Case study summaries

There will be a 1-day workshop on Monday 11 May (the day before the ECCA conference in Copenhagen starts) to share experiences between all the cases that are being studied for the BASE project. We were asked to provide short summaries of our case studies, attached here below. Everyone was also asked to invite and bring a stakeholder from the cases we're studying. this didn't work out for our cases, as people were too busy or had already other plans. Interactive, participatory, knowledge-exchange platforms may be very laudable and beneficial. But in practice, sometimes the ambitions or intentions of the organising party doesn't always match with the agenda, resources, strategy or interests of the invited groups...

SECTOR CLUSTER: COASTAL ZONES

South Devon Coast around Dawlish

Objective:To understand what influences the process of adapting this part of the coast to a changing climate, in terms of institutional barriers and enablers. This is a small retrospective and current case study on adaptation in coastal areas. In this case, the main railway line (and only line connecting the Southwest) runs straight along the rocky cliff shore, and is vulnerable for storm impacts and erosion. Last winter (after severe storms in Feb 2014), the railway was closed for two months. The institutional setting around this case is rather complex and fragmented. For example the seawall and railway tracks are owned and managed by a government-owned company, the train services are run by a private company, the local authorities do not have the resources and capacity to make major decisions around this part of the coast, and the national authorities claim adaptation in in this areas is a matter of the local authorities. There were several adaptation measures considered (e.g. raising the sea wall, rerouting the railway more inland), after extreme weather events severely damaged the seawall and railway last winter. The seawall and railway have been repaired (to the way they were before the big damages). However adaptation to the impacts of storm surges and erosion seems to be losing priority again, and it appears everything regarding adaptation has been put on hold. This making it an interesting and important case to study barriers and enablers for climate change adaptation.

    

SECTOR CLUSTER: AGRICULTURE & BIODIVERSITY
Dartmoor National Park
Objective: To understand barriers and enablers in climate change adaptation in this National Park. After a brief moment of attention for climate change adaptation (in 2011), the national park authority was instructed by higher level government to take climate change off the agenda again. Whilst the national park authority states not to be currently active in climate change adaptation, there other initiatives taking place that do address several adaptation issues. One of these was initiated by local farmers, another was a 5year project initiated by a drinking water company and university researchers. The farmer-led initiative includes measures such as measures to maintain public access (e.g. after damages from extreme weather events); to enhance biodiversity; to maintain mosaic landscape with openness and some parts with higher vegetation; to maintain training of commoners to able to fight wildfires and remove vegetation where needed to reduce potential of wildfires. It is expected to be hampered by the new agri-environmental schemes policy starting 2016. The 5year project is focused on preservation of the blanket bog (e.g. by gully blocking to keep wetness), is led by the drinking water company and university researchers, and will not be continued after it finishes this year. The variety and number of local actors, together with dynamics between local and national priorities, make this case valuable to study and learn from.

WP7 Kickoff - Or: how to analyse the EU adaptation policy?

Last week, on Tuesday 24 February (2015), we had the kick-off meeting to start Work Package 7 (abbreviated as WP7).

– What is a Work Package? These large international research projects (like the FP7 funded BASE project) are divided up into several pockets of work focused on a specific task, i.e. a ‘Work Package’. In BASE, there in total 8 Work Packages. –

In WP7, we will look at climate change adaptation policy at the level of the European Union (EU). We will look, first, at several EU legislation and official directives, and analyse in which way climate change adaptation is included (or not) in the formulation of the text of those. Second, we will dive into a couple of sectoral EU policies (likely to be water management, coastal management, public health management, agriculture management and biodiversity conservation). We will analyse why (or why not), and if so, in which way, climate change adaptation is adopted or taken into account in these sectoral policies. Third, the aim is to synthesise all findings from the BASE project, and translate these into a guidance for policy makers at EU level, and possibly also for other policy-making audiences.

There are in total 10 institutions from 8 member-states involved in this Work Package (i.e. Aarhus University and DBT from Denmark; ISPRA and CMCC from Italy; UFZ from Germany; FFCUL from Portugal; SYKE from Finland; CVGZ from Czech Republic; BC3 from Spain; and University of Exeter from the UK). We were with an international group of 10 persons on Tuesday, with delegates from Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic, and the UK (and we had one more delegate via Skype).

In the morning Alessio Capriolo (from ISPRA in Rome) updated us about their work on the analysis of the EU legislation (whether there are references to climate change adaptation in the formulation of the text), for WP7.1. And we discussed the next steps for this task. We considered to use the case studies already being conducted for the BASE project (for WP5). And to analyse in which way national level polices affect these case studies, and how these national level polices relate to the EU policies.

In the afternoon, we split up into two groups. One group discussed how to start the analysis for the deeper understanding of why climate change adaptation is adopted or not in relevant EU policies (for WP7.2). This task will also include empirical data collection (i.e. interviewing policy-makers from the European Commission in Brussels, and collecting and reviewing relevant documentation), which is expected to take place in May/June. And the other group discussed how to start the synthesis, and how to translate that into relevant guidance for EU policymakers (for WP7.3). This last task is not due very soon, but we considered that is important that other relevant project members (i.e. leaders of the deliverables) are aware (asap) that an extraction will be needed of the deliverables, to enable the synthesis and translation to the guidance document.

Below some pictures of the meeting:

Session for ECCA rejected...

I received news from the ECCA organisers that the proposal I had submitted for a session to the ECCA conference (in May in Copenhagen), has been rejected. The proposal was to talk about real-world experiences with public participation. To be able to put some nuances and empirically-informed reflections to the participation-enthusiasm that seems to be become increasingly dominant in the climate change adaptation world. For example, what if some actor groups or individuals do not want to participate in a process about climate change adaptation? Perhaps it is in their interest to pursue other avenues than joining a participation process. What if the public is so heterogeneous it does not fit in the envisaged participation process, and the facilitators decide to intervene in the invitation policy? What if some actors have conflicting interests, and do not wish to participate in a joint process with each other? What if some actors or individuals have more resources available than others, and can pull the process towards their own interest?

There were also a couple of other participation-sessions proposed for the ECCA conference. I wonder whether these types of questions will be covered in the other participation-sessions? I wonder also why my session got rejected. The reason the ECCA organisers provided was: “Due to the high volume of submissions, the Programme Committee was obliged to make a strict selection in order to ensure coherence and variety in the programme.” … Would that imply that either this idea was not coherent enough with the rest of the programme? Or that there was already another session covering this idea? Looking at the proposed sessions, I would have thought my idea was both fitting with the rest of the programme, as well as providing a refreshing angle. I can speculate about another reason for the ECCA to exclude this idea. And that is that my session included 4 abstracts, and I had the impression that the organisers were very keen on sessions with 6 abstracts (Why? Well, probably to be able to collect more administration fees). I was very happy with those 4 abstracts, as it fitted with my proposal for a session which was not back-to-back full with speakers, and which provided sufficient time for questions, discussion, and sharing experiences. Sessions which are full with a one-way information flow tend to be over-saturating for the audience. Moreover, it would be rather paradoxal to prefer one-way traffic sessions about public participation above participatory sessions about public participation. (And would this be an example of how a facilitator can influence the agenda?) But, we don’t know the exact selection criteria of the ECCA organisers, for their conference programme. I’m curious how the final programme will look like, and which topics will covered and which not.

Seminar on Climate Change Adaptation

We are having a BASE meeting for Work Package 7, on 24 Feb, and invited some of the delegates to come the day before, and present about their research on climate change adaptation in the CRPR Discussion Series. If you happen to be around Exeter on Monday 23 Feb, you are very welcome to attend! So it will be Monday 23 February, 3:45-5pm, Peter Chalk Room 1.2, with:

(1)    Kirsi Makinen (Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE) on ’The many faces of adaptation policy: Analysis of Finland’s second generation national adaptation policy and drivers for its evolution’ (research done together with with Mikael Hilden)
(2)    Anne Jensen and Helle Orsted Nielsen (Aarhus University, Denmark) on understanding climate policy integration.
See the abstracts below. 

Catherine Butler (also from University of Exeter, from the Geography Department) will share some thoughts on this as a discussant.

The many faces of adaptation policy: Analysis of Finland’s second generation national adaptation policy and drivers for its evolution

Kirsi Mäkinen and Mikael Hildén (Finnish Environment Institute), kirsi.makinen@ymparisto.fi

A decade since Finland adopted its first National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (NAS) in 2005, a number of adaptation policies have been initiated in Europe at the EU and national levels. Following a comprehensive evaluation of its NAS, Finland adopted a new National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2022 in November 2014. By looking at the Finnish experience in adaptation policy implementation and revision, this paper seeks to gain insights into factors that shape the evolution of adaptation policy. We address three main questions. Firstly, how has adaptation and its overall framing in national policy changed from 2005 to 2014? Secondly, how and why do sectors differ in their implementation of adaptation and what does this tell us about the driving forces behind adaptation policy development? Finally, we look at what future role is there for adaptation policy in integration and implementation of climate change adaptation? The study is based on analysis of key policy documents supplemented by interviews of sectoral policymakers involved in national adaptation policy. Our preliminary findings indicate that national adaptation policy in Finland is primarily originated and driven by civil service actors, while extreme weather events have also played a role in shaping adaptation policy. Between sectors, interesting differences arise in the level of implementation and with respect to multilevel action across local, regional and national levels of administration. Such differences can be explained by historical and current events and practice. In times of prevailing calls for “leaner” government, flexible regulations and measures may seem a more likely direction for future adaptation policy than normative regulation. With this likely direction in overall adaptation policy (of which the proposed Climate Act, currently under debate in Parliament, is indicative), differences in sectoral progress in adaptation may continue to widen until extreme events or other external pressures become so strong that adaptation becomes more visible on the political agenda as a matter of increasing concern for both politicians and interest groups.

Understanding Climate Policy Integration

Anne Jensen and Helle Ørsted Nielsen (Department of Environmental Sciences,  Aarhus University)

Across the EU, member states, cities and regions are addressing the challenge of managing impacts of climate change which has implied adoption of national strategies in a number of countries.  Among policy makers as well as in academia, there is growing concern for how to successfully implement adaptation policy and address issues that involve a wide range of actors and areas of society and which involve uncertainty in scale of impacts and effect of instruments. Advancing the adaptation policy objectives, the sectoral organisation of public policy has shown to halter development of climate adaptation actions (Adele and Russel, 2013); in other sectors adaptation objectives may be overshadowed or opposed by sectoral policy objectives, reflecting opposing interests or relatively lower positions on policy agendas. Concomitantly, policies and policy actions at one level are influenced by policies and policy actions at other levels of policy making, from European to local/city level (Mickwitz et al, 2009). Thus, the coordination of climate adaptation objectives with policy issues and objectives across sectors and across levels of policy making emerges as crucial, and integration of climate policy objectives appear as vital for effective climate adaptation. In this presentation we examine the links between national and local climate adaptation policies, specifically how the national strategy has framed policy action in local government. In doing so, we focus on institutional drivers and barriers for integration of adaptation objectives and activities across policy sectors at the local level. 

Call for Abstracts RGS 2015

And another Call for Abstracts! :-) For the RGS Conference in Sept in Exeter, for the session on "Understanding Institutional Responses to Climate Change Challenges in Vulnerable Rural Areas" (convened by Alison Browne from University of Manchester, and Kate Walker-Springett and me from University of Exeter). Deadline 16 Feb!
See for more info: http://conference.rgs.org/Conference/CallForPapers/View.aspx?heading=Y&session=312c81f2-7d56-4c08-af89-6868de15213d

RGS-IBG Annual International Conference 2015

Understanding institutional responses to climate change challenges in vulnerable rural areas. Research Group Affiliation(s) Session Convenor(s) Alison Browne (University of Manchester) Kate Walker-Springett (University of Exeter) Roos M. den Uyl (University of Exeter) Email all convenors Abstract The convenors invite submissions to this session from a range of stakeholders from research, policy, practice, and planning to contribute to a discussion to the types of multi-scalar multi-actor institutional responses that may be needed to respond to climate change challenges in regional and rural areas. While the convenors research focuses on UK based case studies (including two projects focused on policy adaptation for flooding and water scarcity in Somerset, UK and one on climate change adaptation at the Dawlish coast and on Dartmoor, in Devon, UK), they invite participants who are facing similar challenges across the Global South and North. Far from providing a 'description' of the institutional context, the session is particularly interested in contributions that include empirical analysis to underpin or challenge conceptual framings and that diagnose, unpack and/or critique: - governance dimensions of climate change adaptation for rural areas - analysis of lack of, or weak, institutional responses as well as positive 'best practice stories' to climate change in such areas - papers exploring the potential maladaptation’s or hindrance to adaptation from conflicting policy domains which influence rural areas (e.g., land use planning, catchment management and agricultural policy) - policy and public sector responses to moments of climate crisis such as flooding, drought, increased severe erosion and severe storm damages - assessments of (what influences) multi-institutional/multi-stakeholder collaborations towards climate change adaptation and recovery outcomes - the devolution of responsibility and dealing with risks related to climate change planning, adaptation, and crisis recovery Instructions for Authors Please send abstracts (up to 250 words) for a 15 minute presentation to Dr Roos Den Uyl (R.M.Den-Uyl@exeter.ac.uk) or Dr Alison Browne, University of Manchester (alison.browne@manchester.ac.uk) or Dr Kate Walker-Springett (Walker-Springett@exeter.ac.uk) Please submit papers at the latest by Monday 16th February. Call For Papers Deadline 16-Feb-2015

Critical reflections on the UK National Adaptation Strategy

The UK Environmental Audit Committee is currently looking into the UK National Adaptation Programme. Here is a video with a snapshot of the hearing from last Wednesday:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17047

This discussion includes some critical reflections on the UK National Adaptation Programme (NAP), in particular for England (the Scottish one seems somewhat better). Which is quite refreshing, as it is typically referred to as a front runner. The witnesses (Lord Krebs, Chair of Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, Matthew Bell, Chief Executive, Committee on Climate Change, and Daniel Johns, Head of Adaptation, Committee on Climate Change) bring forward that the UK's current NAP is unclear in priorities, rather unmeasurable, does not initiate new actions (it only lists ongoing actions), and does not allocate financial resources. The witnesses assign a score of 2/3 on a 10-points scale of the level where the UK governments stands in preparing for climate change impacts (whereby a 10 would refer to fully prepared). They furthermore expect that the next NAP (scheduled for 2017) will be less bottom-up oriented, and more top-down. Although it's not clear yet how national government can or should better coordinate efforts to adapt to a changing climate - a cabinet subcommittee on climate change was suggested and DEFRA taking more leadership. The discussion further includes whether it's wise to keep building in floodplains, whether buildings such as hospitals are sufficiently prepared for heat stress, whether water supply is sufficiently covered (e.g. Birmingham relies on one water supply source only), and soft and hard coastal defences.The discussion in this snapshot briefly touches upon infrastructure and transport, but doesn't address dealing with impacts from extreme weather events such as storm surges. It may have been addressed elsewhere in the hearing.


(With thanks to colleague Julie Whittaker from the Business School for forwarding this video.)

CRPR talk on UK NAS and Dawlish case study

On Tuesday 2 December 2014, Duncan Russel and I gave a presentation in our CRPR discussion series, introducing the BASE project to our colleagues. And presenting our findings so far on the role of the UK National Adaptation Strategy (NAS), and the challenges in climate change adaptation at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish. Because of time constraints, we decided to focus on the Dawlish case. Hopefully we can go more in depth into the Dartmoor case study next time.

One of the diagrams that shows the complexity of the setting at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish, is the figure below. We interviewed the actors as depicted below, and asked them: “Who do you think is the key decision making actor about climate change adaptation at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish?” The diagram below visualises all the different answers we received to that question:

We intend to make similar diagrams or visualisations of the answers we received to questions around perception of sufficient availability of knowledge, perception of whether sufficient actions are currently in place, and if not, what would be needed, and what the main barriers and enablers are, and why, according to the interviewees.

After the presentation, we received various feedbacks from the audience. Dawlish happened to be in the news the same week. DEFRA’s flood minister Dan Rogerson indicated that alternatives to the current line should be considered (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30292756). In the Western Morning News, a businessman prominent in the Southwest region expressed his frustration that national government did not want to consider a fast and resilient line to connect to Plymouth (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Government-s-handling-Westcountry-mainline/story-25445267-detail/story.html). And indeed, Prime Minister Mr. Cameron has indicated earlier (on 7 November 2014) that alternatives should be reconsidered, after Network rail had dismissed alternative routes:  “Mr Cameron told the WMN an extra line had not been ruled out despite Network Rail’s report questioning its value for money.” (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Prime-Minister-fears-South-West-8220-reliant-8221/story-24330645-detail/story.html#ixzz3MFStMvrX). A news item yesterday (17 Dec 2014) further confirmed the national government will investigate options for alternative lines (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/PM-says-7bn-South-West-rail-plan-taken-forward/story-25728881-detail/story.html). Although it remains unclear how enhancing the current line along Dawlish will be investigated and eventually decided upon, and how a possible alternative will be assessed.

A colleague from the business school who attended our CRPR session, mentioned that at an event about “Better Connected! A business led review of the Strategic Connectivity requirements for the South West” (on 3 Dec 2014), there was some discussion about how local enterprises could consolidate the fragmented perspectives on the future of the railway line, and connectivity of the Southwest. Another prominent regional businessman (Jim French) had presented at that event, stressing that a long term strategic vision is needed for the Southwest region, and that resilience, speed and capacity should be enhanced for road, rail and broadband. Although it did not immediately propose something about how such a long term strategic vision should be developed. Considering the fragmented and scattered setting around decision making regarding climate change adaptation at Dawlish, it is not entirely clear which government or governmental bodies could or should develop such a long term strategic vision for the Southwest.

Another colleague, from the politics department, indicated that our work on the Dawlish case study may link up to other research in the politics department around responsibility and lack of responsibility of arms-length agencies. In that research, accountability (i.e. capacity to explain and justify decisions) of executive (arms length) agencies in the UK to government and to citizens is being analysed. And it may also associate to recent research form the politics department around confusion over who/which agency is responsible, and whether eventually central government is held responsible by the public, even when certain services are outsourced and contracted out to a private company.