Post a comment on the text below
Key findings from the self-assessment surveys submitted by European countries:
- Respondents report an increase in the public and policy awareness of adaptation, progress in the development of the knowledge base, involvement of stakeholders and transnational cooperation.
- The sectors that have attracted the greatest attention throughout Europe in terms of risk and vulnerability assessment at a national level are (in this order) agriculture, water, forestry, human health, biodiversity, energy and tourism.
- The water, agriculture and forestry sectors are reported to be the most advanced in terms of implementing portfolios of adaptation measures at all levels of administration. With regards to planning, the biodiversity sector is reported to be the most addressed.
- Implementing adaptation is most often carried out by applying “soft” measures (e.g. providing information or mainstreaming). Project-based support was indicated to be the most important financing mechanism currently in place for implementing adaptation. Actual budget for implementing adaptation has been allocated most explicitly in the water and agriculture sectors.
- The importance of stakeholder involvement throughout the adaptation process is widely recognised. There is, however, scope for collecting and sharing more experiences of active forms of involvement. There is also, so far, limited experience in involving stakeholders in implementation, monitoring and evaluation of adaptation policies.
- Forerunners are currently implementing either a monitoring, a reporting or an evaluation (MRE) scheme and many more countries are initiating MRE schemes. A variety of approaches have been used in MRE, for example, a review by an independent body and self-assessment by sectors as well as indicators.
- Half of European countries report considering transnational cooperation in national adaptation policy processes. Transnational cooperation in adaptation has often emerged with the support of European funding instruments and in the context of established cooperation fora such as European regional conventions.
- Progress in adaptation depends on a number of success factors and their interconnection. For example effective coordination among authorities supports the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders by ensuring the availability of consistent and reliable information, clarity of information concerning roles and responsibilities.
- The barriers to adaptation are not simply the inverse of the success factors. The lack of resources (e.g. time, money, equipment) and uncertainties are considered by European countries as the most important barriers. Uncertainties is a common feature to all levels of advancement in policy making, which can benefit from embedding processes that focus on learning from experiences, reviewing progress and policy objectives, and encourage innovative experimentation.
- To support adaptation further in European countries, more information is needed on costs and benefits of adaptation, risks and uncertainties, and vulnerability at local level and availability of data for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Coordination of adaptation activities could be improved further by learning about the diversity in coordination mechanisms across countries and by sharing experiences and lessons learned.
Previous comments
The statement/conclusion under 3 ("water, agriculture ... most advanced") should lead to the conclusion that we are in fact dealing with an iterative process. Many countries have a strategy and a plan for dealing with their first and foremost risks. For instance the Netherlands, being one of the first countries in Europe with a full fledged adaptation strategy in 2008, decided to focus the implementation in the Deltaprogram (DP) on water related security issues, and so surely in the implementation phase as far as water is concerned. As presented in figure 1.2 it would seem that the Netherlands is lagging behind, while we are in fact updating and broadening the scope as requestd by the EU Strategy. This notion of iterative approaches inthe MS should be highlighted from the very beginning of the report (it comes now only as an afterthought on page 103).
Addressed