Dr. Ackrill paper (*.pdf)

and negative. There is evidence of policy layering [add refs] in design; for example,
biofuels policy clearly overlaps with, though it is much broader in scope than, the
agricultural policy domain as it increases biomass demand i.e. for certain
commodities as feedstocks, also ethanol production/refining generally in rural areas
(most biofuel feedstocks are bulk-losing commodities).
But policy layering in design needs to be complemented by analysis of its
consequences in implementation. In particular, the interaction between different
legacies and new interests can be observed in the lack of institutionalisation and co-
ordination between the two parts of the design in the implementation phase. The
biofuels cases are suggestive of the particular difficulties of joining up government in
the new governance of sustainability. The two part policy designs that were enacted in
the US and the EU immediately introduced a number of bureaucratic players in
implementation. In the EU several Commission Directorates-General were involved:
ENER, MOVE, ENV, CLIM and AGRI; in the US there was DoE, USDA, EPA and
State – let alone the other stakeholders and interested actors involved in implementing
policy. Furthermore, as noted, the emergence of new international organisations, such
as GBEP, provide a forum for discussion between the major players in a more
constructive and progressive manner than the traditional international
intergovernmental organisation. Internally, however, the biofuels cases have revealed
old interests have still been influential. With the RED, ENER held the pen; whilst in
the US, RFS2 was driven through by the Senate.
In both the EU and US, despite the use of policy mandates, we observe a biofuel
policy bifurcation between an increasingly path-dependent 1G component and a still
29