Finding Common Ground: Policy Mixes for Transitioning the Contested Dutch Dairy Sector

Policy mixes are crucial in sustainability transitions as they need to help phase out unsustainable practices while simultaneously promoting new sustainable ones. This can be done in a process called policy sequencing, where you start with one policy, and other policies follow at a later stage, highlighting the dynamic between policies in a mix. Developing such a mix can be quite challenging in cases with high levels of policy contestation. However, sequencing can help overcome this problem by starting with policies that break down barriers caused by contestation before implementing more stringent policies. The Dutch dairy farming sector is one case with a high level of contestation. This sector is in dire need of phasing out intensive management practices that contribute to high nitrogen emissions and reduced animal welfare. However, despite a tentative understanding that this industry needs to become less intensive, no progress is being made. This can be attributed to the lack of direction and the highly polarised nature of the topic. Actors have ended up on opposite sides of the policy spectrum, each favouring different policy solutions to reduce the industry's negative effects. Therefore, it is important to explore different policy options and evaluate to what extent these are perceived by various actors in the field to explore the possibility of a common starting point. More specifically, this study focuses on various policy options that different actors could favour in the debate, including farm-level innovations, emission restrictions, production switches and measures targeted at reducing the consumption of dairy products or encouraging alternative consumption patterns. We employ a multi-criteria mapping (MCM) approach, wherein field actors evaluate the options and their sequencing based on personal criteria. This method allows options to be assessed from multiple and opposing perspectives within the policy debate without forcing the respondent in a particular direction. The final evaluations include extensive arguments from diverse perspectives. These are used to develop policy mix sequences that could break down barriers caused by polarisation by starting with positively evaluated policies with high levels of perceived feasibility. Our study is transdisciplinary because we engage various stakeholders from the field, allowing diverse perspectives (e.g., technological optimists, consumer-focused, and nature-based solutions) to shape the results. This can inform policymaking processes by revealing points of convergence in this highly contested case and not limiting this to scientific knowledge. Moreover, it is novel in connecting contestation with policy mix sequencing. We focus not only on options that actors could agree upon from different perspectives but also consider the order of these policies. Hence, exploring a wider range of policy possibilities that can address the problems in the industry.