Multi-level governance of food waste 267
created a counter proposal of a type I state- led hierarchical response in the
form of a food waste law proposal debated by the Parliament. The Norwegian case illustrates that there might be significant learning processes between
type I and type II activities; the food waste law suggestions were built on
solid experience from the industry collaboration and could even incorporate
this learning process.
The Danish case can also be seen as an illustration of type II multi- level
governance of fluid, problem- focused networks but with the civic sector
taking the lead. Here even more type I legitimacy was given to those type II
activities as state actors began participating in various initiatives as observers,
funders and project partners. This might be caused by a very strong collaboration between the leading NGO and various public entities (municipalities,
ministries and legislative bodies). The high effectiveness of the food waste
reduction effort in Denmark (although Denmark could initially be seen as a
laggard in the comparative analysis; see Figure 13.2) also increased the output
of legitimacy to this particular governance arrangement. Another key aspect
might be the strong ownership displayed towards this arrangement by Danish
civil society, which seems to be a subject rather than an object of food waste
reduction action. As consumers are responsible for most food waste, civic
engagement might also be crucial for reaching more ambitious goals after the
‘lowest- hanging fruits’ have been collected.
The multi- level governance analysis shows that the three countries can be
put on an axis with Sweden on one end, with a state regulations and type I
arrangement, Norway stretched in between with some competition between
type I and type II, and Denmark being the most liberal, with strong civic
activism and fluid, public partnerships governance and a strong type II
legitimacy.
It is important to note that the state- centric approach is not enough to see
the full food waste governance framework. All analysed countries are strongly
influenced by the UN Sustainable Development Goals on food waste and
their incorporation into EU regulations. The goals are the same, but
Denmark, Sweden and Norway illustrate that different governance pathways
are possible. There is a great deal of information exchange between all the
Scandinavian and other European countries (through the Nordic Council of
Ministers in Scandinavia and through the FUSIONS project in Europe).
Norway looks to Sweden and Finland for policy inspiration and lessons on
food waste initiatives in the hospitality sector,
7
while Danish innovative
mobile phone applications and food waste supermarkets are replicated in
many European countries. Similarly, the Norwegian industry’s self- regulation
of food waste should also receive more scholarly and policy attention.
13.5 Conclusions and policy implications
In this chapter, we have presented the food waste governance efforts in
Norway, Denmark and Sweden. We illustrate that three experimentalist
created a counter proposal of a type I state- led hierarchical response in the
form of a food waste law proposal debated by the Parliament. The Norwegian case illustrates that there might be significant learning processes between
type I and type II activities; the food waste law suggestions were built on
solid experience from the industry collaboration and could even incorporate
this learning process.
The Danish case can also be seen as an illustration of type II multi- level
governance of fluid, problem- focused networks but with the civic sector
taking the lead. Here even more type I legitimacy was given to those type II
activities as state actors began participating in various initiatives as observers,
funders and project partners. This might be caused by a very strong collaboration between the leading NGO and various public entities (municipalities,
ministries and legislative bodies). The high effectiveness of the food waste
reduction effort in Denmark (although Denmark could initially be seen as a
laggard in the comparative analysis; see Figure 13.2) also increased the output
of legitimacy to this particular governance arrangement. Another key aspect
might be the strong ownership displayed towards this arrangement by Danish
civil society, which seems to be a subject rather than an object of food waste
reduction action. As consumers are responsible for most food waste, civic
engagement might also be crucial for reaching more ambitious goals after the
‘lowest- hanging fruits’ have been collected.
The multi- level governance analysis shows that the three countries can be
put on an axis with Sweden on one end, with a state regulations and type I
arrangement, Norway stretched in between with some competition between
type I and type II, and Denmark being the most liberal, with strong civic
activism and fluid, public partnerships governance and a strong type II
legitimacy.
It is important to note that the state- centric approach is not enough to see
the full food waste governance framework. All analysed countries are strongly
influenced by the UN Sustainable Development Goals on food waste and
their incorporation into EU regulations. The goals are the same, but
Denmark, Sweden and Norway illustrate that different governance pathways
are possible. There is a great deal of information exchange between all the
Scandinavian and other European countries (through the Nordic Council of
Ministers in Scandinavia and through the FUSIONS project in Europe).
Norway looks to Sweden and Finland for policy inspiration and lessons on
food waste initiatives in the hospitality sector,
7
while Danish innovative
mobile phone applications and food waste supermarkets are replicated in
many European countries. Similarly, the Norwegian industry’s self- regulation
of food waste should also receive more scholarly and policy attention.
13.5 Conclusions and policy implications
In this chapter, we have presented the food waste governance efforts in
Norway, Denmark and Sweden. We illustrate that three experimentalist