2.6.4. Discussion of findings

Countries that started to develop adaptation policy early have generally advanced most towards implementing adaptation

Up to date, 20 European countries (i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK) have already developed a national adaptation strategy (NAS) and more are in the process of developing their policy. In comparison with 2008, where eight European countries (i.e. Finland in 2004, France and Spain in 2006, Denmark, Hungary, The Netherlands, UK and Germany in 2008) had their strategy in place (Swart et al., 2009), a considerable progress can be noted in developing policies for adaptation.

Although the number of adaptation policies in place across Europe has significantly increased in the last five years, implementing adaptation can be regarded as still in an early phase (EEA, 2013). However, the results from the self-assessment survey illustrate that those eight countries (i.e. Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Switzerland, Spain and the UK) considering themselves in an advanced stage in the policy cycle (i.e. implementation or monitoring & evaluation) also have an adaptation policy (NAS and NAP) adopted and show a higher activity level for implementing adaptation. Five of these countries have adopted their adaptation policies before 2008 and thus have experiences that are longer than six years. On the basis of this information one could conclude that countries which have adaptation policies in place for several years are also more advanced in implementing adaptation activities.

Interestingly, some countries which also have a national adaptation strategy (NAS) and national action plan (NAP) adopted (i.e. Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden) (EEA, 2013) reported in the self-assessment survey that they do not consider themselves in the implementation phase but rather in the formulation and decision stage. One explanation for this could be that some countries are currently revising and specifying their adaptation policies, e.g. by integrating new information for adaptation implementation (e.g. cost estimates in Germany) or redesigning their strategy (e.g., The Netherlands). Others, with a NAS adopted (e.g. Ireland, Portugal), might have assessed their stage as formulation/decision as they are presently in the process of developing their action plans of more focussed strategies or updating their existing NAS (e.g. in the case of Portugal to focus on implementation and monitoring).

When looking at countries with no adaptation strategy in place, some adaptation implementation can be observed. This information suggests that in some countries also other forces than policies (e.g. past extreme weather events) are fostering adaptation.

The relationship between a national adaptation policy and implementing adaptation cannot be answered unambiguously from the results of the self-assessment survey. However, it is clear that countries with a longer history in adaptation policy making are also more active in implementing adaptation activities. Nevertheless, more research is needed on how (and under which conditions) public policies can most effectively foster adaptation implementation, including the institutional mechanisms that govern this process (e.g., see Biesbroek, 2014).

Provision of information does not necessarily lead to adaptation measures

The countries responding to the self-assessment survey have reported the provision of information as the most often used policy instrument for implementing adaptation. Any decision to take adaptation actions should ideally be based on evidence and robust information. Therefore a sufficient knowledge base is needed. Given that more proactive information transfer thus contributes to building adaptive capacity, it is expected also to build the ground for concrete adaptation actions and can be considered as an important contribution to adaptation implementation. Nevertheless, research findings suggest that more information on climate change impacts and adaptation possibilities does not necessarily lead to more adaptation actions. Merely disseminating information does not ensure that those affected by a changing climate will adequately address related risks or opportunities.

To successfully foster adaptation implementation, targeted information should be provided in ways that serve those who need it, such as local communities and government and private sector decision makers (see also for discussion under Key Topic 1). In addition, enabling societies to adapt to climate change will require establishing systems that transfer relevant information both from the national to the sub-national level and vice versa (McCallum et al., 2013). It also appears that how information on climate change impacts and adaptation options is presented seems to be crucial to generate adaptation action. More research is needed on effective ways to communicate information on climate change adaptation in order to motive stakeholder for taking action (Wirth et al., 2014).

One can expect in future that the relatively slow pace of adaptation implementation (IPCC, 2014) in terms of reducing vulnerabilities to climate change may change when uncertainties (e.g. with regard to the frequency of extreme weather events) decrease and/or are better understood, or when projected climate change impacts materialise more visibly. One of the key challenges at that stage will be to shift from a primarily reactive and soft policy response pattern to an anticipatory one, in particular in sectors that as yet demonstrate little interest in climate change adaptation (Steuer & Bauer in Prutsch et al., 2014).

Adaptation implementation is most advanced in environment-related sectors

Adaptation to climate change is defined as an ’adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic changes or their effects’ (IPCC 2001; 2007; 2014). Nevertheless, as the profile of climate change has mainly risen from an environmental perspective, also research and policy relevant questions connected to adaptation have tended to give more weight to environment-related sectors. Horizontal coordination which goes beyond the environmental with other ministries is required in order to address adaptation effectively as a multi-sectoral issue (see Key Topic 4). 

The results from the self-assessment survey seem to confirm this as the sectors water, agriculture and forestry were reported to be the top-3 priority sectors for adaptation and most advanced in terms of implementing adaptation actions. In contrast, other areas highly vulnerable to climate change, such as transport infrastructure (Doll, 2012), are reported to have very limited activities as yet.

The extent to which these findings have been influenced by the fact that responsibilities for coordinating adaptation policies at national level across Europe are mostly assigned to environment-related ministries - which were also the institutions providing information to the self-assessment survey - is unknown.

Adaptation implementation is suggested to be more strongly driven by the public domain

The results from the self-assessment survey suggest that sectors which mainly fall into the responsibility of private actors (e.g. business and services, industries, finance/insurance as well as tourism) are suggested not to be very active in implementation and as yet they are also seen as less relevant for adaptation across Europe. Furthermore, a high level of stakeholder involvement (i.e. active involvement, partnerships, empowerment) of the private sector in the implementation stage was reported to be still relatively rare (see Key Topic 5). The reported high level of implementation in some sectors may refer more to the development of sectoral government policies than actual adaptation by private actors, such as farmers or water companies.

These findings suggest that the role of the private sector in adaptation has been under explored up to now. This is further supported by Surminski (2013) who notes that the importance of the private sector for adaptation is very large (e.g., they are responsible for over 70 % of global investments in buildings and infrastructure), but the evidence base for adaptation in the private sector is still very limited.

Adaptation in vulnerable sectors may already take place, but information about this could be unavailable in the public domain. Thus, an inventory of actual and planned adaptation in the private sector would facilitate a better collaboration and coordination between the public and private sectors. Governments may support private sector adaptation on various levels, e.g. providing more actionable information on climate change and enhancing cooperation in order to help adapting the private sector to a changing climate (Benzie and Wallgren in Prutsch et al., 2014).

Adaptation implementation is reported to be more advanced at national scale

Due to the diversity of bio-physical and socio-economic situations in different regions, the impacts of climate change will differ from region to region. Thus, besides governmental support for the private sector, national public authorities play also a key role for fostering adaptation across all level of decision-making from national to local. The results from the self-assessment survey suggest less on-going adaptation activities on the sub-national and local/city level than on the national level across Europe¹.

Nevertheless, adaptation responses can clearly be observed at various administrative levels, which may not have been captured in the responses to the self-assessment survey (as provided mostly from experts working for the national authorities). Latest information on current adaptation responses on sub-national and local/city scale can be accessed on the Climate-ADAPT website, from the EEA Urban adaptation to climate change (EEA, 2012) or the DG CLIMA project on regions (report to be published in 2014) as well as the Mayors Adapt initiative².

[1] It is reminded that the self-assessment survey was sent to authorities in countries responsible for coordinating adaptation at national level, and the findings will therefore reflects the views of these authorities.

[2] Link: http://mayors-adapt.eu/about/