governance for climate change adaptation

the euro-files Thomas Fischer and Olivier Sykes on the Adapting to Climate Change EU Green Paper and EU thinking on governance for climate change adaptation

governance for climate change adaptation

Town & Country Planning December 2007

471

US National Interagency Fire Center

implementation. But the fact that only two days after the Bill was published, an article in the Guardian reported that Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the ‘climate change department, faces £300 million cuts’, is hardly encouraging.3 The salience of issues surrounding the institutional capacity to deliver on climate change During 2007 there have been a series of significant commitments is heightened by the recent emphasis weather events across the globe. In the United States’ Mid-West, severe flooding led to 17 counties on ‘good governance’ as a key ingredient in achieving sustainable development. The 2006 being declared Federal Disaster Areas, and in the review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy UK the Government applied for EU Solidarity Fund (SDS), for example, cited policy coherence and monies following floods across England. A heat governance as guiding policy principles.4 wave in Hungary in July was accompanied by International environmental governance is now hundreds of deaths, while in South Asia at least 1,000 people died and up to 20 million were displaced by severe flooding during the monsoon season. In August, forest fires raged across large areas of Greece, claiming 64 lives, while in October forest fires led to the displacement of up to 1 million people in California and damage which it has been estimated will cost upwards of $1 billion to repair. Although the links between such events and the wider phenomenon of global warming are complex and in many cases politically contested, they have drawn attention to the need to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change in the face of the ‘compelling scientific consensus that human activity is changing the world’s climate’.1 The UK Government has acknowledged that ‘Even with effective policies for reducing emissions Above in place, the world will still experience significant Forest fire in California – one of a series of catastrophic climate change over the coming decades from emissions of carbon dioxide and other green houses weather-related events occurring in 2007 already released’, and that we need to prepare for the ‘far-reaching, and potentially adverse, effects on widely considered essential in tackling the causes of climate change,5 and the importance of multiour environment, economy and society’. As a consequence, the UK Climate Change Bill, level governance in dealing with its effects is described as the first of its kind in any country, was increasingly underlined.6 Furthermore, it has been introduced into the House of Lords 14 November argued that governance structures ‘determine the way in which existing adaptive capacity can be 2007.2 The Bill, it is argued, provides ‘a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve utilised’,7 for example through spatial planning. This article summarises the EU’s Adapting to its goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions’ and Climate Change Green Paper and governance will ‘ensure that steps are taken towards adapting thinking in the EU, and discusses the prospects for to the impacts of climate change’. achieving the stated goals of climate change There is clearly a need to match such rhetoric adaptation. with a durable commitment to action and

the euro-files

Adapting to climate change In June 2007, the European Commission released its Green Paper Adapting to Climate Change in Europe – Options for EU Action’.8 This is seen as complementary to the SDS; the latter focuses mainly on the causes rather than consequences of climate change. The Green Paper underlines the importance not only of multi-level governance structures, but also of spatial planning in dealing with concrete measures and raising greater awareness of the challenges ahead.9 The Green Paper consists of six sections. Section 1, ‘Putting adaptation and mitigation into perspective’, explains the need to tackle both the causes and potential effects of climate change. As it is claimed that ‘Europe has warmed by almost 1ºC in the last century’, the need for adaptation actions is stressed. Section 2, ‘Reasons for global concern’, states that climate change has already had an impact on a range of physical and biological systems over the last three decades, including water, ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as food, coasts and health. Section 3, ‘Europe will not be spared’, explains the possible impacts in terms of rising temperatures and changing precipitation, stressing potentially problematic impacts on Southern Europe, mountain areas, densely populated floodplains, Scandinavia and the Arctic region. Section 4, ‘Europe must adapt’, outlines the challenges for European society and European public policy. Particular emphasis is put on the economics of climate change, and it is suggested that ‘adaptation could reduce the costs, provided policies are put in place to overcome obstacles to private action’. It is also stated that without adaptation measures, damage caused by sea level rise could be up to four times higher than the costs of additional flood defences.10 Explaining the roles of member states and regional and local authorities, it notes that multilevel governance is emerging on climate change adaptation ‘involving all actors from the individual citizens and public authorities to the EU level’. Furthermore, spatial planning, particularly at the regional scale, is seen as a crucial ‘cross-sectoral issue’, making it a ‘suitable tool to define costeffective adaptation measures’. Finally, the section stresses that ‘minimum requirements for spatial planning, land use and land use change, with respect to adaptation could play a key role for awareness raising among the public, decision makers and professionals and for triggering a more proactive approach at all levels.’ 472


The largest part of the Green Paper is section 5, ‘Focusing EU action’. It identifies four main ‘pillars’: ● early action – integrating adaptation into existing and upcoming legislation, policies and community funding programmes, and developing new policy responses; ● integrating adaptation into EU external actions; ● reducing uncertainty by expanding the knowledge base through integrated climate research; and ● involving European society, business and the public sector in the preparation of co-ordinated and comprehensive adaptation strategies. Eight aspects identified under ‘early action’ are of particular importance for spatial planning: ● EC work on a relevant regulatory framework, in particular a Directive on energy performance of buildings; ● the possibility of ‘climate proofing in planning and construction of transport infrastructure’; ● the need for sound planning, particularly regarding the selection of sites which ‘should take into account expected future climate conditions’; ● the effect of inconsistent land use planning leading to water over-use; ● the planning of the ‘Natura 2000’ network;11 ● the forthcoming Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan; ● the integration of ‘climate proofing’ into strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment; and ● the need for a strategic approach to coastal planning and management. In terms of new policy responses, the Green Paper suggests that ‘Spatial planning could provide an integrated framework to link up vulnerability and risk assessment with adaptive capacities and adaptation responses thus facilitating the identification of policy options and cost-efficient strategies.’ Governance in the EU The reform of European governance was identified by the European Commission in early 2000 ‘as one of its four strategic objectives’.12 In 2001, as part of this effort, and in reaction to a perceived growing popular distrust of European institutions, the EC published European Governance. A White Paper.13 This identified five principles of good governance: ● openness; ● participation; ● accountability; ● effectiveness regarding delivery of what is needed on the basis of clear objectives; and

the euro-files

●

policy coherence, particularly regarding challenges such as demographic and climate change.

It was argued that ultimately ‘the linear model of dispensing policies from above must be replaced by a virtuous circle, based on feedback, networks and involvement from policy creation to implementation at all levels’. Europe is seen as developing as ‘a Union based on multi-level governance in which each actor contributes in line with his or her capabilities or knowledge to the success of the overall exercise’. Based on these principles, the proposals for change included: ● better involvement – through more active communication with the general public, ‘reaching out to citizens though regional and local democracy’, and more effective and transparent consultation when it comes to EU policy; ● better and more coherent policies, regulation and delivery – with confidence in expert advice (particularly when it comes to the precautionary principle, risk assessment and management); better and faster regulation, including greater use of less ‘heavy handed’ and more flexible ‘Framework Directives’ and where appropriate the nonlegislative ‘Open Method of Co-ordination’ (OMC) (see Box 1); the simplification of community law, the ‘better application of EU rules through regulatory agencies’; and better transposition and enforcement of EU rules at national level; ● the EU’s contribution to global governance (‘reform governance successfully at home in order to enhance the case for change at an international level’ );

●

●

refocused policies and institutions – the EU ‘should identify more clearly its long-term objectives... with the overall objective of sustainable development’, and this also includes improving human capital, knowledge and skills, strengthening social cohesion and competitiveness, meeting the environmental challenge, supporting territorial diversity, and contributing to regional peace and stability; and ‘more flexibility... for implementing legislation and programmes with a strong territorial impact’.

Finally, it was argued that an important aim is to achieve more sustainable and balanced territorial development. Regarding the ‘territorial impacts’ of EU policy, the White Paper explicitly refers to spatial planning, advocating the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) as an instrument for achieving sustainable spatial planning and policy coherence. Similar themes are stressed in the 2007 follow-up document to the ESDP, the Territorial Agenda of the EU.14 Impact assessment is also portrayed as a core aspect to achieving coherent European governance. To better understand the evolving EU perspective on multi-level governance, it is useful to consider the website set up to promote the White Paper and its implementation.15 This is sub-divided into six main sections, with that on ‘European governance’ being of particular interest here. This introduces the Governance White Paper and the results of a public opinion survey in the EU 15 member states, shedding light on what Europeans currently expect from EU institutions. The issue of how EU law-

Box 1: The ‘Open Method of Co-ordination’ The ‘Open Method of Co-ordination’ (OMC) can provide a ‘framework for co-operation’ between EU member states through which national policies can be directed towards common objectives. It is an intergovernmental method in which member states are evaluated by one another, with the Commission’s role being limited to surveillance. It should be used to achieve Treaty objectives in areas which fall within the competence of the member states. It works principally by: ● jointly identifying and defining objectives to be achieved (adopted by the Council); ● jointly established measuring instruments (statistics, indicators, guidelines); and ● benchmarking, i.e. comparison of the member states’ performance and exchange of best practices (monitored by the Commission). The OMC may also involve so-called ‘soft law’ measures. These might be binding on the member states to varying degrees but do not take the form of directives, regulations or decisions. For example, in the context of the Lisbon Strategy, member states are required to draw up national reform plans and forward them to the Commission. Adapted from ‘Open method of coordination’. Europa Glossary. w: www.europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/open_method_coordination_en.htm


473

the euro-files

making can be improved to achieve good governance is addressed. The following aspects are seen as important: ● participation of civil society; ● EU policy impact assessment; ● use of expertise; ● decentralisation through agencies; ● convergence of national policies; and ● application of Community law. A section on ‘geographical decentralisation’ explicitly deals with the issue of multi-level governance. This refers to a 2001 background working group report on Multi-Level Governance: Linking and Networking the Various Regional and Local Levels, which deals with how the different levels can be supported to achieve better cooperation. A ‘permanent dialogue with associations of regions and cities’ was identified as particularly important, and proposals are made for better links between the various ‘territorial’ levels.16 These include: ● setting up local and regional dialogue upstream of decision-making; ● involving the Committee of the Regions more effectively (an advisory assembly composed of 222 representatives of local and regional authorities set up in 1994 under the Maastricht Treaty on European Union); ● partnership in the implementation of community policies between the three levels of territorial actors – international/national/community; and ● organising the co-ordination of community policies. A section on a ‘networked Europe’ advocates a more systematic and proactive approach to working with key networks, to enable them to contribute to decision-shaping and policy execution. Sections on economic and corporate governance stress the importance of corporate social responsibility. Finally, a recommendations section on ‘refocusing policies and institutions’ is provided. Adaptation through EU governance Table 1 integrates the discussions in previous sections and relates key themes in EU governance to the desired goals for EU climate change adaptation. Four main aspects from the Adapting to Climate Change Green Paper and the debate on governance in the EU are identified: ● the role of EU leadership; ● wider co-operation and participation; ● implementation support instruments; and ● desired outcomes. 474


There is only space here for brief, selective discussion of the issues arising in Table 1. Essentially, what emerges is an approach to EU governance which is normative and outcome oriented and includes both top-down and bottom-up elements in combining EU leadership with democratic and participatory principles. It appears that meeting the challenge of climate adaptation will require the use of a wide range of different EU governance instruments and styles. Thus, while overall long-term sustainability policy objectives and rules are prescribed for the entire EU territory, decentralisation and the application of the subsidiarity principle mean that lower tiers of decision-making can approach problems in their own individual way. An approach rather like the OMC (see Box 1) which ‘merely fixes broad common goals but leaves it to the Member States to decide how to reach these goals’ 17 might therefore have a role to play. In this, ‘national adaptation results from persuasion and mutual learning, rather than top-down rule compliance’. And unlike the traditional legislative ‘Community method’ which ‘tends to treat diversity as an obstacle to coordination’ the OMC ‘turns national and regional diversity into a source of inspiration and learning’.17 Indeed, the Green Paper explicitly notes how ‘adaptation policies are emerging in nearly all Member States’ and that ‘it is essential to share experiences from early adaptation action and results from research’. At the same time, to ensure there is no distortion of competition among the 27 EU member states, certain more ‘standardised’ implementation support instruments will continue to be necessary. These include, for example, environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and strategic coastal planning and management. In EIA and SEA, ‘climate proofing’ of new infrastructure is also an important element of delivering tangible climate change adaptation measures. Bottom-up responses of particular territories are also significant, for, as the Green Paper emphasises, ‘adaptation is complex because the severity of the impacts [of climate change] will vary from region to region’. Multi-level governance is therefore important, and action needs to be taken ‘at the most appropriate level and be complementary, based on joint partnerships’. The wide variety in the distribution of competences between states and regions also means that adaptation strategies and measures will need to be tailored to different national contexts.

the euro-files

Table 1 Ingredients of governance for climate change adaptation in the EU The role of EU leadership ●

●

●

●

●

Community law and improved regulatory framework (for example Directives): ● convergence of national policies Long-term sustainable development objectives Balanced territorial development Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan Early integration of climate change in other EU policies

Wider co-operation and participation ● ●

●

●

Wider participation Better communication with general public Decentralisation (through agencies): ● subsidiarity ● importance of regional level Permanent dialogue with associations of regions and cities

Implementation support instruments ●

●

●

● ●

● ●

Adaptation to climate change strategies Spatial planning: ● vulnerability / risk assessment Strategic coastal planning and management Policy assessment EIA and SEA: ● climate proofing Expert judgement Integrated climate research

Desired outcomes

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ● ●

It will still be important, however, to keep sight of Europe’s overall requirement for effective adaptation measures which address the aggregate social, environmental and economic impacts of climate change. It is therefore arguable that there will be a need to articulate some form of clear trade-off rules that everyone should adhere to,18 particularly if one considers Peterson’s theory on redistributive policies, which hypothesises that local communities generally subordinate environmental to economic values.19 How, for example, can decision-makers be encouraged to avoid excessively discounting the future – such as by deferring expenditure on enhanced flood defences which might mitigate and reduce the effects and costs of a future flood event, in favour of investment that has a more visible and immediate (economic / social) return? In terms of European action, this is important, as failures to adapt to climate change may lead to wider effects and costs being borne by neighbouring territories and at the aggregate European level (for example, as in the case of trans-national river basins covering more than one country). The extent to which such issues are reconciled in practice depends on the importance accorded to different issues and values in a multitude of decision-making processes and situations. Good communication of the issues and trade-offs involved in making such choices is therefore important.

Adaptation to climate change Better and faster regulation Policy coherence Sound planning More sustainable and balanced territorial development Fully developed Natura 2000 network Corporate social responsibility Overcoming obstacles to private action Openness / transparency Accountability Effective delivery

Table 1 illustrates that the importance of this is recognised in the aspiration to widen participation and achieve better communication. These elements are seen as important for improved EU governance. Examples include permanent dialogue with associations of regions and cities and the Green Paper’s advocacy of ‘structured dialogue’ with the ‘parties and civil society’ in economic sectors that are particularly weather dependent. It is interesting to reflect on the compatibility of achieving effective climate change adaptation with some aspects of the governance approach that it is hoped will deliver this goal. Achieving ‘better and faster’ regulation, for example, has been a theme of the debate on European governance. Yet it is unclear to what extent faster regulation will necessarily mean better or more effective implementation of adaptation measures. Similarly, although the need to integrate adaptation into existing and forthcoming legislation and policies, as well as into EU funding programmes, is also stressed, it will be necessary to draw on the lessons of previous EU environmental integration initiatives and aspirations (for example the ‘Cardiff’ process and the Lisbon Strategy). It has been argued, for example, that owing to a lack of political will and institutional weaknesses, such attempts have been less successful than was originally hoped for. Town & Country Planning December 2007

475

the euro-files

A widening gap? In conclusion, it seems that there is a need to reflect on which modes and styles of governance and regulation are best suited to delivering effective adaptation to unavoidable climate change. It seems that the advantages of network governance and mutual learning, and the potential for the use of mechanisms such as the OMC, will need to be drawn upon and combined with the well established legislative instruments of EU environmental policy to achieve the goal of effective adaptation. Yet beyond reflection on the most effective procedures and mechanisms that can be used, there is also a need to be aware of what has been perceived as the widening gap between the requirements of sustainability and the reality of European politics.20 As the Green Paper observes, ‘Europe has the human capacity, technical skills and financial resources to take a strong leadership role’ in this area, yet, as it also points out, in the final analysis effective adaptation to climate change is ‘largely a question of political coherence, forward planning and consistent and coordinated action’ (emphasis added). ● Dr Thomas Fischer and Dr Olivier Sykes are with the Department of Civic Design at the University of Liverpool.

Notes 1 Consultation. Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change. Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006, pp.12-3 2 Climate Change Bill. w: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ climatechange/uk/legislation/index.htm 3 D. Hencke and J. Vidal: ‘Climate change department faces £300 million cuts’. The Guardian, 17 Nov. 2007. w: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/17/ climatechange.carbonemissions1 4 w: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/ 5 See J. Paavola: ‘Seeking justice, international environmental governance and climate change’. Globalisations, 2005, Vol. 2 (3), 309-22; and G. Winter (Ed.): Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change – Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law. Cambridge University Press, 2006 6 H. Bulkeley and M. Betsill: ‘Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change’. Environmental Politics, 2005, Vol. 14 (1), 42-63 7 ‘Living with climate change: are there limits to adaptation?’. Announcement for a Royal Geographical Society conference on 7-8 Feb. 2008. Tyndall Centre, 2007. w: www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/programme3/ adaptation2008/abstracts.html 8 Adapting to Climate Change in Europe – Options for EU Action. Green Paper. SEC(2007) 849 final. Commission of the European Communities, 2007. w: http://eur-

476


9

10 11

12

13 14 15 16

17

18

19 20

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX:52007DC0354:EN:NOT The role of planning in adaptation to climate change was emphasised by the UK Government’s Planning and Climate Change consultation1 See the EC Joint Research Centre Peseta Study – w: http://peseta.jrc.es/ The Natura 2000 network consists of areas where plant and animal species and their habitats must be protected according to arrangements laid down by the EU Birds Directive (1979) and the Habitats Directive (1992). It accounts for over 20% of the land area of the EU The other three objectives were a stable Europe with a stronger voice in the world, a new economic and social agenda, and a better quality of life for Europe’s citizens European Governance. A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final. Commission of the European Communities, 2001 See ‘The Euro-files’ in Town & Country Planning of both April 2007 and July 2007 See http://ec.europa.eu/governance/governance_eu/ index_en.htm Territorial Agenda of the European Union, adopted in 2007, also discusses this dimension of ‘territorial governance’. See ‘The Euro-files’ in Town & Country Planning of both April 2007 and July 2007 I. von Homeyer: ‘The role of the OMC in EU environmental policy: innovative or regressive’. European Spatial Research & Policy, 2007, Vol. 14 (1), 43-61 See R. Kemp, S. Parto and R. Gibson: ‘Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice’. International Journal for Sustainable Development, 2005, Vol. 8 (1/2), 12-30 P.E. Peterson: City Limits. University of Chicago Press, 1981 Sustainable Governance – Institutional and Procedural Aspects of Sustainability. European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development, 2000. w: http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/forum/governance_en.pdf