2.4.4. Discussion of findings

Effective coordination mechanisms have been ensured when adaptation policies have progressed to the implementation stage

Adaptation to climate change is a typical multilevel governance problem (EEA, 2013). The general strategies that are developed at a central level need to be interpreted and applied at sub-national levels and activities have to be coordinated across multiple sectors. Horizontal and vertical coordination are known to be generally important in systems with multilevel governance (Schout and Jordan, 2005). Therefore the need for and experiences of both horizontal and vertical coordination increase when countries advance to implementation and evaluation stages of the adaptation policy process (Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12). In the self-assessment survey countries provided several examples of how the integration of adaptation policy into other policy areas occurs in practice (Table 2.7and Table 2.8). The findings reflect many different forms of integrating or mainstreaming adaptation policies into other policy areas, with some countries relying on more formal integration and others on open forms of coordination (Russel et al., forthcoming (BASE project Deliverable 2.2)).

Responses from the countries suggest that coordination has evolved naturally to fill its purpose. Although there can be some elements of reporting bias in the responses based on a self-assessment, it is noteworthy that  all but one of the countries that have reached these stages consider their coordination mechanisms to be at least medium effective (Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12). The general mechanisms that countries use are similar, but their implementation and details differ between countries and between horizontal and vertical coordination tasks.

When coordination mechanisms are viewed across all stages of the adaptation policy process, one can see that horizontal coordination mechanisms were generally assessed by countries to be more effective than vertical coordination mechanisms. This corresponds to a general observation for many areas of administration that vertical coordination to the regional or municipal level is more challenging than horizontal coordination due to both structural and cultural factors such as the relative autonomy that regional and local government have when it comes to the implementation of policies (Christensen and Lægreid, 2008). The responses to the self-assessment also suggest that countries generally have less experience so far in implementing vertical coordination mechanisms for adaptation, as indicated by the relatively larger number of answers reporting that vertical coordination mechanisms are either not in place or are unknown. This may reflect the fact that relatively few countries have progressed to implementing adaptation policies and thus have less experience of vertical coordination (as the local nature of practical adaptation actions may suggest). The responses may, however, also reflect a difficulty in getting sufficiently detailed information on the vertical coordination as it is generally a task of each sector of administration. Many of the responses showed that vertical coordination is the responsibility of each sector that may use existing processes for coordination, rather than establish new mechanisms for adaptation alone. Switzerland is a case in point where vertical integration is reported to primarily fall under sectoral policies and only cross-sectoral topics will be addressed through a framework dedicated to adaptation.

Processes for knowledge exchange, communication and division of tasks contribute to successful coordination, but problems related to coordination can arise nevertheless

One way to examine the success of coordination is to examine it at the level of process or outcome. A successful coordination process means among other things that information flows between those who are expected to coordinate their activities. A successful outcome could mean that the objectives of the activity are met, which in the case of adaptation to climate change could mean a noticeable increase in adaptive capacity. The two perspectives are obviously closely related. In the responses successful coordination was linked to effective communication and knowledge exchange, which also affect and reflect issues of stakeholder involvement, the setting up of frameworks for action and assignment of responsibilities. All of these refer to processes, but outcomes in the form of coordinated actions for adaptation are likely to depend on them too. Stakeholder involvement can further be seen to be a form of a coordination process. Additionally, the results of successful coordination are likely to improve conditions for the involvement of stakeholders by ensuring that policies are coherent, which in turn will affect adaptive capacity. For a discussion of stakeholder involvement in adaptation policy processes, see Key Topic 5.

Successful coordination should in principle reduce problems that typically arise under conditions of poor coordination, i.e. unclear responsibilities, limited cooperation among stakeholders, lack of knowledge exchange, legal issues (e.g. conflicting legislations) and conflicting values and interests. The self-assessment survey provided some indications that countries with no (or unknown) coordination mechanisms experience relatively more of these barriers than those which reported effective coordination mechanisms. This observation is, however, not fully clear cut as some problems related to coordination have also been reported by countries that describe their coordination mechanisms as effective. There are also conceptual issues involved. As McConnell (2010) notes, success and failure in policies are inherently multidimensional. Success in one dimension such as a process accepted for dealing with a problem does not automatically imply success in actually solving it or in achieving political recognition for it. Therefore respondents may simultaneously consider a coordination mechanism to be effective and yet experience typical problems of coordination.

Diversity in the coordination mechanisms and sharing of lessons learned are likely to benefit the development of effective coordination for adaptation

The self-assessment survey shows that there is diversity in how countries approach coordination. There are, for instance, differences in how formal coordination mechanisms are and also in the details of their setup. There are examples of countries that have created a clear legal base for coordination (i.e. France, The Netherlands) but also examples of more informal structures. Countries also reported challenges linked to a lack of formal structures and agreements for coordination e.g. in the case of public sector reorganisations. Studies have highlighted that governance of adaptation takes place through both formal and informal institutions and networks of actors at different levels. Such networks provide opportunities for actors at sub-national levels to engage in planned adaptation, but any lack of coordination at the national level may be an impediment for involvement (Juhola and Westerhoff, 2011).

The self-assessment survey results provide several examples of horizontal coordination in the form of working groups or task forces for policy development. These tend to be temporary set-ups, whereas councils or advisory panels can provide more permanent mechanisms that can support both horizontal and vertical coordination. Vertical coordination of climate change adaptation can also be mainstreamed into general administrative coordination mechanisms without the need for new permanent mechanisms.

Similarities in the reported success factors and challenges to coordination suggest that further analysis and sharing of lessons learned could support countries in their efforts to coordinate adaptation across sectors and levels of governance. A detailed comparative evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of various approaches to coordination cannot be made based on the self-assessment survey results. A full comparative evaluation would demand information on the societal context as the effectiveness of a particular approach is likely to depend on general societal structures and not only on the approach chosen for coordinating climate change adaptation. Adaptation governance mechanisms have been found to depend not only on political systems (centralised, administrative-federal or federal) but also on other variables such as financial and economic circumstances, cultural values and societal expectations (Venturini et al., forthcoming). For the same reason it is difficult to make any definitive claims on the differences in approaches to horizontal and vertical coordination. Whatever the approach, unclear responsibilities, limited cooperation among stakeholders, lack of knowledge exchange, legal issues (e.g. conflicting legislations) and conflicting values and interests can become obstacles to effective coordination. Ultimately these obstacles are likely to be reflected in incoherent policies for adaptation. Addressing the challenges of coordination should be a high priority although solutions to them are likely to depend on the particular societal context, including general governance structures.

Findings from analyses of river basin management provide evidence that governance regimes which are characterised by a distribution of power and at the same time effective coordination structures, perform relatively better in achieving climate change adaptation than other arrangements. The ability to respond to challenges from climate change thus appears to be strongly related to effective coordination and innovative and flexible ways for dealing with uncertainty (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012). The extent to which this applies to all fields of climate change adaptation policies is still an open question, but the findings of the self-assessment survey indicate the importance of factors such as knowledge exchange and clear, shared responsibilities (Table 2.9). The issues of coordination also highlight the importance of, for example, effective stakeholder involvement and dissemination of information (discussed further under Key Topic 5).

The results of the self-assessment survey support the general observation of the EEA Adaptation report (2013) that there is considerable diversity in the ways coordination has been developed and implemented by European countries and the issues of coordination are important for the success of adaptation activities. This suggests that there is potential for learning and exchanging experiences that have strengthened coordination as called for by the EU Adaptation Strategy.