Notifications
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
Lessons learned from collaborating with member countries through the self-assessment survey
There are a number of lessons learned from the collaboration with the European countries through the development of the self-assessment survey on national adaptation policy processes, which was the first of its kind. These are reviewed below under several thematic headings:
Interest and buy-in demonstrated by European countries
- Through answering the self-assessment, member countries demonstrated a high interest in learning from each other. Overall, 30 countries out of 33 EEA member countries returned the self-assessment filled-in on a voluntary basis.
- The high level of commitment, as reflected in the very high response rate, was a positive sign that demonstrated the countries’ willingness to share information on adaptation.
Strengthening the adaptation knowledge base
- Member countries provided insightful examples which illustrate the progress they make in developing and implementing adaptation policies.
- The self-assessment survey, which was similar for all European countries, allows providing a Europe-wide overview of adaptation that takes into account the differences across countries, for example in terms of governance and administrative structures or climate and socio-economic circumstances.
- The consultation of European countries and their feedback on the first draft of the report helped to clarify some of the issues left open by the survey. It also showed, for some countries, that progress in adaptation policy is developing rapidly. Therefore, adjustments to the original answers to the survey were made during the consultation process, highlighting the difficulty in providing an up-to-date overview of the state of implementation in European countries.
- The combination of closed (most of the self-assessment survey’s questions) and open questions allowed to collect information that is concise and still include the caveats and nuances that countries wished to make.
Limits and caveats
- It proved to be challenging to design a unique self-assessment survey for all European countries, which have different governance and administrative structures, different climate and socio-economic circumstances, different sets of stakeholders, different approaches to adaptation and various degrees of advancement.
- Formulating unambiguous questions proved demanding, and resulted at times in both apparent and real inconsistencies in the responses and missing and uneven information.