Policy integration in the EU governance of global food security
Policy integration in the EU governance of global food security
Jeroen J. L. Candel 0 1
Robbert Biesbroek 0 1
0 Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research , Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen 6706, KN , the Netherlands
1 Robbert Biesbroek
2 Jeroen J. L. Candel
The global food price spikes of 2007-8 and 2010 led to increased awareness of the complexity of food (in)security as a policy problem that crosscuts traditional sectoral, spatial and temporal scales. At the European Union (EU) level, this awareness resulted in calls for better integrated approaches to govern food security. This paper addresses the question of to what extent these calls were followed by an actual shift towards better integrated EU food security governance. We address this question by applying a processual policy integration framework that distinguishes four integration dimensions: (i) the policy frame, (ii) subsystem involvement, (iii) policy goals, and (iv) policy instruments. The empirical body of evidence for assessing shifts in these dimensions draws upon an extensive analysis of EU documents complemented with interview data. We find that policy integration advanced to at least some degree: the policy frame expanded towards new dimensions of food security; a wider array of subsystems started discussing food security concerns; food security goals diversified somewhat and there was an increased awareness of coherence and linkages with other issues; existing instruments, including internal procedural instruments, were expanded and made more consistent; and new types of instruments were developed. At the same time, significant differences exist between policy domains and policy integration efforts seem to have come to a halt in recent years. We conclude with various policy recommendations and suggestions for follow-up research.
Food security; European Union; European Commission; Policy integration; Governance; Policy change
Since the 2007–8 and 2010 global food price spikes, global
food security has received increasing political attention in
policy arenas at the European Union (EU) level
Grant 2012; Kirwan et al. 2017)
. The food price spikes
showed that states of food security1 are affected by a broad
1 We follow the
definition of food security as ‘all people, at all
times, having physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life.’
range of determinants and associated policies, the precise
influences of which are not yet fully understood
Thirtle 2009; Headey and Fan 2010; Rapsomanikis and
. Consequently, the peak of attention has been
accompanied by rising awareness of the ‘crosscutting’ or
‘wicked’ problem nature of food security
(Misselhorn et al.
2012; Brooks 2014; Candel 2014)
. At the EU level, this
awareness has been reflected by two developments. First, food
security concerns have been raised in a wide array of policy
debates, such as those on the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), biofuels targets,
and the Doha trade round negotiations. Although these
debates have been characterized by a plurality of meanings
attached to ‘food security’, they resulted in increased
recognition of interactions between food security levels and
(Candel et al. 2016)
. Second, as a result of this
recognition, new ideas have emerged about how food security ought
to be governed, including calls for more ‘coherence’
Council of the European Union 2013; Piebalgs 2013)
(e.g., European Commission 2010; Red Cross EU
, and a ‘holistic’ approach
. These emerging governance principles led various
high-level decision-makers to make pleas for a change of EU
food security governance2:
[D]evelopment aid alone is not sufficient to effectively fight
hunger. We need to look at all the available options and
PCD [Policy Coherence for Development] [which is] is
one critical tool to improve global food security. […] I will
personally pay [a] strong attention to the impact of EU
policies on the rest of the world to ensure [a] maximum
coherence between its internal and development policies.
, then EU Commissioner for
The Council stresses that good governance for food and
nutrition security at all levels is essential, and that
coherence between policies should be pursued in cases of
negative effects on food and nutrition security.
Council of the European Union (2013)
Despite the recognition of the need for better integrated EU
food security governance, it is unclear whether an actual
change of governance has occurred. This question is
particularly pertinent as public policy scholars have observed that
political commitments to enhanced policy integration often
do not proceed beyond discursive levels
Kivimaa 2007; Jacob et al. 2008; Jordan and Lenschow
. For that reason, this paper aims to assess to what extent
political awareness of and aspirations for strengthened policy
integration were accompanied by an actual change of the EU
governance of food security in the aftermath of the food price
Until recently, there was no agreed-upon approach for
systematically conducting such a policy integration assessment. In
earlier work, we addressed this omission by developing a
conceptual framework for studying policy integration
. In this paper, to assess changes in degrees of
policy integration in EU food security governance, we
operationalize this framework into specific indicators and
perform a quantitative content analysis of EU legislation and
preparatory acts covering the period 2000–2016, as well as twenty
complementary interviews with Commission officials working
on food security-related issues. Importantly, we focus on EU
governance of global food security, restricting the analysis to
policy targeted at food security in general or in third (non-EU)
countries. Although European food security has reappeared on
political agendas in recent years, we have not (yet) observed
explicit integrative attempts towards it as an objective.3
2 The EU governance of food security is here understood as all policy efforts at
the EU level that either positively or negatively affect food security outcomes,
i.e. food availability, access, utilization, and stability.
3 It will be interesting to follow the outcomes of recent calls for an European
integrated food policy in this respect
(see: EESC 2016; Fresco and Poppe
2016; iPES Food 2016)
The paper proceeds with setting out a policy integration
framework followed by a methodological approach to the
study. The results of our analysis are presented in Section 4.
The paper ends with a discussion of the findings and the
implications for future research and EU food security
governance in Section 5.
2 A policy integration framework for assessing EU food security governance
The policy integration framework used here synthesizes
insights from various fragmented literatures about
integration and coordination, such as discussions of
environmental policy integration
(e.g., Lafferty and Hovden 2003;
Jacob and Volkery 2004; Jordan and Lenschow 2010)
boundary-spanning policy regimes
(Jochim and May
, and integrated policy strategies
. The framework departs from a number of
specific assumptions. First, the framework conceptualizes
policy integration as a process over time
, rather than as a static desirable outcome
or governing principle as most policy integration studies
assume. Policy integration is here understood as a process
of policy and institutional change and design in which
actors play a pivotal role, as interactions between (political)
actors constitute the mechanisms through which shifts of
policy integration occur
(Biesbroek and Candel 2016)
Second, assessing integration is as much about increasing
integration as it is about disintegration. Third, the
framework consists of four distinct but connected dimensions of
policy integration, which may move at different paces or
even in opposite directions. These four dimensions are: (i)
policy frame, (ii) subsystem involvement, (iii) policy
goals, and (iv) policy instruments. A good example of a
policy integration process in which these dimensions move
at different paces is provided by
Jacob et al. (2008)
show that although many governments have designed
overarching sustainable development strategies, they often
lag behind in developing supportive instrument mixes. Of
course, mutual dependencies exist and interactions take
place between the four dimensions of policy integration;
a change in one dimension of policy integration can result
in a change in another dimension. However, these
influences may work in various directions and under different
mechanisms that are not yet well understood.
For each of the four policy integration dimensions we
distinguish between one and three specific sub-dimensions, see
Table 1. The table operationalizes the sub-dimensions by
setting ideal-type values (bold and italicized) that allow us to
assess whether the EU governance of food security changed
during and following the food price spikes (Sections 3 and 4).
Dimensions of policy integration (adopted from Candel and Biesbroek 2016; Candel 2017a)
One dominant subsystem, Concerns emerge in one or
which governs the issue more additional subsystems.
independently. Formally no Idem, but one or more
other subsystems are additional subsystems may
involved, although they touch upon food
may be in terms of security concerns.
Food security falls within
jurisdiction of a dominant
exchange between dominant
subsystem and one or more
Some interaction with other
subsystems. For example
cooperation and trade.
Understanding that the
governance of the problem
should not be restricted to a
single domain as well as
agreement that some
coordination and coherence
is desirable. Integration is
Awareness that food
(in)security is affected by a
broad range of factors and
influences. Food security is
viewed as a policy problem
that spans the boundaries of
various policy domains,
which therefore need to
Two or more subsystems have
formal responsibility for
dealing with the problem.
Food security (in a broader
sense) embedded within
more domains, e.g.
trade or agriculture.
More regular and formal
exchange of information and
instruments at system-level.
Interactions among various
subsystems, whereby some
interactions occur more
frequently than others.
Recognition that the problem is
and should not solely be
governed by individual
subsystems, but by
governance system as a
whole. Subsystems are
required to work
according to a shared,
Integration is advocated and
adopted as dominant
All potentially relevant
subsystemsa have developed
ideas about their role in the
governance of food security.
Achieving food security,
across all its levels and
dimensions, is considered to
be a challenge to the EU
as a whole
Number of subsystems that are
formally involved is equal to
or higher than at previous
loosely coupled set of
Food security is embedded
within all potentially
High level of interactions
between formally involved
subsystems, that maintain
infrequent interactions with
loosely coupled set of
All possibly relevant
subsystems interact with
each other to a greater or
lesser degree about food
Concerns only embedded
within the goals of a
Sector-specific food security
goals in one specific
subsystem. For example:
food security as priority
Very low or no coherence.
Concerns adopted in policy Possible further diversification Concerns embedded within all
goals of one or more across policy goals of potentially relevant
additional subsystems. additional subsystems. policy goals.
Idem, though in addition food Various subsystems adopt food All potentially relevant
security concerns may be security concerns in their subsystems have adopted
embedded to some extent in policy goals, some food security concerns in
other subsystems’ policies. subsystems may develop their policy goals.
food security strategies.
Because of rising awareness of Coordinated sectoral goals,
externalities and mutual which are judged in the
concerns, subsystems may light of coherence.
address these to some extent Subsystems attempt to
in their goals. develop synergies.
Externalities of some policies Food security efforts come to
may be addressed be viewed in terms of
to some extent. coherence and
Shared policy goals
embedded within an
comprehensive EU food
a For the EU governance of global food security we consider the following subsystems potentially relevant (based on mandates of the Commission’s
directorate-generals): development cooperation, external affairs, humanitarian aid, agriculture, fisheries, energy, trade, health, environment and climate,
budget, research, competition, information and technology, economic and financial affairs, internal market and industry, justice, migration, and transport
The first dimension of policy integration consists of the
policy frame within a governance system. Policy frame is a
frequently used concept in public policy studies and generally
refers to policy stakeholders’ competing or dominant problem
definitions of a particular societal issue
(e.g., Schön and Rein
1994; Roggeband and Verloo 2007)
. The framework follows a
narrower interpretation by concentrating on whether a
crosscutting policy problem – here food security – is recognized as
such and, if so, to what extent it is perceived to require a
holistic governance approach (Peters 2005). Of course,
different perceptions can prevail within a governance system’s
various subsystems; here it is understood as the dominant frame
amongst high-level decision-makers (e.g., European
Commissioners). These frames have been shown to have
explanatory value over the eventual policy decisions that are
(Lau and Schlesinger 2005)
The second dimension, subsystem involvement,
revolves around the range of subsystems involved in the
governance of food security. Subsystems refer to relatively
stable and closed configurations of actors and institutions
that govern a specific policy problem or domain within a
broader governance system
(cf. Howlett and Ramesh
. Apart from subsystems that are actively involved,
the dimension also includes those that are not but could be
in the future because their actions affect policy outcomes
(Dupuis and Biesbroek 2013)
. The degree of subsystem
involvement is thus relative to the number of potentially
relevant subsystems for food security. Additionally, this
dimension also covers the density of interactions between
subsystems in food security. The assumption is that higher
amounts of policy integration are characterized by a
number of subsystems that frequently interact with each other
and that maintain relatively more infrequent interactions
with a wider set of ‘loosely coupled’ subsystems (cf.
Orton and Weick 1990). As argued in the introduction,
food security’s many levels and dimensions make them a
potentially broad range of EU subsystems, which could be
involved in its governance, see Table 1.
The dimension policy goals refers to: (i) the range of
policies across subsystems in which (concerns about) food security
are explicitly adopted as a goal, and (ii) the coherence between
these goals. These goals are pursued through a mix of policy
instruments, which constitutes the fourth dimension. Policy
instruments can be deployed within subsystem policy efforts,
but also at the level of the governance system, for example in
the case of interdepartmental working groups. We make a
distinction between substantive and procedural policy
instruments. Substantive instruments allocate (financial,
informational, regulative or organizational) resources to directly affect
the ‘nature, types, quantities and distribution of the goods and
services provided in society’
(Howlett 2000: 415)
instruments are designed to ‘indirectly affect outcomes through
the manipulation of policy processes’ (ibid.: 413), e.g., through
the creation of new institutions. This dimensions encompasses
three sub-dimensions: (i) the range of policies that adopt or
adjust policy instruments to address food security concerns,
(ii) the deployment of procedural instruments to facilitate
coordination between subsystems, and (iii) the consistency of the
policy instrument mix as a whole. An important further
distinction for the first sub-dimension is between policy
instruments that are explicitly targeted at food security concerns,
e.g., development cooperation or research programs, and
instruments that are adjusted to accommodate such concerns
without necessarily being framed in terms of food security
(cf. Dupuis and Biesbroek 2013)
3 Methodological approach
To study the development of policy integration in the EU
governance of food security, we operationalized each of the four
dimensions into specific indicators. Our primary source of data
for studying these indicators were EU documents, which we
retrieved by systematically searching the EU online search
engines (for search criteria, see Online Resource (OR) I).
Subsequently, data was coded by using the coding program
Atlas.ti, resulting in the data extraction tables and figures
presented in Section 4 and OR III. Table 2 presents the specific
indicators and modes of data collection and analysis for each of
the four dimensions. The analysis covers the period from 2000
through 2016, which allows comparison of the governance of
food security in the period before the food price spikes (up to
mid-2007) with that in the period of the spikes (2007–10) and
post-spikes (2011–16). The analysis was performed by
comparing the different sources of extracted data with the
dimensions’ ideal-type manifestations in Table 1. Importantly, we
included (sections of) documents referring to global food
security and food security in general; references with an explicit
focus on European food security were excluded.
As information and documents about the internal EU
policy process are difficult to systematically access and analyse,
we used publicly available proxy data for most dimensions.
Limited access to quantifiable data also forced us to
complement the dimension of (procedural) policy instruments with
qualitative data collected through interviews with twenty
senior policymakers involved in the EU governance of food
security. Interview data were collected in Spring 2014, coded
and analyzed, see
Candel et al. (2016)
.4 Furthermore, because
the operationalization and measurement of policy coherence
and consistency is understudied at best and highly
controversial at worst
(Nilsson et al. 2012)
, these were not measured
directly. Instead, they were included by looking for explicit
references to linkages among goals and instruments.
It should be noted that we studied the development of
policy integration by focusing on the number and types of goals
and instruments, without differentiating on quality or potential
impact of specific goals and instruments. Hence, our findings
only allow us to make statements about how policy integration
within the policy process advanced, not about the success of
these more or less integrated policy processes in addressing
levels or dimensions of food security. This is further reflected
on in Section 6. In addition, most indicators consist of explicit
references to food security (or similar concepts). The analysis
of policy goals and instruments that were adjusted to
accommodate food security concerns without explicitly referring to
these is very challenging as virtually all policies may be
argued to affect or accommodate food security to some extent,
resulting in a dependent variable problem
(cf. Dupuis and
. To overcome this challenge we used the
proxy that food security concerns should at the least be
mentioned in preparatory acts (which discuss the underlying
rationales of proposed changes) or be put forward by interviewees
as playing an important role in order to conclude that at least
some level of integration occurred.
4 Results: Policy integration in the EU
governance of food security
This section presents the main findings of the analysis. Each
subsection first summarizes the main findings for the
dimension, followed by a more detailed presentation of the results.
4.1 Policy frame
The policy frame was studied by analyzing the amount and
content of attention to food security in European Commissioners’
speeches. In summary, the results show that food security
became increasingly perceived as a multi-dimensional issue (or a
problem deserving attention in the first place) but it goes too far
to speak of a shared or comprehensive policy frame, as linkages
4 For this study, 20 Commission officials were interviewed in Spring 2014
about whether and how the Commission is capable of dealing with the
‘wickedness’ of food security. Respondents worked in a range of
directorategenerals and thus dealt with a variety of food security levels and dimensions.
See the original paper for more information about the scope of this study and
the selection criteria that were used.
Hard and soft law were coded for Legislation and preparatory acts
any instruments that were were analysed for instruments
explicitly linked to food that were explicitly linked to
security concerns. The periods food security. Because internal
over which instruments were instruments are not necessarily
actively used was determined embedded within such
by searching official EU documents, complementary
web pages. interview data were used.
The policy frame regarding food
(in)security was distilled from
how (often) Commissioners
communicated about the issue.
Of course, communication
about food security towards an
external audience may differ
from internal views (cf.
Schmidt 2008). However,
lacking the access to such internal
communication, we believe
these speeches to be
a good proxy.
Determining the parliamentary
directorate-generals that are
responsible for drafting
preparatory legislative documents
containing food security ideas
provides an indication of the
subsystems involved in food
security governance in both EU
institutions. For studying
interactions between subsystems (in
the EP), we assume that an
interaction takes place when
different committees refer to food
security ideas in a single report.
a We limited the analysis of policy frame to the European Commission. The Commission has the right of initiative for proposing new policies and is
responsible for managing and implementing existing policies. As such, a change in the Commission’s policy frame is a prerequisite for a general change
at the EU level
b EP reports are the result of a process of deliberations regarding a specific policy or issue within a parliamentary committee and can be considered the
final opinion of a committee on the issue at hand. They typically include a motion for a European Parliament resolution, an explanatory statement, and,
often, opinions of other parliamentary committees that did not have the lead on the issue
c COM-documents are all the preparatory legislative documents that are communicated by the European Commission (hence COM). JOIN-documents
are joint-declarations, written together with other states or organizations. The majority of COM-documents consists of communications from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Council, and the Committee of the Regions. In addition,
COM-documents include green and white papers, reports, and budgetary documents. Henceforth, when we refer to COM-documents, we mean both
COM- and JOIN-documents
d For example, when the Committee on Development gives an opinion on a draft resolution of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and
both committees refer to food security, this indicates a tie between both committees in the governance of food security
between policy efforts and associated effects on different
dimensions and levels of food security remained largely unspoken or
implicit. Moreover, food security continued to be primarily
framed in the context of external assistance; aspects related to
access, (global) health, or environmental sustainability, remained
largely untouched. Recent years have shown a steep drop in the
number of Commissioners referring to food security.
Looking more closely at the findings, Fig. 1 shows that the
overall number of references to food (in)security in
Commissioners’ speeches increased considerably during the first
food price spike of 2007–8 and especially in the years following
the second price spike of 2010. On the contrary, the years
immediately preceding the spikes were characterized by very little
high-level attention to food security. What is more, the figure
shows that this increase can be largely explained through the
increase of attention from ‘new’ policy domains. Whereas
before, the spikes' most attention originated from the ‘traditional’
directorate-generals (DGs) of Development Cooperation and
Humanitarian Aid and, to a lesser extent, Agriculture; these were
complemented with the Commission’s presidency and the DGs
of Science and Research and Environment in later years.
However, after the ‘peak year’ 2013, attention dropped again
to levels similar or lower than prior to the spikes. For the years
2015–16 only one speech with references to food (in)security
was found (by Commissioner Hogan of Agriculture).
In terms of the content of references to food security, we
found a diversification from an almost entire focus on external
assistance and some multilateral trade considerations in the
early 2000s towards the inclusion of global food security as a
function of (European) agriculture, climate change and
environmental concerns, scientific cooperation and research, and global
governance. Thus, food security not only attracted attention
from a broader range of domains, but was also considered from
a broader perspective by the Commission as a whole, including
the presidency. Relatively few explicit references were made to
the need for integrative policy or linkages between policy
domains. In cases where reference was made, this related mainly
to the need for aligning development efforts with humanitarian
aid and, to a lesser extent, to other domains. The Commission’s
Policy Coherence for Development program, for example, was
only mentioned rarely.
When it comes to the individual EU policy domains, some
interesting observations about the quantity and content of food
(in)security can be made. To start with Development
Cooperation and Humanitarian Affairs, the Commissioner(s)
of which made most references during the period of analysis, a
clear increase of attention can be observed in the period 2010–
13. This spike of attention can partially be explained by the
separation of the DG into two new DGs, one for Development
C o o pe r at i o n a nd t he o t h e r f o r H um a ni t a r i a n A i d .
Commissioners Michel and De Gucht, who led the DG just
before and during the first price spike, paid hardly any attention
to the issue (at least in their speeches). Explicit consideration of
the need for coherence or coordination was clearest under
Commissioner Nielson (2000–4), though subsequent
Commissioners continued subscribing to the importance of
aligning short-term humanitarian aid and longer-term
development assistance. In addition, Commissioner Piebalgs (2010–14)
regularly linked food security to concerns about climate change
and environmental degradation around the Rio + 20 Sustainable
Development conference in 2012.
Commissioners of Agriculture also paid attention to food
security over the whole period of analysis, whereby
Commissioners Fischler (2000–4) and Fischer Boel (2004–9)
touched upon the topic more often than Commissioner Cioloş
(2010–14). All Commissioners invoked food security
particularly in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy and in food
security exemption clauses in (agricultural) trade agreements. A
recurring argument in these speeches was that a productive
(European) agriculture and agricultural trade are key to
Fig. 1 Number of paragraphs
containing references to food
(in)security in Commissioners’
speeches, clustered per domain
Education & Culture
Health & Consumer Protection
Science & Research
Agriculture & Fisheries
Develoment & Humanitarian Aid
eradicating hunger across the world. Commissioner Fischler
already underlined the need for policy coherence to some extent;
Cioloş did so less explicitly, but repeatedly stressed the food
security linkages between agriculture and environmental
sustainability, research and innovation, and trade. In more recent years,
Commissioner Hogan (2014-present) has been the only
Commissioner of the Juncker Commission who referred to food
security in one of his speeches. Fisheries was touched upon only
very infrequently across the whole period.
Two domains to which the Commissioners paid increasing
attention to food security after the food price spikes were
Research and Environment. For Research this was due to the
various food security research calls and programs as well as
the emphasis on international scientific cooperation to address
food insecurity. For Environment, Commissioner Potočnik
(2010–14) started referring to food security in the context of
the Rio + 20 conference and in relation to agriculture’s effects
on the global long-term potential to produce food. Our
findings also show increased attention of the Commission’s
presidency after president Prodi (1999–2004) was succeeded
by Barroso (2004–14), and within the Barroso presidency
during and following the food price spikes. This suggests that
the presidency and Secretariat-General came to view food
security as a relatively more important EU concern after the
spikes. Barroso particularly referred to food security as an
important global challenge and priority for EU development
assistance, while also making links with other terrains, such as
biofuels, fisheries, climate change, environmental
degradation, science, and agriculture. Juncker (2014-present) did not
refer to food security in any speech.
Trade and External Relations are two domains in which the
Commissioners regularly touched upon food security over the
whole period, but where attention was more frequent before
compared to during and after the food price spikes. The
Fig. 2 Parliamentary committees
that invoked food security in
parliamentary reports five or more
times within a year. (note: all
committees that referred to food
security less than five times
within a year are under ‘Other’)
Commissioners of Trade made these references primarily in
the context of exemption clauses on food security in trade
agreements and with respect to the importance of agriculture.
The Commissioners and High Representative of External
Relations mainly referred to existing assistance programs.
In addition to these domains, there are a number of
domains in which the Commissioners referred to food security
only a couple of times, the most notable being
InterInstitutional Relations under Commissioner Wallström
(2004–9), who repeatedly stressed the role of women for
(global) food security. For some domains, Commissioners
started mentioning food security only during and after the
food price spikes, but did so (very) infrequently.
4.2 Subsystem involvement
By analyzing the policy preparation by EP committees and
the Commission’s DGs, we were able to assess the
involvement of different subsystems in food security governance
over time. In summary, our findings show that before the
food price spikes, the subsystem Development was clearly
the most dominant subsystem in the EU governance of
food security. Other subsystems only made infrequent
references to food security. During and after the food price
spikes, and particularly after the spike of 2010, ‘new’
subsystems became involved more structurally, particularly
the External Affairs, Agriculture, Trade, and Environment
subsystems. In recent years, the level of subsystem
involvement dropped and Development came to play a
relatively larger role again.
Looking more closely at the results, they show both an
increase and diversification of references to food security
across committees in the EP, see Fig. 2. Before 2008, only
the Committee on Development frequently addressed food
security. All other committees invoking food security, such as
those on Foreign Affairs, Environment, and Agriculture, did
so fewer than 5 times per year. From 2008 onwards, more
committees started referring to global food security
(concerns) on a regular basis, including the committees on
Agriculture and Rural Development, Environment and
International Trade. The year 2013 shows a clear peak in the
number of references. Part of this peak can be explained by an
increase in the number of references by the ‘traditional’
Committee on Development, but most of the increase follows
from the involvement of new subsystems. The years 2009 and
2014 are remarkable for their relatively low numbers of
referrals, which could be explained by the EP elections held in
these years. Involvement continued to be low in 2015, but
increased again in 2016.
In terms of the interactions between subsystems, Fig. 3a-d
show that in the years during and following the food price spikes
the constellation of parliamentary committees developed into a
relatively more complex network. Whereas in the years up to
2007, the Committee on Development was the dominant
subsystem with no or hardly any interactions with other subsystems, a
whole range of committees became involved in the seventh term
of the EP. Most of these newly involved committees primarily
interacted about food security with the Committee on
Development (except for the Committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development). Many of these interactions diminished
again in the 8th term of the EP.
Similar patterns can be observed when looking at the
directorate-generals of the Commission. Figure 4 shows
an increase in references to food security in
COM-documents, particularly in the years following the 2010 food
price spike. Here too, diversification toward new domains
is visible, albeit to fewer than in the case of the EP, and at
a later stage.5 The results show that the increase in
references is almost exclusively the result of ‘new’ DGs starting
to invoke food security, whereas references by DG
Development, even in combination with DG Humanitarian
Affairs and Civil Protection, remained at roughly the same
level. Two DGs that became particularly active were DG
Agriculture and Rural Development and the European
External Action Service (EEAS). For DG Agri this was
primarily related to the CAP reform (and its interactions
with global food security), whereas most references by
the EEAS were made in the context of foreign affairs and
international cooperation. Apart from these DGs, the group
BOther^ is relatively big, both before and after the spikes.
This indicates that there was a whole range of DGs that
infrequently mentioned food (in)security concerns. Here
too, the number of references decreased in 2015 and
increased again in 2016.
5 Note that because of the lower overall number of references, Figure 4
mentions those DGs that refer to FS 4 (instead of 5) or more times in a year.
4.3 Policy goals
Online Resource III (Table 2) provides an overview of the
policies and programs that explicitly mentioned food security
as one of their policy goals. In summary, our findings show
that the inclusion of food security policy goals cautiously
diversified across ‘new’ policies from the 2007–8 food price
crisis onwards. A parallel development is the increase in
notions of coherence of policy goals. However, policy goals
were often restricted to incidental issues and concerns and
did not include all potentially relevant domains.
Looking more closely at the results shows that before 2010
almost all key policies were related to development
cooperat i on , hu m a ni t ar i a n ai d, a nd e xt er na l as s i s t a nc e t o
neighbouring or partner countries and regions. A major policy
in this respect was the 2008–10 Food Facility,6 which was set
up to help countries and populations adapt to spiking food
prices. Although food security goals were linked to a wide
array of concerns, such as water, climate and health, this was
principally done in the context of external assistance. Two
exceptions to this observation were several bans on the import
of various fish species,7 which were justified by the argument
that they were important for global food security, and the
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources intended to safeguard
future food security.8 Additionally, food security clauses were
included in a number of trade and fisheries treaties.
From 2010 onwards, food security policy goals were
defined and included in a wide array of other policy processes,
most notably the CAP and the Common Fisheries Policy,9
soil10 and bio-economy11 strategies, the Horizon2020 research
framework,12 and the Novel Foods regulation.13 Combined
with additional development and humanitarian aid goals, this
resulted in an overall increase of the number of policies with
food security as an objective. It is important to note that for
several of these ‘new’ policies, such as the CAP, (global) food
security was mentioned as a policy goal in soft laws, green and
white papers, but did not recur as such in final legislation.
Before 2007–8 notions of the coherence and coordination
of policy goals in hard and soft laws were mostly restricted to
the mutual coherence of development aid instruments and to
attuning development and humanitarian aid efforts. From then
onwards, references to coherence of policy goals increased
and food security concerns came to be linked, albeit
incidentally, to a more varied range of issues, such as the development
of biofuels, health, climate change, and trade.
6 Regulation 1337/2008
7 e.g., Regulations 826/2004, 827/2004, and 828/2004
8 Decision 869/2004
9 Regulation 1380/2013
10 COM 46/2012
11 COM 60/2012
12 Regulation 1291/2013; Decision 743/2013
13 Regulation 2283/2015
Fig. 3 Subsystems interactions in
the European Parliament
(DEVE = Committee on
Development; ITRE =
Committee on Industry, Research
and Energy; AGRI = Committee
on Agriculture and Rural
Development; ENVI =
Committee on Environment;
INTA = Committee on
International Trade; PECH =
Committee on Fisheries; AFET =
Committee on Foreign Affairs;
BUDG = Committee on Budgets;
FEMM = Committee on
Women’s Rights and Gender
Equality.). (Interactions between
committees are indicated in the
figure when committees
interacted at least four times with
each other in a parliamentary term
(or two times for the first half of
the current term 2014–2016)
direction of the arrows indicates
which of the interacting
committees is the opinion-giver)
6th EP: 2004 - 2009
7th EP:2009 - 2014
8th EP: 2014 - 2016
4.4 Policy instruments
Online Resource III (Table 4) provides an overview of
instruments that were linked to food security (concerns). The
analysis of soft and hard legislation combined with interviews
with Commission staff show that since the outbreak of the
food price spikes, ‘traditional’ food security instrument mixes
were expanded, made more consistent, and complemented
with some new types of instruments. In addition, the
coordination and consistency of instruments were increasingly
facilitated within the Commission, most notably by impact
assessments, inter-service consultations, and Policy Coherence for
Development (PCD). Many subsystems outside of external
assistance directed no or only limited instruments explicitly
at pursuing food security objectives, but may have adjusted
existing instruments to accommodate food security concerns
(see Section 5).
The most substantial instruments explicitly targeting global
food security before the spikes were the provision of food aid
and actions supported through the food security program, both
embedded in the 1996 regulation on food aid policy and
special operations in support of food security. As of 2007, this
regulation was adopted within the Financing Instrument for
Development Cooperation,14 which merged various
geographic and thematic development instruments into a single
development instrument. Another key instrument is the
European Development Fund, which has been the main
cooperation instrument for ACP-countries (African, Caribbean,
and Pacific Group of States) and Overseas Countries and
Territories. Similarly, various neighborhood assistance
instruments, such as TACIS (Technical Aid to the Commonwealth
of Independent States15) and MEDA (Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership16), were used to provide assistance to countries
and regions neighbouring the EU. More specific instruments
that were already used before the spikes were the Technical
Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development (CTA), several
bans on the import of particular fish species, and efforts to fix
export refunds; all of which were explicitly linked to global
food security concerns.
Most of these instruments continued to exist during and
after the spikes, sometimes in a different or expanded form. A
major expansion of food security efforts in development
cooperation was realized by the temporary Food Facility,17
which was created to help countries and regions become
more resilient. Although we did not observe a full
reconsideration and alignment of instruments, in some sectors
instruments were combined or adapted in more consistent
instrument mixes, such as the previously mentioned Financing
Instrument for Development Cooperation and the new
European Neighbourhood (and Partnership) Instrument. In
15 Regulation 99/2000
16 Regulation 1488/1996
17 Regulation 1337/2008
Fig. 4 Commission services that
invoked food security in
COM-documents four or more
times within a year. (note: all
services that referred to food
security fewer than four times
within a year are under ‘Other’)
15 5 12
addition, new instruments were developed and food security
concerns became embedded in instruments that were
previously not explicitly targeted at food security, for example the
Instrument for Stability18 (later: Instrument contributing to
stability and peace) used to provide external assistance in
cases of political instability or major disasters. This
instrument replaced the previous Rapid Response Mechanism,19
which, although it may have contributed to food security,
did not explicitly take food security concerns into account.
A number of new instruments linked to food security
originated from subsystems other than development cooperation
and external assistance. Examples hereof are the prominent
position of food security within the Horizon2020 research
framework,20 including the Joint Research Centre’s activities
on food security, monitoring the impact of biofuels,21 and the
Copernicus Earth Observation program.22 The EU also
appointed a special representative to the African Union.23
For many of the subsystems and policy goals identified in
the previous two sections we found either no or only minor
associated substantive instruments. For example, the final
versions of the Common Agricultural Policy24 and the Common
Fisheries Policy25 did not contain any instruments explicitly
linked to food security concerns. This either means that policy
instruments were adjusted without labelling them in terms of
food security or that food security concerns mentioned in
18 Regulation 1717/2006
19 Regulation 381/2001
20 Regulation 1291/2013; Decision 743/2013
21 Regulation 597/2009
22 COM 312/2013
23 Decision 805/2007
24 (Regulations 1305/2013, 1306/2013, 1307/2013, and 1308/2013)
25 Regulation 1380/2013
preparatory acts (soft law) were not followed by policy change
(see Section 5 for a further discussion).
The findings from the policy analysis are supported by our
interview data. Regarding the EU’s internal procedural
instruments in the governance of food security, interviews with
Commission officials revealed that quite a number of
instruments had been used to ensure and enhance coordination and
coherence within the Commission. Although interviews were
only held in 2014, respondents indicated that these
instruments had become more important in recent years. Two of
the Commission’s most common internal procedural
instruments, impact assessments and inter-service consultations,
were reported to be important tools for addressing food
security-related concerns, for example in biofuels policy, the
Common Agricultural Policy, and trade agreements. In
practice, these concerns were raised mainly by officials working
in the domains of development cooperation and external
assistance. Another key instrument in this respect is Policy
Coherence for Development, with food security as one of
its five key priorities. PCD enables DG Development to
screen the Commission’s work program for initiatives that
may have an impact on food security and, consequentially,
to have a say in the policy process regarding a broad range of
issues. However, respondents argued that because of the
limited capacity of the PCD team, efforts were limited to major
policies and programs that might have a detrimental effect on
food security, such as the Common Agricultural Policy and
In the past there were moments where I was alone on the
file, on PCD coordination, and at that moment we just
focused on the big priorities, on things that are burning.
So it all depends on the staff situation. ... We always say
to people up in the hierarchy that we can use more
people; if they give us twenty we could use them all, then
we would expand the number of priorities that we are
able to follow.
Policy officer from DG DEVCO
PCD is therefore still primarily used according to the
‘do-noharm’ principle, rather than to realize synergies. In addition,
respondents indicated that when it comes to the crunch, other
objectives were generally given priority over food security
concerns. One policy officer indicated that the EU’s economic
and political crisis did not make things easier in this regard,
though at the same time nuanced apparent trade-offs:
Life for PCD was easier when we were in a situation of
prosperity. Of course, if you have a crisis and European
jobs and the prosperity of the EU on the line, and the
policy trade-off is presented in a way where you have to
choose between the European poor and people in the
other countries that are not European voters... ... But
part of my job is also to explain that the equation is
not always that simple. It’s not usually one against the
other. It’s also our job to try to bring in the narrative,
explain why dealing with development and food security
is important in the long term for Europe.
Policy officer from DG DEVCO
Three other types of instruments that respondents mentioned
to be relevant were: i) foresight studies performed by the
Commission’s Joint Research Centre, which help put food
security on the agendas of various services and provide
scenarios for courses of action, ii) the Commission’s staff
mobility policy, which facilitates a circulation of perspectives and
expertise, and iii) the creation of ‘boundary units’, i.e. units
created to address external concerns within a domain, e.g. the
unit ‘ACP, South Africa, FAO and G8/G20’ within DG AGRI.
5.1 Synthesis of our findings
Our findings suggest that each of the policy integration
dimensions in the EU governance of food security advanced to at
least some degree in the aftermath of the food price spikes.
The policy frame expanded towards new dimensions of food
security and ideas about how it should be addressed; a wider
array of subsystems started discussing food security concerns;
food security goals diversified somewhat and there was an
increased awareness of coherence and linkages with other
issues; existing instruments, including internal procedural
instruments, were expanded and made more consistent; and new
types of instruments were developed. Whereas food security
remained an important issue in development cooperation, it
also spread to new domains and policy debates, such as those
on agriculture, biofuels, environmental programs, and trade.
Policy changes that are particularly notable are the substantial
resources made available to food security research under the
Horizon2020 program and the adjustment of biofuels targets
resulting from concerns about indirect land use changes. At
the same time, policy integration proved more substantial in
some dimensions than in others. There are three findings that
make us answer our initial question of whether actions speak
louder than words with a ‘partly’.
First, we found that the increase of awareness in various
‘newer’ subsystems did not seem to result in actual policy
changes. This is clearest for the most recent reforms of the
CAP and the CFP: although food security concerns were
pervasive, it is doubtful whether these truly affected final outcomes
(Zahrnt 2011; Candel 2016)
. Both preparatory and final acts did
not mention any changes of specific goals and instruments, but
were restricted to generic references to global food security as
an important objective. This seems to suggest that food security
concerns were primarily used to strengthen the legitimacy of
existing or proposed policy directions. This (cautious)
conclusion corresponds with insights shared by our interviewees. In
the case of the CAP, respondents claimed that food security
primarily served as a ‘buzzword’ for enhancing the legitimacy
of policy proposals as it proved to resonate with a wide array of
(Candel et al. 2016)
. Of course, this does not mean
that these policies may not make a contribution to global food
security (although critical voices exist too, e.g., Brooks 2014;
Boysen et al. 2015); however, we did not find a change or
explicit (re)targeting following on the renaissance of food
security concerns. It is important to note that such discursive or
symbolic processes of policy integration are not necessarily
an undesired development
(cf. Edelman 1985)
integration can play an important agenda-setting role in the sense
that it draws subsystems’ attention to particular food security
concerns. Such awareness is a prerequisite for more substantive
governance changes to occur.
Second and building on the last point, although we observed
increasing awareness of interactions across the different drivers
of food security as well as pleas for enhanced policy coherence,
policy efforts were largely limited to mitigating the most
obvious externalities. It is true that a number of development-,
humanitarian aid-, and neighbourhood-related food security
instruments were merged into more consistent instruments, but few
attempts were made at realizing further synergies, e.g., by
moving towards an overarching cross-sectoral global food security
strategy and instrument mix. Limited PCD capacities and
resources play a role here, but may in themselves result from
insufficient political commitment
(cf. Harris et al. 2017)
addition, not all subsystems that could play a role in governing
global food security (Section 2) did so explicitly.
Third, findings for the most recent years (2014–16) seem to
indicate a decrease of attention to global food security again:
references to food security have been almost absent in
Commissioners’ speeches under the Juncker presidency, while
subsystem involvement was much lower, particularly in
2014–15. Although 2016 saw an increase of subsystem
involvement in the Commission and Parliament again, the lack
of high-level prioritization makes further policy integration of
goals and instruments unlikely in the near future.
5.2 Follow-up questions
Undeniably, the relationship between strengthened policy
integration in governance processes and eventual food security
outcomes remains understudied and therefore unclear.
Although policy integration scholars assume that more
integration would result in better outcomes, studying such impacts
is both a conceptual and methodological challenge
and Lenschow 2010)
. We consider overcoming these
challenges through conceptual and methodological innovation as
a vital next step in future research on integrative food security
(cf. Knill and Tosun 2012)
Another important topic for follow-up research considers the
Bwhy^-question behind our analysis; why did the EU
governance of food security advance quite significantly in some
domains but not in others? Although providing very little insights
into what explains successful explanation
literature provides various possible explanations for the latter
(for overviews, see: Peters 2015; Vince 2015; Candel
. First, pre-existing policy elements, such as instruments,
institutions or capacities, often prove remarkably resilient as a
result of lock-in effects following from path-dependent
processes of policy layering
(Pierson 2000; Rayner and Howlett 2009)
Second, food security may have been replaced on the political
agenda by competing issues that are perceived as more
pressing, hence reducing the political pressure to invest in policy
(cf. Downs 1972)
. In this respect, it would
be worthwhile looking into possible trade-offs resulting from
efforts to govern food security and various other crosscutting
policy problems – including climate change, immigration,
terrorism, and the stability of financial systems – at the same time.
Not only do higher degrees of integration require more
resources, including institutional capacity, that cannot be used
elsewhere, but a focus on the coherence of goals and the
consistency of instruments with respect to food security may
diminish the coherence and consistency of the governance of
(Adelle et al. 2009; Lagreid and Rykkja 2015)
These are everyday choices in the working practice of
decision-makers. Third, integration is simply no easy task, and
many examples of failure exist (6, Perri 2004). As politicians
are known to avoid risk
, it is unlikely that they
will invest serious time and resources in policy integration
. Fourth, for some policymakers the invocation
of food security concerns or calls for integration may have
merely served the purpose of window dressing, enhancing the
legitimization of a specific policy proposal or direction while
lacking the accompanying political will or resources
and Kivimaa 2007)
. Various scholars and commentators have
argued that the latter has been the case with food security’s
pervasiveness in global policy debates in recent years.
According to some particularly critical scholars, invoking ‘food
security’ merely suits proponents of intensifying food
(Fish et al. 2013; Rosin 2013; Tomlinson 2013)
or of a
neoliberal trade agenda
(Jarosz 2011; Koc 2013)
. Our results do
not support these claims for policymaking at the EU level,
although strategic considerations certainly seemed to have
played a role in the renaissance of food security discourse.
5.3 Implications for governance
Our results allow for concrete recommendations on how the
EU governance of food security could be advanced further. As
Table 1 elaborates, full policy integration into food security
governance would implicate the involvement of all possibly
relevant subsystems. Subsystems would then need to get
involved beyond ‘do-no-harm’, aiming to create synergies
between policy efforts. In addition, full integration would require
the design and implementation of an overarching EU strategy,
which elaborates the role of each of these subsystems in
addressing food security, thereby ensuring the coherence of
policy efforts. The PCD commitment to food security would be a
good starting point for doing so, but would have to be
extended from development cooperation to other fields of EU
policymaking. Such an extension would require coordinative
policy instruments at the system-level. These coordinative
instruments do not necessarily have to be created anew; existing
coordinating entities, such as the Secretariat-General in the
Commission, could serve as boundary-spanning structures
that take the lead in developing a holistic approach and
facilitating coordination between subsystems
(cf. Hartlapp et al.
2012; Kassim et al. 2013; Candel et al. 2016)
. The consistency
of subsystems’ instrument mixes is a key challenge in
realizing such a boundary-spanning policy regime.
An important question is whether further policy integration
is politically feasible or desirable in the current political
(cf. Jordan and Halpin 2006)
. Member states have been
reluctant to hand over jurisdictions to the EU institutions,
especially regarding domains related to external affairs and
issues for which the EU has no formal competence This has
been reinforced by the rise of Euroscepticism over the last
years. It may therefore be more realistic to strive for the
optimization of lower degrees of policy integration, for example
by attempting to reduce the clearest externalities
. Although high policy integration ambitions help
picturing the desired path forwards, in the short-term it may be
more productive to harvest the low-hanging fruit to ensure that
actions do speak louder than words.
Acknowledgements Previous versions of this paper were presented at the
2nd International Conference on Public Policy in Milan, 1-4 July 2015, and
at the 9th General Conference of the European Consortium for Political
Research in Montréal, 27-29 August 2015. We would like to thank
Katrien Termeer, Arild Aurvåg Farsund, Carsten Daugbjerg, and two
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts of the paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declared that they have no conflict of
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n 4 . 0 I n t e r n a t i o n a l L i c e n s e ( h t t p : / /
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link
to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Jeroen Candel i s A s s i s t a n t
P r o f e s s o r a t t h e P u b l i c
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d P o l i c y
group, Wageningen University
& Research, the Netherlands.
His research interests include
food and agricultural policy,
p o l i c y i n t e g r a t i o n , w i c k e d
problems, and EU politics. He
has authored various papers on
European food security
governance, which have been
published in both public policy
and food (policy) journals.
His most recent research
focuses on governments’ attempts to move towards better integrated
Robbert Biesbroek is Assistant
P r o f e s s o r a t t h e P u b l i c
Administration and Policy group,
Wa g e n i n g e n U n i v e r s i t y &
Research, the Netherlands. In
2014 he co-founded TRAC3 an
international collaboration for
methodological, and empirical approaches for
tracking adaptation across scales
and contexts (www.trac3.ca). His
r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s i n c l u d e
mechanisms of complex decision
making, dynamics of policy (dis)
integration of cross-cutting
societal issues, and the political and bureaucratic responses to environmental
problems. He has (co)authored over twenty scientific papers and currently
serves as Editor for Regional Environmental Change.
6, Perri. ( 2004 ). Joined-up government in the western world in comparative perspective: a preliminary literature review and exploration . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 14 ( 1 ), 103 - 138 .
Adelle , C. , Pallemaerts , M. , & Chiavari , J. ( 2009 ). Climate change and energy security in Europe: Policy integration and its limits . Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.
Biesbroek , G. R. , & Candel , J. J. L. ( 2016 ). Explanatory mechanisms for policy (dis)integration: climate change adapation policy and food policy in the Netherlands . Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European Group for Public Administration (EGPA) , Utrecht , 24 - 26 August.
Boysen , O. , Hans G. J. , and Alan M. ( 2016 ). "Impact of EU agricultural policy on developing countries: A Uganda case study." The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development , 25 ( 3 ), 377 - 40 .
Brooks , J. ( 2014 ). Policy coherence and food security: The effects of OECD countries' agricultural policies . Food Policy , 44 , 88 - 94 .
Candel , J. J. L. ( 2014 ). Food security governance: a systematic literature review . Food Security , 6 ( 4 ), 585 - 601 .
Candel , J. J. L. ( 2016 ). Putting food on the table: The European Union governance of the wicked problem of food security . Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Candel , J. J. L. ( 2017a ). Diagnosing integrated food security strategies . NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10. 1 0 1 6 / j . n j a s . 2 0 1 7 . 0 7 . 0 0 1 , h t t p s : / / a c . e l s - c d n . c o m / S1573521417300076/1- s2 . 0 - S1573521417300076 -main.pdf?_ tid= e6d5962a-d41a-11e7-8813-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1511859946_ 80e2a7a73323068584202824a466c7b5
Candel , J.J.L. ( 2017 ). "Holy Grail or inflated expectations? The success and failure of integrated policy strategies." Policy Studies , 38 ( 6 ): 519 - 552 .
Candel , J. J. L. , & Biesbroek , G. R. ( 2016 ). Toward a processual understanding of policy integration . Policy Sciences , 49 ( 3 ), 211 - 231 .
Candel , J. J. L. , Breeman , G. E. , & Termeer , C. J. A. M. ( 2016 ). The European Commission's ability to deal with wicked problems: an indepth case study of the governance of food security . Journal of European Public Policy , 23 ( 6 ), 789 - 813 .
Caritas Europa . ( 2014 ). The EU's role to end hunger by 2025 . Brussels: Caritas Europa.
Council of the European Union . ( 2013 ). Council conclusions on food and nutrition security in external assistance . Brussels: Council of the European Union.
Downs , A. ( 1972 ). Up and down with ecology - the 'Issue-attention cycle . The Public Interest , 28 , 38 - 50 .
Dupuis , J. , & Biesbroek , R. ( 2013 ). Comparing apples and oranges: The dependent variable problem in comparing and evaluating climate change adaptation policies . Global Environmental Change , 23 ( 6 ), 1476 - 1487 .
Edelman , M. J. ( 1985 ). The symbolic uses of politics . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
EESC ( 2016 ). Opinion of the European economic and social committee on more sustainable food systems . Brussels: European Economic and Social Commitee .
European Commission ( 2010 ). An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges, 31 March , COM ( 2010 ) 127 . Brussels: European Commission.
FAO ( 1996 ). Rome declaration on world food security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations .
Fish , R. , Lobley , M. , & Winter , M. ( 2013 ). A license to produce? Farmer interpretations of the new food security agenda . Journal of Rural Studies , 29 , 40 - 49 .
Fresco , L. O. , & Poppe , K. J. ( 2016 ). Towards a common agricultural and food policy . Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Grant , W. ( 2012 ). Economic patriotism in European agriculture . Journal of European Public Policy , 19 ( 3 ), 420 - 434 .
Harris , J. , Drimie , S. , Roopnaraine , T. , & Covic , N. ( 2017 ). From coherence towards commitment: Changes and challenges in Zambia's nutrition policy environment . Global Food Security , 13 , 49 - 56 .
Hartlapp , M. , Metz , J. , & Rauh , C. ( 2012 ). Linking agenda setting to coordination structures: bureaucratic politics inside the European Commission . Journal of European Integration , 35 ( 4 ), 425 - 441 .
Headey , D. , & Fan , S. ( 2010 ). Reflections on the global food crisis-how did it happen? How has it hurt? And how can we prevent the next one? IFPRI Research Monography 165 . Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Hood , C. ( 2010 ). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and selfpreservation in government . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Howlett , M. ( 2000 ). Managing the Bhollow state^: procedural policy instruments and modern governance . Canadian Public Administration , 43 ( 4 ), 412 - 431 .
Howlett , M. ( 2014 ). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policymaking . Global Environmental Change , 29 , 395 - 403 .
Howlett , M. , & Ramesh , M. ( 2003 ). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (2nd ed .). Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
iPES Food ( 2016 ). Why we need a common food policy for the EU: an open letter to Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission .
Jacob , K. , & Volkery , A. ( 2004 ). Institutions and instruments for government self-regulation: Environmental policy integration in a crosscountry perspective . Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice , 6 ( 3 ), 291 - 309 .
Jacob , K. , Volkery , A. , & Lenschow , A. ( 2008 ). Instruments for environmental policy integration in 30 OECD countries . In A. Jordan & A. Lenschow (Eds.), Innovation in environmental policy? Integrating the environment for sustainability (pp . 24 - 48 ). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jarosz , L. ( 2011 ). Defining world hunger: Scale and neoliberal ideology in international food security policy discourse . Food, Culture and Society , 14 ( 1 ), 117 - 139 .
Jochim , A. E. , & May , P. J. ( 2010 ). Beyond subsystems: policy regimes and governance . Policy Studies Journal , 38 ( 2 ), 303 - 327 .
Jordan , G. , & Halpin , D. ( 2006 ). The political costs of policy coherence: Constructing a rural policy for Scotland . Journal of Public Policy , 26 ( 1 ), 21 - 41 .
Jordan , A. , & Lenschow , A. ( 2010 ). Policy paper environmental policy integration: a state of the art review . Environmental Policy and Governance , 20 ( 3 ), 147 - 158 .
Kassim , H. , Peterson , J. , Bauer , M. W. , Connolly , S. , Dehousse , R. , Hooghe , L. , et al. ( 2013 ). The European Commission of the twenty-first century . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirwan , J. , Maye , D. , & Brunori , G. ( 2017 ). Acknowledging complexity in food supply chains when assessing their performance and sustainability . Journal of Rural Studies , 52 , 21 - 32 .
Knill , C. , & Tosun , J. ( 2012 ). Public policy: A new introduction . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koc , M. ( 2013 ). Discourses of food security . In B. Karaagac (Ed.), Accumulations, crises, struggles: Capital and labour in contemporary capitalism (pp. 245 - 265 ). Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Lafferty , W. , & Hovden , E. ( 2003 ). Environmental policy integration: Towards an analytical framework . Environmental Politics , 12 ( 3 ), 1 - 22 .
Lagreid , P. , & Rykkja , L. H. ( 2015 ). Organizing for Bwicked problems^ - analyzing coordination arrangements in two policy areas: Internal security and the welfare administration . International Journal of Public Sector Management , 28 ( 6 ), 475 - 493 .
Lau , R. R. , & Schlesinger , M. ( 2005 ). Policy frames, metaphorical reasoning, and support for public policies . Political Psychology , 26 ( 1 ), 77 - 114 .
Mickwitz , P. , & Kivimaa , P. ( 2007 ). Evaluating policy integration: the case of policies for environmentally friendlier technological innovations . Evaluation , 13 ( 1 ), 68 - 86 .
Misselhorn , A. , Aggarwal , P. , Ericksen , P. , Gregory , P. , Horn-Phathanothai , L. , Ingram , J. , et al. ( 2012 ). A vision for attaining food security . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 4 ( 1 ), 7 - 17 .
Nilsson , M. , Zamparutti , T. , Petersen , J. E. , Nykvist , B. , Rudberg , P. , & McGuinn , J. ( 2012 ). Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the EU . Environmental Policy and Governance , 22 ( 6 ), 395 - 423 .
Orton , J. D. , & Weick , K. E. ( 1990 ). Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization . Academy of Management Review , 15 ( 2 ), 203 - 223 .
Peters , B. G. ( 2005 ). The search for coordination and coherence in public policy: Return to the center? Unpublished paper . Pittsburgh: Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh.
Peters , B. G. ( 2015 ). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Piebalgs , A. ( 2013 ). Stepping-up coherence between EU policies to improve food security, speech at an OECD Side-Event on Shaping Coherent and Collective Action in a post- 2015 World. http://eu-un.europa.eu/ articles/fr/article_13981_fr. htm. Accessed 3 November 2014 .
Pierson , P. ( 2000 ). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics . American Political Science Review , 94 ( 2 ), 251 - 267 .
Piesse , J. , & Thirtle , C. ( 2009 ). Three bubbles and a panic: An explanatory review of recent food commodity price events . Food Policy , 34 ( 2 ), 119 - 129 .
Rapsomanikis , G. , & Sarris , A. ( 2010 ). Commodity market review . Rome: FAO.
Rayner , J. , & Howlett , M. ( 2009 ). Introduction: Understanding integrated policy strategies and their evolution . Policy and Society , 28 ( 2 ), 99 - 109 .
Red Cross EU Office ( 2013 ). Nutrition EU Policy Framework . http:// www.redcross.eu/en/What-we-do/Development-Aid/FoodSecurity/Nutrition-Eu-Policy-Framework/. Accessed 3 Nov 2014 .
Roggeband , C. , & Verloo , M. ( 2007 ). Dutch women are liberated, migrant women are a problem: the evolution of policy frames on gender and migration in the Netherlands, 1995 - 2005 . Social Policy & Administration, 41 ( 3 ), 271 - 288 .
Rosin , C. ( 2013 ). Food security and the justification of productivism in New Zealand . Journal of Rural Studies , 29 , 50 - 58 .
Schmidt , V. A. ( 2008 ). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse . Annual Review of Political Science , 11 , 303 - 326 .
Schön , D. A. , & Rein , M. ( 1994 ). Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies . New York: Basic Books.
Tomlinson , I. ( 2013 ). Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: A critical perspective on a key discourse of food security in the UK . Journal of Rural Studies , 29 , 81 - 90 .
United Nations ( 2015 ). Policy integration in government in pursuit of the sustainable development goals: Report of the expert group meeting held on 28 and 29 January 2015 at United Nations Headquarters, New York: United Nations.
Vince , J. ( 2015 ). Integrated policy approaches and policy failure: the case of Australia's oceans policy . Policy Sciences , 48 ( 2 ), 159 - 180 .
Zahrnt , V. ( 2011 ). Food security and the EU's common agricultural policy: Facts against fears . Brussels: ECIPE.