Download Failure - Governance of Adaptation

When innovative adaptation strategies
meet actors and institutions
Water Squares in the city of Rotterdam
Governance of Adaptation Symposium, Amsterdam, 22-23 March 2012
Robbert Biesbroek1,2
1
Earth System Science and Climate Change group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands
2
Public Administration and Policy group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands
This presentation
 Innovative adaptation strategies
 Barriers to adaptation
 Ontology and analytical foci to analyse barriers in the
governance of adaptation;
 Analytical perspective and make assumptions explicit
 Case ‘Water Squares’ in Rotterdam
 Reflections on case results and value for study of
barriers
Innovative adaptation strategies
Innovative adaptation strategies
 Measures, ideas, concepts designed with the purpose of
managing the current and projected impacts of climate change
(reduce/benefit)
 Challenge existing institutions, patterns, values, ideas
 More/other barriers than routinized strategies
 What are possible barriers to (innovative) adaptation
strategies?
skills knowledge of stakeholders
local adaptive capacity (low)
little use of practical experience
long term impacts of climate change
shrinking responsibilities
small community on adaptation
lack of tools and instruments
conflicting strategies to adaptation
climate fatigue
tailored climate change knowledge
lack of cost-benefit models
tangibility of future climate change impacts
lack of policy levers / mechanisms
lack of understanding by decision makers
lack of short term return on investments
adaptation as additional stressor
political scoring opportunities are low
policy cycle of four years
political commitment (lack of)
adaptation as additional stressor
lack of leadership
public opinion
lack of knowledge on impacts
lack of methods to finance adaptation
top down decision making
political understanding (lack of)
slow turning wheels of politics
lack of monitoring/evaluation
issues of fairness and equity
coordination between stages of the policy process
unawareness (lack of awareness)
conflicting advice
climate change as distant threat
lack of coordination between institutions
lack of pilot projects
Lack of knowledge basis
lack of clear national policy drivers or incentives
uncertainty over the impacts of climate change
too few examples of successful adaptation
unclear who is taking the lead on adaptation
perspectives for action
state of climate science and need to adapt
lack of knowledge exchange
technological fixes
competition for scarce resources
lack of coordination between scales
trust in climate science
cross sectoral response versus sectoral policy making
managerial courage
additional costs to existing projects
little experience of solutions that work
distinguish climate from non-climate drivers for change
Lack of social science research on adaptation
static policy
political attention long term perspective on local level (lack of)
lack of indicators for the effectiveness of adaptation
politics prevarication (in science) lack of motivators
application of climate science
lack of financial resources
lack of cooperation
managing uncertainty
lack of shared aspirations
too much information
political competition
little joint fact finding
technological fixes (no faith
missing opportunities
sense of responsibility
position adaptation high on political agenda
path dependency of policy
adaptation as concept/word
lack of long term vision
jargon
Present as reference for the future
education of professionals
conflicting objectives
climate fatigue
traditional ways of policy making
too much (finance for) research
adapting individual behaviour
priority of adaptation
lack of inclusiveness
contradictive science
Habits and routines
political willingness
political support involvement
lack of understanding of win-win adaptation options
High costs of adapting
turning rate of staff
market failure (no involvement of market parties)
lack of funding for adaptation initiatives
Local understanding (of politicians) of climate change
political discussions
one dimensional view of climate change impacts
lack of joint-up approach
conflicting interests
lack of innovative capacity
Power
fear of failure
Management understanding
policy silos
benefits of adaptation
naive researchers
time staff resources
consistency in policy
conflicting incentives to adapt
poor governance
need for certainty
lack of funding for training
emphasis on negative consequences of climate change
local/regional approach to adaptation
decisive government
conflicting timescales short-termism
market failure (big business)
Identification of specific risk
science-policy gap
words no deeds
ignorance
political opinions
education of public
Political parties
Public understanding (lack of)
top-down and bottom-up approach
no shared language
safeguarding adaptation (knowledge and policy)
Lack of long term budget planning
lack of funding for research
lack of societal support
Ostrich effect (hoping the problem will go away)
Existing national rules and regulations
communication to public
visibility of climate change
Policy (interpretation of)
maladaptation
Complexity of decision making
lack of capacity
separation between M and A
adaptation options available reluctance to change
hype of climate change
Political fear Public perception
lack of will to be first mover
uncertainty as excuse to do nothing vested interests
practical support/guidelines to adapt are missing
ideals
timing of measures
no participative approach to adaptation
need for consensus in politics
guidance for decision makers financial and economic crisis
conflicting strategies to adaptation
European Union lags behind
uncertain scale and rate of climate change
unknown vulnerabilities
asymmetric costs and benefits gradual rate of changes
complexity of climate change
focus on the costs of adaptation
political opposition
scientific approach to climate change
sense of urgency (lack of)
motivation to act
mitigation over adaptation
attitude of actors
misunderstood concept of climate change
extreme events for policy change
National government
short-termism in private sector
community disinterest
unclear effects of adaptation options
Economic development (growth) fragmentation
negative framing
financial support structures
mindset of actor
risk management (general approach) budged/funding cycles
existing policies and measures
financial feasibility of adaptation
framing climate change as environmentalcompeting policies
climate fatigue
fragmented funding budgets
NIMBYism
missing need to innovate
Delta report
Greenwashing (unjustified appropriation of environment)
lack of ambition
low learning capacity in organisations
newness of climate change adaptation
Mistrust of politicians
overcomplicated problem
role of media
Institutional inertia
lack of acceptance
climate change as plastic word
specific solutions versus generic objectives from decision to implementation
many actors/sectors involved
fixed patterns of operation
climate sceptics
cold winters
confusion with mitigation
Public private partnerships
procrastination
communicating scientific uncertainties to policy
existing European legislation
wait-and-see-attitude
Recognition of problem
IPCC errors
neglect need for capacity and change
width of scenarios
no methodology to adapt
over complicated solutions
economic measures
careerist politicians
unwilling to work together
Quick fixes in policy
rigidity
unwilling to invest in uncertain issues uncertainty in climate models
lack of adaptive capacity conservatism
apathy
no integrated approach to adaptation
acquiring of land
unclear costs of not adapting
few national efforts
unclear who is responsible
unconvinced about climate change
no clear end goal
Uncertainty
additional efforts to adapt
access of (scientific) knowledge
No incentives to adapt
scale of change needed
scientific discussions on climate change
no standard for future
valuing long term benefits
no personal experience as driver to adapt
Organisational inertia
perception of the problem
Scenario approach to policy making
unclear role of adaptation policy
unconvinced about the need to adapt
unequal drivers across sectors
unclear who should pay
over emphasis on uncertainty other issues are more urgent
Ontology and normative assumptions
Perspectives on governance and barriers
Governance as:
Barriers as:
Optimist
‘Problem solving’
Incompetence of actors
and institutions
Realist
‘Managing competing
values’; efforts of
defending norms/values
‘Labyrinths’ of struggles,
conflicts
Pessimist
‘Coping with structural
constrains’
System failures,
collapses of systems
Ontology and normative assumptions
Governance of adaptation as:
 Interactive process between purposeful, interdependent actors
 Process of managing conflicting values and ideas, prevent
escalation of conflicts
 Two levels (Sabatier, 2007):
● Actors (motives, cognition, values, ideas, beliefs)
● Context (biophysical/socioeconomic system)
 Demarcated by erratic episodes: conflicts, institutional
constraints, uncontrollable circumstances, contingencies,
stagnations, impasses, interventions
Ontology and normative assumptions
Barriers in governance of adaptation as:
 Metaphor for set of actions and events that actors value to
have a negative influence on the process or outcome.
Semantic to simplify complex reality; powerful communication
 Empirical reality or in eye of beholder?
 Barriers to adaptation exist? Exacerbated? Parsimonious?
 Key challenges:
• Perspective (whom?)
• Contextuality (where?)
• Temporality (when?)
Ontology and normative assumptions
Barriers:

Process (barrier-opportunity); outcome (success/failure)
● Impact on process: stagnations, deadlocks, fixation
● Influence outcome: increase costs, less effective, missed
opportunities

Foreseeable
Unforeseeable
Manageable
Mismanagement;
lack of skills; lack
of information
Unintended
consequences of
actions
Unmanageable
Tragic choice;
institutions
(stability)
Change of context
Intervene to manage:
● Avoid
● Reduce
● Remove
Ontology and normative assumptions
Context
Bio/physical system
- nature of the
problem
- impacts/events
Socio-economic
systems
- Institutions
- Resources
Actor
Key variables:
- Beliefs and values
- Motives and
willingness
- Goals, objectives
and strategy
- Attribution threat
- Skills, creativity
- Mobilize resources
Stability / change
Governance of
adaptation
interactive process of
managing competing Encountered
and valued
values/ideas
barriers
Erratic episodes
Political struggle
Conflict
Controversy
Political bias
Asymmetric power
Intervention
(feedback to
actor, process,
context)
Indicators:
Types of intervention
Process:
Stagnation
Impasse
Deadlock
Avoidance
Reduction
Removal
Influence on
Outcome:
Failure
Increased costs
Efficacy/effectiveness
Missed opportunities
Water Squares in Rotterdam
Major political successes
Tragedy of innovations: high expectations, unpreparedness, no
examples
Conflicting values about problem and WS as solution
Unforeseeable change altered process
Interdependency results in (re)negotiations
Managed to fail ‘wisely’
Efforts to manage values; change strategies and intervene
Water Squares in Rotterdam
 Delta city (>600.000): threats from sea, groundwater,
precipitation, river
 Water challenge of 600.000m3 (2015) - 800.000m3 (2050)
 Institutionalise climate change adaptation: RCP
 Aim: Rotterdam as ‘Water Knowledge City’
 Decentralised city: self government authority of districts
 Socio-economic problems: low-skilled,
low-income, multicultural diversity
Water Squares in Rotterdam
 Multi-functional use of space in highly urbanised areas (low
regret adaptation)
● Contribute to water challenge: temporary storage of surface
run-off (12-48h), infiltration,
● Increase water experience (education, playing)
● Improve spatial quality (more funds to improve public squares)
and contribute to social cohesion
Water Squares – Actions and events
Round 1
‘Idea’
(2004-2005)
Rise of idea; explore concept; presented at Biennale;
high interdepartmental political commitment;
Round 2
Explore concept further; create shared values (master
‘Waterplan’ case); integrate in city policy: Water plan 2 and spatial
(2005-2007)
plan
Round 3
‘Pilot’
Explore concept further; establish project team; discuss
and select pilot location; design plan; negotiate with city
district
Round 4
‘Failure’
Change at political level district; renegotiations – need
for public support; power struggles city/district;
negotiated agreement to failure
Round 5
‘Renewed’
Reflect on actions, choices of events;
avoid/reduce/remove barriers; change strategy; start
with shared values, ideas; political acceptance;
(2007-2008)
(2008-2010)
(2010-2011)
Water Squares – Failure and barriers
Round 4
City
alderman
Pfh District
Project
Architect
coordinator
Lack of
support
Failure
Failure
Failure
Failure
Pre-design
(specialist)
-
xx
x
xx
Framed as
‘unsafe’
--
xx
-
-
Case selection
criteria
x
xx
x
xx
Change of
management
n.m.
n.m.
x
-
Lack of
examples
n.m.
x
xx
x
Political
struggles
xx
-
x
n.m.
Water Squares – Failure and barriers
Foreseeable
Unforeseeable
Manageable
Mismanagement; unclear
leadership; lack of
skills/expertise in district;
dominance of specialists;
unpreparedness;
Unintended consequences
of actions (new idea);
Piling ambitions, high
expectations;
Unmanageable
Complexity of realising
innovations; lack of trust
due past political
struggles; tragic choice
(clearance point)
Change of context (new
actors); framing in media
as drowning square
Water Squares – Reflect and intervene
Reflection (workshop of project team)
 Avoid:
● Reduce complexity - choose ‘simple’ case
 Reduce:
● Collect knowledge – not answers. Show willingness
● Change approach: inform/participatory
● Aim for converging values (case criteria)
 Remove:
● Clear project structure/tasks/responsibilities
Barriers to innovative adaptation strategies
 Opportunities and stimuli
− Enabling context
− Commitment and persistence
− Resource availability
− Reflexivity and willingness to learn
 Barriers
− ‘Complexity of realising innovations’: vague objectives, unclear
agreements, unclear strategies, no examples, unclear side
effects, no institutions, ‘guinea pigging’
Concluding reflections
 There is not one view of ‘barriers to adaptation’
● Make ontology and assumptions explicit
 What is considered barrier – both ‘empirical observation’ as
well as in ‘eye of beholder’
 Impact on process differs – outcome is often more clear
 Identifying barriers: ‘wisdom of the event’ trap
 Framework as useful structuring heuristic
 Challenge of generalizability: search for causal mechanisms to
explain barriers? Is that useful?
Thank you
[email protected]