European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 27

European Policy Analysis

different adaptation (fast-start finance,
green climate fund, and insurance
mechanisms) and mitigation (global CO2
tax, involvement of emerging economies
in mitigation, expansion of clean
development mechanisms and carbon
markets, and prevention of deforestation)
mechanisms proposed by Switzerland.

In sum, we had three different policy
networks: first, the domestic decision
making about policy instruments to be
introduced under the CO2 law between
2002 and 2005; second, the preparatory
phase of the Cancun negotiations; and
third, a combined network of actors
involved in both processes through
collaboration relations.

For the latter (see Figures 1
and 2), there are three sets of actors
worth mentioning at this stage: First,
one category of actors involved in
both processes seemed to be strongly
integrated, but linked to their peers only:
the green NGOs WWF and Greenpeace
(GP) to pro-ecology actors; and the two
business representatives Economiesuisse
and the Petrol Union (PU) to proeconomy actors. These actors thus
demonstrate the link between the national
and the international policy processes,
but were however only closely linked to
members representing the same actor
type on the national level. Inputs from
international negotiations may thus only
be shared with national actors having the
same policy preferences.

Second, one group of actors was
only formally involved in the international
preparatory phase, and had very few
links to national decision making. This
group consists of science and insurance
representatives dispatched at the left end
of the graph, such as Swiss RE, Meteo CH,
or ETHZ.

Third, the most important role
was played by the Federal Office for the
Environment (FOEN), which seems to
hold both networks together. The FOEN
could thus be a potential policy broker
within both networks, what will be
elaborated below.

Results

B

efore concentrating on actors’
collaboration,
power,
and
preferences, we focus on the
question of who participated in both
processes. As illustrated in Table 1, only 12
actors participated in both, Swiss national
and foreign climate policymaking. This
corresponds to half of the actors involved
in international negotiations and one third
of the actors involved in national decision
making. Three of them are industry and
private sector representatives; three are
scientific institutions; two are green
NGOs; and four are federal agencies (see
appendix).
Collaboration Within and Across Networks

In both networks, we asked actors
to indicate with whom they collaborated
strongly during the respective decisionmaking processes. Furthermore, and for
the second survey about the preparatory
phase of the Cancun negotiations, we
asked actors to also indicate with whom
they shared collaboration links in the
former national decision-making process
about the CO2 law between 2002 and
2005. Even though those two processes
happened at two different times, we could
identify which actors were involved in
both domestic and foreign policymaking.
27