigates variations in framing, policy goals, policy instruments and actor participation/institution building. By comparing similar contexts, this paper aims to explain how the agreements unfolded, and the contrasting trajectories for climate policy following the agreements. While the framing of agriculture’s role in the climate transition changed in both countries, and both have introduced ambitious climate objectives, there are significant differences between their respective agricultural climate policies. The processes leading up to the agreements in both countries were highly contentious, and the turbulence surrounding these processes might have led to different outcomes. While Norway has seen little to no change in policy or emissions levels within the agricultural sector, Denmark has introduced substantial suggestions for change in both policy and institutional structures. This paper theorizes on the possible reasons behind this difference, including the involvement of interest organizations in a highly corporative policy process in Norway, as well as Denmark’s EU membership and proactive role in European Green Deal policymaking.