Conference Agenda

Climate change and sustainable development pose significant, intertwined challenges. Global multilateral agreements – the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda – seek to harness collective effort to meet goals for emissions reductions and sustainable development. National governments face numerous challenges, however, in designing and implementing policy that balances the two agendas. In some cases, trade-offs between climate goals and the Sustainable Development Goals may be inevitable. A key objective for governments is then to reconcile trade-offs while helping to reduce growing social inequalities.

Many have argued that coherent policymaking will help governments to navigate trade-offs in a transparent and equitable manner. Others have recognised that deep-rooted barriers, such as fossil fuel interests and ideologies of economic growth, potentially inhibit coherent policymaking. To date, little empirical work has considered the role of such political factors in influencing coherence. Likewise, the consequences of incoherence for goal achievement remains poorly understood, particularly for politically contentious goals such as reduced inequalities.

This panel envisions policy coherence as a political process by assessing the causes and consequences of (in)coherence in the context of the two agendas. The first paper presents an analytical framework for studying political dimensions of policy (in)coherence in different contexts. The following papers then apply this framework in the context of just energy transition, agriculture, land-use and mobility, drawing on empirical insights from Colombia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Fiji, Germany, South Africa, Kenya, Philippines and Australia.

Overall, the panel advances research on policy coherence by moving past the diagnosis of incoherence to empirically examine its political causes and consequences. It aims to provide valuable insights into how different contexts and political factors such as ideologies or vested interests can influence policy coherence. Moreover, it provides much-lacking evidence on the relationship between policy coherence and goal achievement, including how equitably progress on goals is distributed.

Many have argued that coherent policymaking, i.e., policymaking that maximises synergies and minimises trade-offs, is key to successful implementation of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda. These arguments tend to be grounded in an apolitical approach, which sees incoherence as an outcome of institutions’ shortcomings, which can be rectified by greater attention to institutional arrangements. Increasingly, however, scholars recognise that barriers to policy coherence may also be rooted in inherently conflicting interests and mandates. At the same time, arguments about the importance of coherence reflect a broader assumption that coherence contributes to greater effectiveness and achievement of policy goals. Many see coherence as vital to ensuring that progress towards goals is balanced and equitable for all groups of society, in keeping with the central pledge of the 2030 Agenda to ‘leave no one behind’. Empirical evidence linking coherence to goal achievement and equity is, however, surprisingly sparse. These assumptions raise important questions about the political causes and consequences of policy incoherence. What political factors inhibit coherence? Is coherence a necessary condition for the successful and equitable implementation of the climate and development agendas? Which groups in society suffer from the outcomes of incoherence?

We present a novel two-part framework for analysing the causes and consequences of policy incoherence. The first part of the framework uses the ‘3 I’s’ approach (institutions, interests, ideas) to examine political influences on coherence in the policy process. The second part uses an ‘outcomes’ approach to examine whether and how incoherence inhibits progress toward goals. Specifically, we ask whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality We conclude by introducing how the framework is currently being applied to analyse policy coherence between the global climate and development agendas across national contexts.

In simultaneously implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, synergies and trade-offs arise for most countries, raising important questions for efforts to achieve the global goals. For countries with high fossil fuel dependence, transition to renewable energy can enhance equity and reduce inequality, not least by reducing the impacts of fossil fuel pollution and climate change on vulnerable groups and making energy affordable, whilst creating jobs in renewable industries. At the same time, trade-offs can become particularly pertinent if affected groups are excluded from decision-making or if low-income groups gain few economic opportunities.

For example, despite rapid growth in installed capacity of renewable energy, Australia remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels. At the same time, it is grappling with entrenched socio-economic inequality, particularly affecting low-income households, First Nations peoples, and rural and remote communities. Similarly, Germany’s flagship energy transition strategy, the Energiewende, sees important trade-offs with energy security (especially compounded by the Russian invasion of Ukraine), economic inequality and biodiversity conservation, slowing down implementation. In South Africa, over-reliance on coal for energy generation and exports and widespread inequality, poverty and unemployment create a barrier for achieving climate and Sustainable Development Foals. Lastly, in Kenya, despite huge investments in renewable energy, affordable energy access has not improved, with vulnerable and marginalised groups and small enterprises lacking access to electricity.

The just transition concept arises as a potential approach to tackle some of these obstacles. However, an energy transition can only be just if it reconciles trade-offs while optimising on the synergies and responding to the needs of society’s most marginalised groups.
This paper assesses the role of policy (in)coherence in the context of just energy transition, focusing on the interaction between climate, energy and inequality goals. It analyses synergies and trade-offs in policy formulation and implementation in four countries with high level of fossil fuel dependence: Kenya, Australia, Germany and South Africa. It draws from an extensive range of policy documents and interviews with policy-makers and other stakeholders. The paper then discusses the causes and consequences of (in)coherence, exploring i) the role of institutional and political barriers and ii) the policy outcomes in terms of achieving the climate and sustainable goals, whilst reducing inequality. The paper concludes with a set of reflections on possible drivers of (in)coherence, highlighting challenges in institutional coordination and the continuing political influence of vested interests and/or the role of political ideology.

The agriculture sector plays a crucial role as a large source of emissions as well as a provider of jobs, economic development and livelihood for many smallholder farmers in the Global South. For example, in the Philippine economy, in 2022 agriculture contributed to 9% of the country’s total Gross Domestic Product and accounted for 23% of the total employment.

Multiple countries are devising strategies for a transition to sustainable agriculture – in the context of implementing the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals – to increase productivity, seeking synergies with the creation of green jobs, tourism, social development and climate resilience, among others. At the same time, for many countries, the agricultural sector suffers from low productivity, social inequality and exclusion of smallholder farmers as well as carbon-intensive production methods.

This paper applies a sequential approach, featuring analysis of policy interaction, document analysis and more than 70 expert interviews, to assess to what extent agriculture policies, plans, and programs interact synergistically with other policy areas relevant for climate and Sustainable Development Goals. It draws on insights from three countries: Fiji, Sri Lanka and Philippines and assesses synergies and trade-offs between agriculture and green jobs, tourism, climate change and inequality reduction. The paper then explores the causes of policy (in)coherence and how ideas, institutions, and interests shape and influence policy-making. In Sri Lanka, for example, past decisions shape political and economic institutions, which determine the balance of power between policymakers and farmers, in favour of the former. This has empowered interest groups with narrow or short-term priorities, creating trade-offs with long-term goals. Lastly, the paper discusses how policy (in)coherence affects goal achievement in terms of sustainable agriculture as well as the achievement of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda more broadly. The objective of the paper is to formulate evidence-based policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders, especially government officials.

The paper finds that while the policy objectives between different sectors and policies are generally synergistic, in all countries, challenges persist, suggesting that synergies in policy objectives have limited effect on outcomes. Furthermore, while the paper finds that "good" practices can improve coherence, this does not always correspond to whether or not goals are achieved equitably. For example, in Fiji, for successful implementation, gender mainstreaming and engaging women and youth groups in Agriculture was more important for generating positive cascading effects on the achievement of multiple climate and Sustainable Development Goals.

Operationalising and strengthening policy coherence between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda is a constant challenge due to different political processes that can facilitate and constrain progress. Incoherence in implementing these global goals is driven by socioeconomic development efforts, policy silos between ministries and agencies, and actors’ vested interests. The global pandemic and changing geopolitical landscape have led to a loss in sustainability momentum with national discourses reverting to protectionism and energy security over long-term climate objectives and Sustainable Development Goals.

This paper assesses the political drivers of policy (in)coherence in implementing the climate and Sustainable Development Goals in two self-proclaimed frontrunner countries, Colombia and Sweden, and two sectors, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) and regional mobility, respectively. The paper uses a case study methodology encompassing policy interaction analysis, document analysis and semi-structured interviews. In both cases, policy implementation is characterised by seemingly archetypical tensions, namely those between economic growth and development on the one hand and climate and environmental targets on the other. In Sweden, the case study analysis departs from the contentious topic of national subsidies to sustain regional airports. In contrast, trade-offs in AFOLU hamper policy coherence in Colombia, leading to biodiversity loss, high deforestation rates, and the expansion of the agricultural frontier to develop extensive cattle ranching and large-scale crops, all of which contribute significantly to national GHG emissions.

The paper highlights how these trade-offs and goal conflicts result from interests, institutions and ideas hampering effective decision-making. In Sweden, for example, the support of regional airports amidst ambitions of fossil freedom becomes a type of ‘policy battleground’ where conflicting objectives are visible in different policies and utilised by various actor coalitions, thereby politicising conditions for coherence. Meanwhile, in Colombia, conflicting political interests regarding natural resources, non-enforcement of environmental laws, short-term environmental policies, and narrow participation in the political decision-making process are drivers of the non-prioritisation of AFOLU, leading to the broader climate and Sustainable Development Goals becoming overlooked. Overall, the paper highlights how political factors influence and inhibit coherence in both countries despite differing levels of economic development and fossil fuel dependence, questioning the assumptions around more coherent policies being found in more developed countries.