Questions on the effectiveness of horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms used a Likert type scale requesting respondents to judge the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms in their country. Responses have been grouped with the help of information on the stage of the adaptation policy process on a six point scale as one can expect that coordination develops with the implementation of policies. Countries were also asked to describe their horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms as well as report success factors and challenges linked to coordination.
Question from self-assessment survey (including the question number) | Number of countries answering this question (including % on total number) |
---|---|
In what stage of the adaptation policy process is your country in? (Q12) | 30/30 (100 %) |
How would you assess the mechanism put in place at national level to coordinate the horizontal integration (i.e. integration into sectors) of the adaptation policy process? (Q13) | 28/29 (97 %) |
How would you assess the mechanism put in place at national level to coordinate the vertical integration (from national to local level) of the adaptation policy process? (Q14) | 28/29 (97 %) |
Please give a short description of the horizontal and vertical coordination of adaptation policy in your country. Please also indicate who has been involved and what mechanism for coordination has been used (please also indicate if these mechanisms have changed in the different stages of the process, e.g. from formulation to implementation). A) Horizontal coordination B) Vertical coordination C) What was crucial for successful coordination? D) What was challenging or missing? (Q15) | A 27/29 (93%) B 24/29 (83%) C 22/29 (76%) D 19/29 (66%) |
European countries report a variety of institutional mechanisms to support horizontal coordination of adaptation across sectors. Examples of horizontal coordination mechanisms have been reported by 21 out of 29 countries (Table 2.7). Ministries that are responsible for the environment or the use of natural resources are generally reported to carry the responsibility for horizontal coordination. The most common form of horizontal coordination at the national level is the establishment of working groups or task forces that bring together representatives from different ministries and other organisations. Some countries, for example, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Liechtenstein and Lithuania, have reported that also non-governmental stakeholders have been invited to take part in the horizontal coordination mechanisms.
Table 2.7 Examples of horizontal coordination mechanisms reported by European countries, along with the countries’ assessment of the horizontal mechanism’s effectiveness
Country | Description of horizontal coordination mechanism (reference to stage of policy process is made where countries have indicated differences in mechanisms) |
Very effective coordination mechanisms | |
Switzerland | A working group established under the Interdepartmental Committee on Climate (IDA Climate) with representation of ten federal agencies. |
Effective coordination mechanisms | |
Austria | Policy formulation: NAS/NAP development was coordinated by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, with support from existing institutions including the Kyoto Forum (originally developed for mitigation issues) and Interministerial Committee on Climate (IMC Climate).
Implementation: Existing committees step in on adaptation issues, informal exchange between the Environment Ministry and other relevant ministries. |
Belgium | E.g. Flemish task force on adaptation and Walloon working group on adaptation |
Cyprus | Development of the Cyprus National Adaptation Strategy has been coordinated by the Environment Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (MANRE) by means of the Life+ CYPADAPT project. The CYPADAPT Steering Committee comprised of all sectors representatives (government departments, local authorities, universities, research institutions, consultants, NGO's, consumer organizations etc.). |
Denmark | Policy formulation: Cross-ministerial committee of government officials responsible for mapping climate impacts and preparing action plan for climate-proof Denmark. |
Finland | Policy formulation:Interministerial working group of sector ministries and key research institutes, coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Additional consultation of experts and actors from sectors and the research community.
Implementation, monitoring and evaluation: Coordination Group for Climate Change Adaptation with representatives from sector ministries, regional and local authorities and research institutes. |
Lithuania | The horizontal and vertical coordination is ensured by the Strategy for National Climate Change Management Policy for 2013 – 2050 and it’s Interinstitutional Action Plan for the implementation of the goals and objectives s for the period of 2013-2020. The implementation of the Strategy and the Action Plan are coordinated by the Ministry of Environment.
Also horizontal and vertical coordination is ensured through work of the National Climate Change Committee. The Committee consists of experts from government, municipal, science and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and has an advisory role. |
Portugal | National Strategy (ENAAC) is supported by a coordination group involving nine sectors. Coordination responsibility lies with the Portuguese Environment Agency. |
Romania | Policy formulation: Large consultation process including ministries and other stakeholders as part of strategy drafting process |
Spain | Sectoral action programme for impacts and vulnerability assessments, including participatory workshops for key stakeholders |
United Kingdom | Cross-UK Government Climate Adaptation Board includes all key government departments and devolved administrations, as well as sectoral coordination groups e.g. Defra network adaptation delivery group and health coordination groups. |
Medium effective coordination mechanisms | |
Bulgaria | Policy formulation: Working group of concerned governmental and non-governmental organisations |
Czech Republic | Policy formulation: Interdepartmental expert groups for each area of interest |
Germany | Interministerial Working Group at federal level with representatives of all federal ministries (meets 3-6 times a year) |
Italy | Policy formulation: Institutional Panel coordinated by the Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea includes representatives from relevant ministries and other institutional stakeholders such as regional and local administrations. |
Latvia | Policy formulation: Two working groups (inter-ministerial and expert) to support Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development in policy preparation. |
Malta | Climate Change Consultative Council and Climate Change Division deal with both adaptation and mitigation. |
The Netherlands |
National level coordination is carried out by the legally based Delta programme, with joint responsibility of all involved ministries and a coordinating role for the minister of Infrastructure and Environment. |
Sweden | Each sector is responsible for adaptation in their area and there is no national level coordinating actor. At regional level Country Administrative Boards hold overall responsibility. |
Effectiveness of coordination mechanisms unknown | |
Ireland | The integration of the adaptation policy across key sectors is at an early stage. The present mechanisms work on an ad hoc basis. However, a more definitive position on the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms will become more apparent over time; it’s intended that there will be a primary legislative basis for sectoral adaptation plans in the very near future.
The Impacts and Adaptation Steering Group with responsibility for coordinating research under the EPA’s Climate Change Research Programme, also provides a forum for knowledge exchange amongst a wide range of sectors. This group in particular allows for the practical exchange of views and opinions as well as acting to identify where further work is needed. |
Liechtenstein | Policy formulation: Meeting and interviews with all stakeholders |
Examples of vertical coordination mechanisms for adaptation were reported by 18 out of 29 countries (Table 2.8). Vertical coordination of adaptation is either a task of each sector ministry, or a more general task coordinated by the ministry in charge of adaptation at the national level. Similar to horizontal coordination mechanisms, vertical coordination takes place through joint task forces, panels and working groups as well as more informal channels of communication. Sub-national plans and programmes also serve a coordinating function in, for example, France and Finland. Inclusion of stakeholders from regional and local levels in national level institutions was reported by Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands and Portugal.
Table 2.8 Examples of vertical coordination mechanisms reported by European countries, along with the countries’ assessment of the vertical mechanism’s effectiveness
Country | Description of vertical coordination mechanism (reference to stage of policy process is made where countries have indicated differences in mechanisms) |
Very effective coordination mechanisms | |
Denmark | National Task Force on Climate Change Adaptation supports municipalities in their adaptation work |
Effective coordination mechanisms | |
Austria | Policy formulation: NAS development was coordinated by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, with support from existing institutions including the Kyoto Forum (originally developed for mitigation issues) and Interministerial Committee on Climate (IMC Climate). Implementation: Existing committees (IMC Climate and National Climate Protection Committee) step in on adaptation issues, informal exchange between the Environment Ministry and other relevant ministries. |
Lithuania | The horizontal and vertical coordination is ensured by the Strategy for National Climate Change Management Policy for 2013 – 2050 and it’s Interinstitutional Action Plan for the implementation of the goals and objectives s for the period of 2013-2020. The implementation of the Strategy and the Action Plan are coordinated by the Ministry of Environment. Also horizontal and vertical coordination is ensured through work of the National Climate Change Committee. The Committee consists of experts from government, municipal, science and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and has an advisory role. |
The Netherlands |
Delta programme has a strong vertical commitment with other government levels and involved institutions. |
Romania | Responsible authority in each priority sector is responsible for coordination, implementation and supporting local bodies. |
Spain | Technical Working Group on Impacts and Adaptation established under the Coordination Commission of Climate Change Policies (CCPCC) coordinates among national and regional administrations. Local administrations are also represented in the CCPCC. |
Switzerland | Vertical integration is part of sectoral policies. Vertical integration in cross-sectoral topics will be implemented based on Article 8 of the CO2 Act. |
United Kingdom | Local Adaptation Advisory Panel for England has been established by Defra. The Panel comprises a wide range of local government bodies and their partners from across England to promote strong national/local dialogue on how best to support local adaptation action. Each Government Department works with its own network of local delivery partners to embed and operationalise adaptation action at the local level. |
Medium effective coordination mechanisms | |
Belgium | Coordination group between federal and regional governments is in place and effective. The Walloon and Flemish parts of Belgium provide some support to local administrations in their regions, and Brussels collaborates at the national level as a region of the national working group. |
Cyprus | Development of the Cyprus National Adaptation Strategy has been coordinated by the Environment Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (MANRE) by means of the Life+ CYPADAPT project. The CYPADAPT Steering Committee comprised of all sectors representatives (government departments, local authorities, universities, research institutions, consultants, NGO's, consumer organizations etc.). |
France | National planning and regional planning are not formally coordinated, but local level adaptation planning must be compatible with regional level planning. |
Germany | A working group under the Conference of Environment Ministers integrates federal states in the process (meets twice a year) |
Malta | Interministerial Committee to ensure coordinated policy design and implementation |
Less effective coordination mechanisms | |
Finland | Representatives of the municipal sector are included in the Coordination Group for Climate Change Adaptation. Most regions have climate strategies that also address adaptation to some extent. |
Italy | Representatives of local and regional administrations are included in the Institutional Panel. |
Portugal | ENAAC includes representation of the National Municipalities Association and autonomous regions (islands of Madeira and the Azores). Integration of adaptation into local policies is ongoing with support from EEA Grants programme AdapT. |
Sweden | Regional authorities have been tasked by the national government to develop action plans at regional level and map progress at local level |
Effectiveness of coordination mechanisms unknown | |
Ireland | The integration of the adaptation policy process from national to local level is at an early stage. Local adaptation plans will be integrated into the long established planning system. Local development planning will, in effect, become the mechanism for the delivery of local climate adaptation action. The effectiveness of coordination will become more apparent in time and will be kept under review in the context of national adaptation planning. |
Established horizontal coordination mechanisms are reported at least medium effective by 20 out of 29 countries (Figure 2.11). The remaining third of countries state that mechanisms are either not in place or are unknown to the respondent. No country has reported less or not effective coordination mechanisms.
All countries that are implementing adaptation policies have horizontal coordination mechanisms in place and report them to be at least medium effective, as indicated by the empty space in the lower right corner of Figure 2.11 (Table 2.7 for details of the mechanisms). Countries in early stages of the adaptation policy process have generally not yet established horizontal coordination mechanisms, as indicated by the empty space in the top-left corner of Figure 2.11. Of countries in policy formulation and decision phases, ten out of 16 report that they have at least medium effective horizontal coordination processes.
Figure 2.11 Effectiveness of horizontal coordination mechanisms in national adaptation policy processes relative to stage of adaptation policy process in EEA member countries (n=29). Bubbles indicate the number of countries in a given stage of adaptation policy process with a similar perception of the effectiveness of their horizontal coordination mechanism
The general pattern for vertical coordination mechanisms is similar to the horizontal coordination. All countries that implement or monitor and evaluate their adaptation policies report having vertical coordination mechanisms in place (Figure 2.12, see Table 2.8 for details of the mechanisms). The perceived effectiveness of the vertical coordination is moderately lower than for horizontal coordination, with five countries reporting “less effective” vertical coordination mechanisms. Eight out of nine countries in the implementation and monitoring and evaluation stages of the policy process report their vertical coordination mechanisms to be at least medium effective. In the formulation stage, only one of nine countries reports having an effective vertical coordination mechanism in place. Overall 16 out of 29 countries report less effective (or unknown effectiveness of) vertical coordination mechanisms or not to have a vertical coordination mechanisms in place.
Figure 2.12 Effectiveness of vertical coordination mechanisms in national adaptation policy processes relative to stage of adaptation policy process in EEA member countries (n=29). Bubbles indicate the number of countries in a given stage of adaptation policy process with a similar perception of the effectiveness of their vertical coordination mechanism
Countries provided multiple examples of factors related to institutions and processes, which, when in place, contribute to successful coordination but when missing, make coordination more challenging. These factors range from general transparency and information exchange to stakeholder coordination, commitment of actors and institutional factors such as legal frameworks and the assignment of responsibilities (Table 2.9).
Reported challenges relate to similar issues as the reported success factors. Insufficient mechanisms for knowledge exchange can present a challenge along with limited resources to coordinate large and diverse groups of stakeholders. Lack of formal structures and agreements may present a challenge for coordination e.g. in the case of public sector reorganisations. Countries also report challenges arising from competing interests between different stakeholders and unclear responsibilities linked to coordination of adaptation activities.
Table 2.9 Examples of success factors and challenges of coordination reported by countries
Issue in coordination | Reported success factors | Reported challenges |
Transparency | Transparent process Open dialogue |
|
Knowledge exchange | Interactive and constructive communication Shared knowledge base with regional and local actors Knowledge exchange with responsible entities Extensive awareness events |
Lack of communication campaigns and education Insufficient information exchange and diffusion of studies Lack of platforms for knowledge exchange |
Coordination of stakeholder involvement | Involvement of all sectors Inclusion of all stakeholders National public consultation |
Limited involvement of relevant stakeholders Large number of stakeholders:
|
Commitment by key actors | Shared objectives among stakeholders Commitment and ownership of all relevant ministries Willingness and awareness among members of the coordination group Active and voluntary involvement of all stakeholders Political commitment |
Different interests and priorities among key stakeholders Long term action hinders prioritisation and makes commitment difficult Stakeholders who fear losing will try to counteract Lack of prioritisation of climate change adaptation at high political level |
(Legal) Framework for action | Legal basis for adaptation planning Legally based framework for action |
Insufficient recognition of sub-national levels in NAS Competition with other legally binding agreements (e.g. Natura 2000, WFD) |
Assignment of responsibilities | Designated body in charge of coordination Clearly assigned responsibilities for each priority sector and coordinating body Political mandate for coordination process |
Lack of a responsible body with convening powers Scattered responsibilities and resources |