The importance of stakeholder involvement in adaptation is evident from the self-assessment responses and has been underlined both from practical and theoretical points of view (Schröter et al., 2005). Collaboration of multiple stakeholders may help to address future goals and present deficiencies of different adaptation strategies. In the self-assessment survey stakeholder involvement was used as a general term covering several different but related concepts such as participation, engagement and consultation. The emphasis can vary depending on the country specific context and the objectives for stakeholder involvement. These starting points are generally reflected in the responses to the self-assessment survey. In line with the objectives of mainstreaming, the main focus in (national) policy development has been on the involvement of stakeholders at the central government level.
Stakeholder involvement in adaptation policies was primarily reported for policy development and dominantly involving government level stakeholders, especially with respect to in-depth involvement in implementation and evaluation. This can partly be explained by the relative novelty of adaptation as a policy area: networks, approaches and opportunities have not yet been developed for in-depth involvement of stakeholders outside government. It may also be that many adaptation strategies are still in a stage of intentions to act rather than specification of adaptation actions (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011), meaning that it is difficult to involve especially private sector stakeholders, except for distributing information on the intentions. The long time frame of adaptation may, however, mean that the contribution of the public sector will continue to be important also in the implementation of action as suggested by the observations of Castán Broto & Bulkeley (2013) on city level implementation of adaptation.
The elements that countries have identified for successful stakeholder involvement in climate change adaptation are mostly general and do not differ significantly from factors identified for other environmental areas. The general advice that a systematic approach to participation should involve careful identification and characterisation of stakeholders before choosing the appropriate method of involvement is reflected in the reported conditions for successful stakeholder involvement. However, the long timeframes, the dominant role of (uncertain) hazards and risks and the public debates on the “extent of climate change”, raise specific challenges for involvement related to adaptation.
Some recognition of these specific challenges in developing involvement for adaptation to climate change can be seen in the identified success factors for involvement. For example, the suggestions to build capacity at the beginning to enable a good comprehension of stakes and to deal openly with uncertainties may help to overcome some stumbling blocks. The co-creation of programmes and the provisioning of scientific findings in an appropriate form for different stakeholders are also likely to help in dealing with the challenges of involvement in developing and implementing adaptation policies. The emphasis on selecting stakeholders may also be an important precondition for successful involvement. It is one way of avoiding the risk of overly managed forms of inclusion that attempt to involve large groups but which in the end fail to satisfy most (Few et al., 2007). For selected groups the limitations of involvement can be made explicit from the outset, which helps to manage expectations.
The above aspects of successful stakeholder involvement underline the need for identifying and selecting methods appropriate for each stakeholder group and task in the involvement process. A multitude of tools and methods are readily available to support both the planning and implementation of stakeholder involvement processes. The online MEDIATION Toolbox (MEDIATION Adaptation Platform, 2013) includes a section on such methods adapted to the context of climate change adaptation. A broad range of tools are available e.g. for understanding complexity which directly respond to the need to deal with long time frames and uncertainties in climate change adaptation. A recently published report collects experiences from and lessons learned during stakeholder involvement processes in the German Adaptation Process (Rotter et al., 2013).
The identified success factors for stakeholder involvement imply the importance of exchange of knowledge and information. As discussed in Key Topics 1 and 6, sharing and collecting information alone does not necessarily result in the implementation of adaptation actions. More information does not necessarily translate into knowledge on what could and should be done. Deeper forms of stakeholder involvement are likely to provide stakeholders with more support on how to take action and thus encourage implementation of adaptation.
Although the self-assessment survey suggests a wide recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement and also considerable practical experience in many countries, it is also fair to conclude that there is still much to be learned on the needs, relevance and opportunities of active involvement. As noted by Few et al. (2007) “[e]xperience in other fields has shown that it is crucial to recognize the subtleties and complexities inherent in efforts to engage the public in decision-making and to avoid simplistic assumptions about the efficacy, transparency and public reach of community involvement processes.” This statement appears to be valid as the self-assessment survey results show limited reporting on the use of active, deep involvement beyond stakeholders from central government. This may partly be due to the fact that the responses to the survey were coordinated from central governments. It may be that the most important opportunities for co-creation and other in-depth forms of involvement are found in adaptation taking place at sub-national levels, outside the direct remits of national level governments. Part of this adaptation may even take place spontaneously without the intervention of government actors (Cannon and Müller-Mahn, 2010) or as bottom-up processes where governments only provide support through funding, for example through regional development funds.
Only two to three countries report deeper stakeholder involvement of the private sector or interest groups in the implementation and evaluation stages. This may partly be because relatively few countries had, at the time of the survey, proceeded to these stages, but it may also reflect a general uncertainty in how to involve these stakeholder groups in a meaningful way especially in the evaluation of adaptation policies. It will require ways to demonstrate to stakeholders the impact and benefits of being involved. This means not just demonstrating how inputs can influence, but also where it has influenced. Some of the examples (Portugal, Spain, UK) include elements of co-creation of adaptation options. There are examples of how partnerships can investigate regional and local impacts of climate change, build the knowledge base as well as the capacities for adaptation (Bauer and Steurer, 2014). Accumulation and dissemination of these experiences are likely to be particularly valuable for the implementation of concrete actions. The establishment of portals that also allow stakeholders to report on their own activities (e.g. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, UK, and at the EU level; see Table 2.3 in Key Topic 1) strengthens involvement and the diffusion of experiences.
Finding the appropriate ways of involving stakeholders and actively testing different approaches is likely to contribute to these ambitious goals. With successful co-creation, adaptation may live up to the expectations of the EU Adaptation Strategy (EC,2013a), which claims that “adaptation action will bring new market opportunities and jobs, in such sectors as agricultural technologies, ecosystem management, construction, water management and insurance”.