Section 2 reports the key findings of the self-assessment survey submitted by 30 European countries and provides an overview of adaptation policy processes across Europe. This Section highlights key issues that will shape the future of adaptation at national levels and for which additional work will be needed to further support adaptation policies. In addition, this Section builds upon EEA 2013 ‘Adaptation in Europe’ report and particularly Chapter 4 ‘Agenda-setting issues’, which includes the adaptation road-map for the EEA (EEA, 2013).
The self-assessment survey suggests that most countries in Europe follow a similar pathway, i.e. set up a coordinating body, invest in a science-policy interfacing mechanism, involve stakeholders in parts of the process, develop a National Adaptation Strategy and a subsequent National Adaptation Plan, introduce soft policies for implementation, and, in some cases, reserve funding, and develop monitoring, reporting and evaluation schemes.
To better understand the relevance and effectiveness of such a generic approach, there is a need to pay more attention to the legal and administrative significance of national strategies. More effort is needed to understand the common elements in the different strategies and plans as well as in the governance approaches taken (Biesbroek et al. 2009). In this context, respondents to the self-assessment survey acknowledged different national circumstances. Thus, there is a need to relate better to sectoral, sub-national and local initiatives.
As noted above, the importance of national strategies and plans as vehicles for implementing adaptation in practice needs to be evaluated. Moreover how to foster actual delivery of adaptation action most effectively is a key question.
Many countries report soft measures for implementation of adaptation policies, such as awareness raising or mainstreaming of adaptation into other policies. However, such measures do not guarantee automatically that the information provided is really translated into changed behaviour that copes better with climate change impacts (Grothmann & Patt 2005). Neither does the inclusion of climate concerns in non-climate policies actually necessarily lead to reduced vulnerability.
As the adaptation agenda matures and increasingly focuses on implementation related issues, one can draw upon experience from other themes. In addition, implementation is not an event, but rather an iterative process. In this context, policy learning, knowledge generation and sharing, leadership and developing capacities are important elements of an implementation agenda.
A better understanding of the implementation processes and incentives that can help adaptation to be taken up is required. This will require targeted additional work, but also an increased effort to share information on not only successes but also failures, expanding the information already available in, for example, Climate-ADAPT and building on other national and international efforts.
The survey showed that monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE) schemes are still developing in most European countries. Since specific adaptation goals are likely to differ between countries, also MRE methodologies and indicators are likely to differ. Although revisiting strategies and plans on the basis of a systematic evaluation could be assumed to be the aim of any MRE scheme, there are various reasons for why MRE is challenging to accomplish. In some cases the obstacles are methodological, technical, or economic, in other cases political.
However, having common MRE schemes and metrics across the EEA member states would allow learning across countries. The EU Scoreboard may provide some common ground for comparisons at the aggregate level of national adaptation processes together with the reporting according to the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR) and national reports to UNFCCC.
Creating periodic opportunities for representatives of countries to exchange experiences would allow for learning from successes and failures (IPCC, 2014). In addition, the current Climate-ADAPT country pages could be developed further to convey descriptions of monitoring and reporting practice and key results of evaluations.
The context-specific nature of adaptation and the scarcity of (e.g., economic) data makes generic guidance on the identification and prioritization of adaptation options challenging. Nevertheless, as adaptation policy diffuses from a limited number of institutions at the national or regional level to the thousands of municipalities, companies and other local stakeholders, the availability of (to some extent) harmonized and easily accessible set of methods and tools would be helpful.
Common frameworks could facilitate the linkage of methods and tools to adaptation questions in a regional and local context. This would usefully include not only quantitative approaches like Cost-Benefit-Analysis and Multi-Criteria-Analysis, but also qualitative ones such as systematic elicitation of expert knowledge and participatory processes.
The self-assessment survey responses do indirectly suggest that progress in adaptation policy will require activities to build capacity in most institutions and companies. The relative novelty of climate change adaptation policy making and the fact that climate is just one amongst many concerns of policy makers suggests that such capacity building can incorporate an active search for integration and synergies, rather than building capacity for adaptation in isolation. Due to the nature of climate change and its impacts, including the long time frames, knowledge is also continuously being refined and there is a need for initiatives that can be developed or strengthened in an iterative manner.
Capacity can be built by openly and transparently exchanging experiences, methods and approaches. Additional efforts to bring pieces of existing information together (e.g., those from various city networks such as ICLEI) and improve access to and knowledge of adaptation activities on various levels would enhance the exchange of experiences at the level where adaptation often takes place. Systematic data collection targeting stakeholders at the regional and municipality level across member states and amongst private firms would be helpful to have a better understanding of activities, main successes, failures and remaining challenges, and how the local actions are related to adaptation planning at higher administrative levels.
The private sector is responsible for a large part of investments in buildings and infrastructure, many of which are likely to be affected by climate change impacts. Many companies, especially those whose value chains depend on ecosystem services (food and beverages, forestry, fisheries, apparel, renewable energy, tourism) are vulnerable to climate change and thus, challenged in terms of adaptation.
The self-assessment does not provide detailed information about the actual preparedness for climate change in the private sector, and, with a few notable exceptions like the insurance sector, little is known about private sector adaptation from the open literature across Europe. A targeted dialogue between government, research institutions and vulnerable private sector parties on climate risks and climate change preparedness would not only fill a knowledge gap, but also allow for public bodies to support private sector parties to take actions in view of reducing their vulnerability, e.g. by raising awareness and by using their knowledge and experiences in co-producing relevant knowledge and services related to risks and response options.
While effective communication is key to motivate and support adaptation policy and practice, it has received very little attention so far. The choice of means (websites, social media, printed material, mass media, workshops, and many other) depends on the specific goals of the communication and the resources available. Elements of a good communication strategy include the development of solid content (sound science, target group framing), the inclusion of non-scientific factors (emotions, norms and values), the involvement of skilled messengers as well as a process for its evaluation (Wirth et al. 2014).
One specific challenge is that terms describing steps and main elements in the adaptation policy process (e.g. implementation, prioritisation) can be interpreted differently. Even the term “adaptation” itself can be interpreted differently - it can refer to adjustments of current policies, new policies, a policy process, or actual outcomes. This may seem an academic or linguistic issue, but can have serious implications for the interpretation of adaptation policies in Europe, their comparison, and even their actual societal impacts.