Michael de Laine

By Michael de Laine, The Copenhagen Voice, 24 June 2009

Climate change is currently one of the most important political issues in Europe and political support for climate issues is clearly broader than it used to be. But few National Adaptation Strategies for implementing policies mitigating climate change in national or international policies contain clear communications strategies. Climate change Communication remains predominantly focused on mitigation and this needs to be addressed urgently if adaptation of climate change policies, which poses a different set of challenges, is to be effective, new reports show.

Two new reports examining climate change adaptation and policy making across Europe were launched in Brussels yesterday by the Partnership for European Environmental Research (PEER), a grouping of seven of the biggest European environmental research institutes. The reports deal with several aspects of implementing climate policy in Europe.

The first PEER report, ‘Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies’, is a critical analysis of the current status of national adaptation strategies in EU member states, identifying a number of common strengths and weaknesses of the current strategies in the countries studied. There is a variety of opportunities to strengthen their further development and implementation, including timely and targeted scientific research.

“We note that communication and awareness-raising are going to be important to get public support for adaptation measures, and to help stakeholders to adapt,” said Rob Swart of Alterra, the Institute for Applied Environmental Research of Wageningen University and Research Centre, in the Netherlands, the lead author of the first report. “Since adaptation is very different from mitigation, communication should be designed specifically for that purpose, including exchange of experiences on adaptation practices. It could well be that breaking down institutional barriers will actually be more important than the technical feasibility of adaptation options.”

The first report identified six key themes and studied how the countries approached each of the themes, including the progress made towards implementing relevant policies at the national level.

1. Motivating and facilitating factors for strategy development: The National Adaptation Strategies (NASs) analysed reflect the national and socio-economic conditions of a country, placing emphasis on dealing with the challenges that are most relevant in that country. Interestingly, given the historical ties of many European countries, there is only superficial treatment of the national implications of climate change impacts occurring elsewhere in the world.

2. Science-policy interactions and the place of research: There were differences between countries in the variety of approaches to integrating scientific knowledge into policy making, ranging from the creation of specific boundary organisations (UK Climate Impacts Programme) to the establishment of a joint committee of scientists and politicians (Germany).

Because adaptation policies are yet to be implemented, it is too early to judge which mechanism works best in which circumstances, the report stated. Notwithstanding large uncertainties, the strategies are generally not based on a systematic analysis of policy-relevant scientific uncertainties, nor do they contain specific plans for such analysis, posing a possible challenge for the scientific community.

3. The role of communicating adaptation: Most countries have developed internet tools that complement their NASs and which can provide a single portal for information and advice. Communication on climate change in the countries reviewed still remains predominantly focused on mitigation and this needs to be addressed urgently if adaptation, which poses a different set of challenges, is to be effective.

4. Multi-level governance in shaping and delivering NASs: There are still a number of barriers to turning theory into reality, the report stated. Few countries have set out clearly defined responsibilities for the different levels of governance, nor have they set up co-ordinating bodies. Another major issue is the question of funding – who should pay for which aspects of adaptation. Finally, there is little discussion of how conflicts between levels of governance can be resolved, which may lead to contradictory approaches being taken.

5. The integration of adaptation into sectoral policies: Strong political leadership, clear objectives, effective administration and co-ordination, and suitable policy design processes are needed to allow for integration of climate change adaptation into sector policies. The current generation of NASs, while recognising the challenges of integration, do not put in place clear measures for ensuring that policy integration actually happens, the report stated. However, the process of developing NASs has improved administrative integration with interdepartmental committees having been or being set up in a number of countries.

6. The role of policy monitoring, review and enforcement: Most NASs are the start rather than the end of a policy process, putting the issue on the national policy agenda but often without elaborating concrete proposals or processes for measuring effectiveness of the NAS. Knowledge about vulnerability and adaptation options will increase over the coming years. Flexible mechanisms to implement, evaluate and revise adaptation strategies will be required.

The second report, ‘Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance’, assesses the degree of climate policy integration in six different European countries, at national and local levels, as well as within key policy sectors such as energy and transport. It analyses measures and means to enhance climate policy integration and improve policy coherence.

The report concludes that specific measures to tackle climate change, such as emissions trading, will only be successful if they are coherently supported by other government policies addressing economic and social issues.

“Although the inclusion of climate change mitigation and adaptation in general governmental programmes and strategies has substantially increased in recent years, much more is needed in terms of integrating climate issues into specific policy measures,” said Per Mickwitz of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), lead author of this report. “Annual budgets, environmental impact assessments and spatial planning procedures are three examples of existing measures which we believe have significant potential to be climate policy instruments.”

According to the second report, climate change is currently one of the most important political issues in Europe and that political support for climate issues is clearly broader than it used to be.

“Climate change has a more prominent role in governmental programmes than ever before, and it is no longer delegated to just one minister, one ministry or a few institutions - instead, it has become a matter for prime ministers, whole cabinets and entire administrations,” the report stated.

It noted the most recent national climate strategies recognise the need for, and are built on, climate policy integration to a much greater extent than was previously the case. At the local level, many large cities, as well as smaller municipalities, have made climate commitments which are often more ambitious than commitments made at a national level.

Local experiences of extreme weather events combined with concrete local mitigation efforts have made it obvious that climate change mitigation and adaptation are matters for multi-level governance. There is a clear political opportunity to address climate change more broadly than ever before. In order to make the most of this opportunity, however, it is absolutely essential to couple climate change concerns and related solutions with other concerns, such as energy security, and with the responses to the economic recession that began following the financial crises of autumn 2008.

“Improving the efficiency of climate policy integration does not therefore primarily require its further inclusion in high-level strategies,” the report stated. “More than anything else, it requires that the question of consistency be more directly and openly addressed, that climate change is given more political weight, that systematic reporting is undertaken and that resources for integration – both in the form of know-how and money – are made available.”

Of even greater importance than incorporating climate policy integration more deeply into policy strategies is ensuring that it is extended more fully to specific policy instruments, the report said.

“I know how important it is to work together within Europe to ensure that future decisions will be based on the best information available, minimizing risks and, in some cases, turning threats into opportunities,” said PEER chair Pat Nuttall, the director of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in the UK. “There is a huge need for increased policy and programme evaluation from a climate change perspective, and these reports are a contribution towards achieving this goal.”

Click here to read the first report, ‘Europe Adapts to Climate Change Comparing National Adaptation Strategies’.

Click here to read the second report, ‘Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance’.