Table of contents
- Acknowledgements
- Executive summary
- Objectives, intended users and context of this report
- Outline of this report
- Methodological approach
- Lessons learned from collaborating with member countries through the self-assessment survey
- 1. Rationale for public intervention on adaptation
- 2.1. Key Topic 1: Public and policy awareness of the need for adaptation
- 2.1.1. Awareness of the need for adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.1.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.1.3. Examples from countries
- 2.1.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.2. Key Topic 2: Knowledge generation and use
- 2.2.1. Knowledge generation and use: what does this include?
- 2.2.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.2.3. Examples from countries
- 2.2.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.3. Key Topic 3: Planning adaptation
- 2.3.1. Planning adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.3.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.3.3. Examples from countries
- 2.3.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.4. Key Topic 4: Coordination of adaptation
- 2.4.1. Coordination of adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.4.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.4.3. Examples from countries
- 2.4.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.5. Key Topic 5: Stakeholder involvement
- 2.5.1. Stakeholder involvement: what does this include?
- 2.5.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.5.3. Examples from countries
- 2.5.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.6. Key Topic 6: Implementation of adaptation
- 2.6.1. Implementation of adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.6.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.6.3. Examples from countries
- 2.6.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.7. Key Topic 7: Transnational cooperation
- 2.7.1. Transnational cooperation: what does this include?
- 2.7.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.7.3. Examples from countries
- 2.7.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.8. Key Topic 8: Monitoring, reporting and evaluation
- 2.8.1. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE): what does this include?
- 2.8.2. Findings from the self-assessment survey
- 2.8.3. Examples from countries
- 2.8.4. Discussion of findings
- 3. The evolving agenda for national adaptation in Europe
- 4. Glossary
- 5. Acronyms
- 6. References
Executive summary
The European Commission adopted in 2013 a Communication on an EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (EC, 2013). The advancement of adaptation across Europe and the implementation of the Strategy requires knowledge gaps to be further addressed. This report supports this process and acts as an input towards the European Union’s 7th Environment Action Programme to 2020, and particularly to Priority Objective 5 ‘To improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union environment policy’. This report is also a key element in the implementation of the EEA’s road-map for adaptation (EEA, 2013).
Monitoring, reporting and evaluation of adaptation interventions is essential to assess the extend to which interventions are effective, efficient, and equitable. This also allows to understand and learn across countries which adaptation actions work (or not), in what contexts and why. However, there are a number of reasons why measuring progress (e.g. through indicators) for adaptation is challenging: adaptation is context specific, cross-cutting all sectors of the economy, characterised by long timeframes and uncertainty as climate change will unfold over many years, and does not have prescribed targets.
Monitoring, reporting and evaluation is addressed in the Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. The status and progress of adaptation in the EU will be assessed based on member countries reporting (e.g. EU Monitoring Mechanism Regulation, National Communications to the UNFCCC), an adaptation preparedness scoreboard including indicators for measuring member countries’ level of readiness, and other sources of information such as this report or the recently launched OECD survey on ‘Approaches and tools used to support decision-making for climate change adaptation’.
This report provides up-to-date and targeted information to support the development, implementation and evalutation of national adaptation policies and measures as response to climate change. It aims to assist European policymakers and practitioners who are coordinating adaptation across or within particular sectors. It is therefore of particular relevance to public authorities, but is also of interest to water, energy, transport utilities and to other private stakeholders involved in adaptation.
This report draws on results of a self-assessment survey on national adaptation policy processes in Europe. In May 2013 the survey was sent out by the EEA to authorities in countries responsible for coordinating adaptation at national level (the EEA32 member countries and Croatia in July 2013 as a new EU member state and EEA member country). Thirty EEA member countries provided, on a voluntary basis, their responses by autumn 2013 (a few countries submitted their answers at a later stage). Thanks to the high response rate from European countries this report presents a unique collection of information and the most comprehensive overview of adaptation policy processes in Europe to date. The findings from the self-assessment survey reflects the views of authorities responsible for coordinating adaptation at national level.
In the context of this report, ‘adaptation’ refers to actions responding to current and future climate change impacts and vulnerabilities (as well as to the climate variability that occurs in the absence of climate change) within ongoing and expected societal change. It means not only protecting against negative impacts of climate change, but also building resilience and taking advantage of any benefits it may bring. The earlier we plan adaptation responses, the better equipped we will be to cope with climate change-related challenges.
European countries are aware of the need for adaptation to climate change and up to now, 20 European countries have adopted a National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) and 17 have developed a National Adaptation Plan (NAP). More than half of European countries have made progress in identifying and assessing adaptation options and ten report that they are in the implementation stage of the adaptation policy process.
The results from the self-assessment survey answered by 30 European countries suggest the following key findings. The results are further described in Section 2 of this report under eight Key Topics, which are illustrated in Figure 1.1 below. Figure 1.2 below provides an illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress as reported by European countries on Question 12 of the self-assessment survey1.
Figure 1.1 Illustrative schematic overview of the eight Key Topics in connection with the policy cycle (Key Topics in black; stages of policy cycle in green)
-
-
Addressed. New graph has been developed
-
-
I agree this will be the most possible way to let the adaptation process run. But I wonder how you will deal with processes that are going from 1 or 2 to 5. In Belgium the adaptation coordination process was started in 2007 (eg making adaptation plan/strategy) but the water sector incorporated already sea level rise into the Sigma-plan. So how are you going to deal with this kinds anomalies in your chain?
-
Addressed - emphasis that adaptation is an iterative process
-
-
It could be useful to better specify what it is meant by each stage of policy cycle (e.g. what it is meant by "agenda setting", "formulation", and so on...).
-
Acknowledged - These terms are explained in the Glossary
-
-
4. Implementing adaptation...: General comment: How is ensured that respondents who fill the self assessment understand the same by using implementation to describe the state of process in his/her country? From our point of view providing information or mainstreaming is not part of implementation, we see this as parts of earlier stages of the policy cycle. Therefore we ask for including our specific approvals of the text given in the comments below.
-
Acknowledged - for the SA, we have provided a glossary in order to foster common understanding. But besides, this aspect is inlcuded in the section on limitation of the SA.
-
-
5. The importance...There is also, so far, limited experience ...: General comment: Stakeholder involvement is in Germany a very important part of the adaptation process. Stakeholders were and are involved in planning, implementing and developing a monitoring system. Therefore we ask for including our specific approvals of the text given in the comments below.
-
acknowledged
-
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.
-
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
Beyond these findings, there are a number of issues that will shape the future of adaptation at national levels across Europe. These agenda-settings issues include specifically: the governance at national level to adaptation in Europe; the implementation of adaptation strategies; the monitoring, reporting and evaluation of adaptation; the development of appraisal tools for adaptation options; the mutual learning between different groups of actors, regions or sectors; and the importance of communicating adaptation. These issues are characterised by knowledge gaps, which in order to be filled and policy-relevant will require specific and dedicated attention.
Figure 1.2 Illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress as reported by European countries (Question 12)
-
See earlier comment. Netherlands is certainly in the implementaion stage when it comes to the focus on water related issues, this should be identifeid in the figure. Formulation phase for the Netherlands is valid for the broadening to the exploration of remaining risks like in sectors as health and cross-sectoral issues.
-
Addressed - One additional finding has been drafted to reflect this issue
-
-
Figure numbering inconsistent in summary and chapter 1 (e.g. twice figure 1.2)
-
Addressed - Will be dealt with during editing
-
-
Figure 1.2 (pg 11)/Figure 2.3 (pg 31) could lead to wrong impressions. Adaptation in countries is not a single process, but largely varies across sectors. Different priorities exist with different levels of implementation (see also Table 2.11 pg 98). E.g. policies in the Netherlands regarding water safety is already in far stage of development (legislation will be discussed in parliament mid September 2014). This variation among sectors cannot be depicted by a single figure.
-
Addressed - One additional finding has been drafted to reflect this issue
-
-
should be listed at point 2 (Agenda setting). A draft prepared just before the Governmental Office for Climate Change was suppressed is not relevant any more. Last year we were too optimistic regarding the willingness of our government to support activities related to adaptation to climate change. The nominated intersectoral group on adaptation to climate change did not convene during the last year.
-
Acknowledged
-
-
Please add Switzerland to the implementation stage (see updated survey and page 94 of report).
-
Addressed - We have made the correction
-
-
Put Belgium at the implemantation fase... (?)
This is the same questions as for quite some countries and about my earlier comment. Planning is intended to be before implementation but often is it first some implementation and then (afterwards) the need for planning just jumps up. So In all parts of Belgium there is implementation while not all regions have their action plans adopted.
And what do we do with different speed of implementation of the different governments. In Flanders een action plan is adopted. In Brussels actions are incorporated in other plans. In the Walloon part the public hearing is started for the plan. And the federal plan is finished but need to be adopted by the new minister. A national action plan is on the way but will not touch at regional or federal actions.
Are we in the implementation fase or not?
-
As agreed via email, Belgium has been put into the implementation stage.
Put Belgium at the implemantation fase... (?)
This is the same questions as for quite some countries and about my earlier comment. Planning is intended to be before implementation but often is it first some implementation and then (afterwards) the need for planning just jumps up. So In all parts of Belgium there is implementation while not all regions have their action plans adopted.
And what do we do with different speed of implementation of the different governments. In Flanders een action plan is adopted. In Brussels actions are incorporated in other plans. In the Walloon part the public hearing is started for the plan. And the federal plan is finished but need to be adopted by the new minister. A national action plan is on the way but will not touch at regional or federal actions.
Are we in the implementation fase or not?
-
-
Please move Italy to the Formulation stage (stage 3). The National Adaptation Strategy has been prepared and will be adopted by 2014 (there is not yet an official date).
-
Addressed
-
-
General comment from Greece:
Dear Stéphane,
I would like to thank you for the draft -very informative- report you have sent us regarding the forthcoming 2014 EEA report ‘National adaptation policy processes across European countries - 2014’.
I would also like to send you some comments, as I couldn’t use the online review platform (I have forgotten my EIONET Account credentials, but I couldn’t recover them using the form: http://www.eionet.europa.eu/password-reset, as I have entered my email address and there was appeared a signal: “email address not found in database”).
Our Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, has called for tender for the “National Adaptation Strategy”.
Therefore, as regards the EEA DRAFT Report, in Annex 1: Self-assessment of the adaptation policy process in EEA member countries (page 155), Part II: The adaptation policy process (page 156), for the question “ In what stage of the adaptation policy process is your country in”, our answer is : ☐…Agenda setting (i.e. adaptation is politically recognised as important).
This means that we should have some changes to the draft report, as follows:
- At page 11: Figure 1.2 Illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress as reported by European countries (Question 12), and
- At page 31: Figure 2.3 Illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress as reported by European countries
Greece would be at stage 2 (Agenda setting) and not at stage 1 (not yet started).
-
Addressed
General comment from Greece:
Dear Stéphane,
I would like to thank you for the draft -very informative- report you have sent us regarding the forthcoming 2014 EEA report ‘National adaptation policy processes across European countries - 2014’.
I would also like to send you some comments, as I couldn’t use the online review platform (I have forgotten my EIONET Account credentials, but I couldn’t recover them using the form: http://www.eionet.europa.eu/password-reset, as I have entered my email address and there was appeared a signal: “email address not found in database”).
Our Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, has called for tender for the “National Adaptation Strategy”.
Therefore, as regards the EEA DRAFT Report, in Annex 1: Self-assessment of the adaptation policy process in EEA member countries (page 155), Part II: The adaptation policy process (page 156), for the question “ In what stage of the adaptation policy process is your country in”, our answer is : ☐…Agenda setting (i.e. adaptation is politically recognised as important).
This means that we should have some changes to the draft report, as follows:
- At page 11: Figure 1.2 Illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress as reported by European countries (Question 12), and
- At page 31: Figure 2.3 Illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress as reported by European countries
Greece would be at stage 2 (Agenda setting) and not at stage 1 (not yet started).
-
Figure 1.2 (Question 12) - Estonia should be at the same level with Latvia, phase number 3 (at the formulation phase). We are currently developing adaptation strategy and the strategy document will be completed latest by March 2016.
-
We have addressed this comment and put Estionia into formulation stage
-
-
For Hungary:
Put Hungary into decision making stage.
Comment: We have suggest to move "decision stage" to high category. Explanation: The consultation process of National Adaptation Strategy has been completed. It is expected that the Parliament will approve the document (as a part of 2th National Climate Change Strategy) by autumn, this year.
-
Comment addressed
-
-
Figure 1.2: Illustrative schematic overview of adaptation policy progress...: To us it seems that MS understood different things in marking the state of the adaptation process as Decision or Implementation. Please delete Germany under “Decision” and add under “Implementation”.
-
Addressed
-
[1] Question 12: In what stage of the adaptation policy process is your country in?
☐…Adaptation process has not started
☐…Agenda setting (i.e. adaptation is politically recognised as important)
☐…Formulation (i.e. responsible actors respond by formulating adaptation policies)
☐…Decision (i.e. policymakers have adopted an adaptation policy)
☐…Implementation (i.e. measures foreseen in the policy are being implemented)
☐…Monitoring and evaluation (i.e. review and updates of policy/actions)
the 8 key topics are not immediately identifiable. the numberimng in the green circles create confusion