The PhD project deals with the policy integration of biodiversity on the basis of German multi-level policy. The overarching aim is to examine the role of sub-national levels (especially the Länder) in this context and to identify obstacles and levers for more comprehensive biodiversity protection.

In the first research section, the work focuses on the level of state policy and uses the context of so-called "sub-national biodiversity strategies and action plans" (SBSAPs). The preliminary work by Candel (2019) and Candel and Biesbroeck (2016) serves as a theoretical background, providing an analytical framework for the levers and hurdles in this context. So-called integrative capacities and integrative leadership willingness serve as explanatory variables. Based on 16 interviews with all state environment ministries, key barriers and levers for Biodiversity Policy Integration (BPI) are identified and related to the underlying causes. State biodiversity policies appear to be trapped in institutional lock-ins, which manifest themselves in weak coordination structures, a lack of resources and little integrative leadership. Although there are evaluation mechanisms, these do not create accountability. As a result, policy change seems inevitably linked to the individual commitment of policy makers or external influence through public or European initiatives.

In contrast, the second research section focuses on the joint implementation of the Habitats Directive and the WFD in the river restoration context at the sub-national authority level. The aim is to bring together the discourses of the BPI and the administrative literature and to enrich the former with explanatory approaches from the latter. Based on the practical case study of the two European directives, interviews and focus groups as well as qualitative and quantitative surveys will be conducted with different groups of actors in order to gain further insights into the procedural and individual conflicts of interest. The coordination process and the use of official discretionary powers, as well as obstacles at individual stakeholder level, stand out as key hurdles. However, there is no classic black-and-white picture between the authorities, which again has implications for the BPI discourse and a clear sectoral separability is only partially applicable. At the same time, this case study clearly shows that current nature conservation approaches and administrative structures are often not yet ready to dynamically implement modern nature conservation or to be implemented together with climate protection aspects.

A comparative case study of peatland policies between four federal states is planned for the third research phase. To this end, the policy mix in this area of the individual states will be surveyed and possible differences between them will be explained using the approach of self-dynamic political processes (AEP) (Böcher & Töller 2012). The data basis is based on an online and document analysis as well as official inquiries to authorities and interviews. The aim is to assess both peatland-rich federal states and peatland-poor federal states in terms of their commitment to the rewetting of areas and to explain possible causes for differences.

Böcher, M. and Töller, A. (2012): Environmental policy in Germany - A policy field analytical introduction. Springer-Verlag. Wiesbaden.

Candel, J. (2019): The expediency of policy integration. Policy Studies, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/01442872.2019.1634191.

Candel, J. and Biesbroek, R. (2016): Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sciences, 211-231. doi: 10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y.
This text was translated with DeepL on10/11/2025

View project in the research portal