European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 32

Two Levels, Two Strategies As shown by the analysis of the collaboration networks, for instance, most actors involved in both processes only seem to be related to their peers (same actor type) in the respective process. This is already one strong indicator that they do not hold enough structural power to link actions and actors across one or more subsystems. Typically Economiesuisse, the SFOE, and the WWF are very central in the domestic process, but not in the foreign policy process. In the foreign process, no actor has significantly high centralities; and, in general, no actor seems to be central in both processes (Figures 1 and 2). There is however, one exception: the FOEN holds a key position in both processes. The strong weight of the federal administration in foreign policy processes has already been confirmed by former research (Ingold and Fischer 2014; Sciarini1995), and also here, and in the case of Copenhagen and Cancun, the consultation process was rapid and was heavily controlled by the FOEN. It is the Minister of the Environment who arbitrates with the agreement of the Federal council (government), which is why the Swiss position remains quite close to that of FOEN and is characterized by pro-climate commitments. But even if FOEN plays the key role in Swiss foreign climate policy, this cannot be confirmed for domestic policymaking where other actors were seen as more powerful. The international climate change debate is—mainly through the impact of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC)—strongly influenced and designed by scientific actors. Swiss researchers are well involved within the IPCC and one would expect that this would also be reflected in the preparation phase for the Swiss position in international climate negotiations. The re-insurance industry is also greatly interested in policy outcomes on the foreign policy level: as an international economic sector strongly affected by climate change impacts and natural hazards such as floods and heat waves, insurance companies have a stake in the development of international climate change adaptation measures and funding. But a strong position of science and insurance representatives in the production of the Swiss foreign climate policy is not visible in our two-level reputational analysis; and it moreover seems that neither science nor insurance industries would be able to bring the knowledge back into the national climate policy, as they have, so far, played a rather peripheral function in the national decision-making network (see again, Figures 1 and 2). We can thus confirm our second hypothesis and conclude that no actor has the power or ability to influence coordinated policy outputs on both levels. For the test of our third hypothesis, we investigated whether the same actor displays different preferences when acting on two levels. This hypothesis can also be confirmed. On the national level , actors were very clear in their preferences: they were in favor of one set of policy instruments (incentives) or the other (voluntary measures). In Swiss foreign climate policy, preferences seem harmonized: even actors nationally against strong mitigation or adaptation commitments largely supported the instrument mix suggested by the Swiss government. In national policymaking, conflict about policy design is high, because of potential target groups, that is, actors who have to pay or to implement future policy instruments, lobby against 32