Table of contents
- Acknowledgements
- Executive summary
- Objectives, intended users and context of this report
- Outline of this report
- Methodological approach
- Lessons learned from collaborating with member countries through the self-assessment survey
- 1. Rationale for public intervention on adaptation
- 2.1. Key Topic 1: Public and policy awareness of the need for adaptation
- 2.1.1. Awareness of the need for adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.1.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.1.3. Examples from countries
- 2.1.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.2. Key Topic 2: Knowledge generation and use
- 2.2.1. Knowledge generation and use: what does this include?
- 2.2.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.2.3. Examples from countries
- 2.2.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.3. Key Topic 3: Planning adaptation
- 2.3.1. Planning adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.3.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.3.3. Examples from countries
- 2.3.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.4. Key Topic 4: Coordination of adaptation
- 2.4.1. Coordination of adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.4.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.4.3. Examples from countries
- 2.4.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.5. Key Topic 5: Stakeholder involvement
- 2.5.1. Stakeholder involvement: what does this include?
- 2.5.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.5.3. Examples from countries
- 2.5.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.6. Key Topic 6: Implementation of adaptation
- 2.6.1. Implementation of adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.6.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.6.3. Examples from countries
- 2.6.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.7. Key Topic 7: Transnational cooperation
- 2.7.1. Transnational cooperation: what does this include?
- 2.7.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.7.3. Examples from countries
- 2.7.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.8. Key Topic 8: Monitoring, reporting and evaluation
- 2.8.1. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE): what does this include?
- 2.8.2. Findings from the self-assessment survey
- 2.8.3. Examples from countries
- 2.8.4. Discussion of findings
- 3. The evolving agenda for national adaptation in Europe
- 4. Glossary
- 5. Acronyms
- 6. References
2.4.3. Examples from countries
A number of countries have reported in the self-assessment survey examples and experiences of institutional arrangements supporting coordination of adaptation across sectors and administrative levels. The following selected cases present a diversity of approaches from European countries.
Inter-ministerial body supports coordination across sectors
Switzerland
The Swiss strategy on climate change adaptation is coordinated by the Interdepartmental Committee on Climate, which was founded for the revision of the CO2 Act (effective from 1 January 2013) that mandates the coordination of adaptation measures. A working group is responsible for climate change adaptation with representation from ten federal agencies. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) has overall responsibility for developing the Swiss adaptation strategy. It chairs the procedures, ensures that a uniform approach is adopted and coordinates work between sectors. The individual federal offices are responsible for adaptation in their sectors.
More information on the FOEN website http://www.bafu.admin.ch/index.html?lang=en
Delta Programme embodies all administrative levels
the Netherlands
The legally based national Delta Programme in the Netherlands incorporates all administrative levels in safeguarding the country from flooding and ensuring continued availability of freshwater. The programme is a joint responsibility of all involved ministries with a coordinating role for the Minister of Infrastructure and Environment. The programme has a strong vertical commitment through inclusion of provincial and municipal authorities and involved institutions such as water boards, business and civil society organisations. At the regional level there are advisory groups that play an important role in the deliberations of the regional steering groups. At the local level, ‘municipal ambassadors’ have been appointed for the Delta Programme for each of the six area-oriented sub-programmes. They are responsible for involving municipalities in the Delta Programme by providing information, encouragement and, wherever necessary, support. They also act as liaison officers between the programme organisation and the municipal authorities.
More information available at:
http://www.deltacommissaris.nl/english/topics/delta_programme/
http://www.government.nl/issues/water-management/delta-programme/working-method-of-the-delta-programme
Integrated mechanisms for horizontal and vertical coordination
Italy, Finland, Portugal
While most countries have opted for separate institutional set-ups for horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms, some countries use the same mechanisms for both coordination tasks. In Italy, the 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. In Finland, the Coordination Group for Climate Change Adaptation led by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has representatives from sector ministries, regional and local authorities and research institutes. Regional and local level stakeholders were not members of the original Coordination Group appointed in 2008, but were invited to join the group when it was re-established in 2012 based on challenges experienced in coordination of adaptation activities across administrative levels. Likewise in Portugal the coordination group that supports the National Strategy (ENAAC) includes representation of sub-national level stakeholders in the form of the National Municipalities Association and autonomous regions of the islands of Madeira and the Azores.