Download ESPACE Project Scoping Report

ESPACE Project Scoping Report:
“Analysing the generic barriers to implementation of climate change
adaptation policies in the spatial planning system”.
Author: Magnus Benzie
[Contents Page]
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2
2. Categorisation of Barriers ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Institutional Barriers .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Communication Gaps ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1.1 Communication gaps between institutions ............................................................................. 2
2.1.1.2 Communication gaps between institutions and stakeholders ................................................ 2
2.1.2 Conflicts between institutions and between policies .................................................................... 2
2.1.3 Institutional “lock-in” ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.4 Institutional time horizons ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.4 The spatial planning sector ............................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Uncertainty Barriers ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Uncertainty in data.......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Roles and responsibilities ................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Behavioural change ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3.1 General public.................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Private sector ................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Public institutions............................................................................................................................ 6
2.3.4 Short-termism .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Tools ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.4.1 Tools as barriers ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.2 Tools as solutions to overcoming barriers ...................................................................................... 7
3 The 3 A’s Principle: a framework for overcoming barriers? ......................................................... 7
3.1 The 3 A’s ................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Awareness ........................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1.2 Agency ............................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.3 Association ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.4 “The 4th A”: Action & Reflection .................................................................................................... 8
3.2 How the 3 A’s relate to the categories of barrier .................................................................................. 8
4 Conclusions: key focus areas ........................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Institutional barriers............................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Uncertainty ............................................................................................................................................. 9
4.3 Behavioural barriers ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Tools ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
4.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 9
5 References ................................................................................................................................... 9
[Summary]
1. Introduction [pull from bid for project extension]
2. Categorisation of Barriers
2.1 Institutional Barriers
2.1.1 Communication Gaps
2.1.1.1 Communication gaps between institutions
The complex inter-relation of political institutions within Europe can impede adaptation. If there is no
coordination between these institutions then adaptation efforts will be disjointed and risk being inefficient.
Institutional ‘gaps’ can impede the development of generic tools across jurisdictions. The` UK Environment
Agency (EA) has suggested that “we should be able to synthesize a common approach to test decisions and
consider how different administrative set-ups influence decision-testing” (acclimatise prep work). Therefore
clear channels of communication between institutions is needed for successful adaptation.
The development of national adaptation strategies will also be affected by different institutional models.
What is needed to assist successful adaptation is a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of those
supranational, national and local agents involved with spatial planning, as called for by the HCC ‘Review of
spatial planning networks’. Making the most of given institutional context depends on leadership, as the
proactive engagement of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria in Germany has demonstrated (4th International
workshop p.13).
Within political institutions, poor communication and information flows between tiers of government or
between stakeholders is another barrier to adaptation. The LfU Bayreuth case study was reported to fail
because of “complex relationships with decision makers” (acclimatise prep work #16).
2.1.1.2 Communication gaps between institutions and stakeholders
There is also the issue of communication failures between those public institutions involved in adaptation
and stakeholders within the community who are essential to successful implementation. This not only
includes the positive stakeholders, meaning those who are actively involved in taking decisions on
adaptation measures, but also negative stakeholders, who through their indirect involvement are capable of
blocking implementation, either deliberately or passively. Gaps between institutions and either kind of
stakeholder will limit adaptation.
[Dutch example: farmers…]
It is essential that information is exchanged between public institutions and other stakeholders in a format
that serves to achieve project aims; for example, that quantitative data is available for communication with
local stakeholders (LfU). The WSRL ‘communication tool’ and similar guidance is needed to ensure this, not
only between spatial planners and non-governmental actors, but between agencies involved in adaptation
measures (for example Water Managers and Planners) and other relevant government agents, such as
politicians and finance ministries.
2.1.2 Conflicts between institutions and between policies
It is not just ‘gaps’ between institutions, but also the tensions and conflicts that exist between the aims and
methods of different actors that can prevent successful adaptation. Competing priorities and responsibilities
between agencies and tiers of government, for example the Federal government and Bundesländer in
Germany, or the national government and municipalities in Belgium, will also affect outcomes. Both VROM
and LfU reported difficulties of this kind in persuading higher tiers to take account of climate change in
plans, or in building the political will necessary to achieve goals. Several budgetary conflicts were also
mentioned, especially between national and local administrations, where the distinction between who
benefits and who pays for adaptive measures is often blurred.
Existing EU policies often create conflicts that can hamper adaptation. The Habitats Directive and the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) bring about conflicting obligations which have implications for adaptation
initiatives. At the 4th Joint International Workshop it was noted that water or flood management, regional
development and planning policies often conflict; it is not always clear which takes priority. For example,
the socio-political goal of regenerating an economically deprived area in the Thames Gateway with
significant investment comes up against the flooding protection goal of reducing investment in flood risk
areas (SEERA, 4th International Workshop). The trade-off between these sensitive political issues can
obstruct the wider aim of many adaptation strategies.
Similarly, political conflicts often arise with the methodologies that are frequently applied by adaptation
initiatives. For example the EA highlights the tension between using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and the
underlying democratic imperative of decision making procedures.
2.1.3 Institutional “lock-in”
‘Lock-in’ refers to the pattern of practices, methods and solutions that become ingrained in political
institutions making innovation seem difficult and unattractive. The ESPACE case studies demonstrate the
institutional desire for technical measures over systemic changes or communication improvements. The
failure of certain institutions to recognise the need for behavioural change is also noted (see Section 3, 3
A’s]). A more recent example of the ‘lock-in’ phenomenon is the ‘mitigation mindset’, which renders
decision makers, as well as the general public, fixated on mitigation at the expense of adaptation.
2.1.4 Institutional time horizons
The majority of public policy is designed according to shorter timescales than those required to enable
successful adaptation. The short-term horizons of many agencies (and the politicians who govern them) can
retard and impair the development and execution of adaptation measures, leading to mal-adaptation. If
initiatives are designed to sub-optimal timeframes, their objectives may not accurately reflect the long-term
requirements and implications of climate change to spatial planning. This can produce a set of objectives
designed according to political criteria that are misaligned with actual hydrological or climatic events.
In addition to the short-term cycles of politics, the changing ratio of costs to benefits throughout a project’s
lifecycle makes planning adaptation extremely difficult. Initial start-up costs will be significant, whereas the
benefits will usually take time to become apparent and maybe difficult or impossible to plan for, if the
benefits are protection from extreme flood events for example. This is an inherent feature of climate change
adaptation and is a barrier which almost all pilot projects have experienced to some extent.
[BB to check please!]
There is also a pre-occupation with the appropriateness of current legislation to adaptation, whereas the
detail of current policies may not be so important in the longer term. Given that adaptation initiatives must
adhere to long timescales (e.g. 60 – 100 years), it must be accepted that policies will inevitably evolve during
this time. Setting inflexible or static targets will therefore impede the evolution of adaptation measures over
coming years.
2.1.4 The spatial planning sector
Certain factors endemic to the spatial planning sector have also limited the implementation of adaptation
initiatives in ESPACE. The complexities and inflexibility of some planning regulations prevent otherwise
feasible adaptation plans from being realised. The technical and professional gaps that exist between
hydrological experts and spatial planners have also been noted as a barrier. Attitudes towards working in
partnerships with other stakeholders, sectors and agencies varied throughout the case studies, suggesting that
the outlook of particular planning departments can affect the likely success of measures (SECCP #86
acclimatise prep work).
Spatial planning is a sector characterised by a culture of following detailed guidance. Innovation does not
therefore come naturally to many of the systems and professionals working in the sector. The case studies
have demonstrated that where systems such as community engagement are required as part of adaptation,
they can be carried out successfully. However, it is deemed unrealistic for planners to conduct consultation
regularly. Such features need to be built into a wider model of ‘participatory planning’. The barrier to
adaptation is therefore limited innovation in the spatial planning process on the ground, and the need for
careful restructuring of planning models.
The need for planners to quantify standards of acceptable risk is made difficult by the uncertainties inherent
in climate change forecasting. The WSRL Watertask modelling experienced difficulties in defining standards
of protection that are considered acceptable by those who are affected by floods, for example. Also, with
notable exceptions, spatial planning systems in a number of countries do not yet take explicit account of the
risks of climate change, which presents a significant barrier to adaptation plans within the sector.
Where awareness of climate change does exist, there is an issue to do with the difficulties of converting this
awareness into meaningful action. Throughout the ESPACE pilot projects it has been learned that a sense of
‘association’ with other relevant actors, and ‘agency’ are needed before meaningful action on adaptation can
take place (see the 3 A’s principle, section 3.1 below).
2.2 Uncertainty Barriers
By uncertainty is meant a limited level of awareness of the potential impacts of climate change, with varying
knowledge of the probability that these impacts will occur. One solution is to invest in further research to
reduce uncertainty. However, adaptation decisions are relatively urgent and, by necessity, need to be based
on more or less uncertain data. This presents certain challenges to those planning adaptation initiatives,
which are expanded upon below.
2.2.1 Uncertainty in data
Sound adaptation requires detailed information of the likely impacts of climate change. Wherever this
information is not available, either in the right format or in sufficient detail, the effectiveness of adaptation
will be limited. For spatial planners at the local level, climate models do not usually provide sufficiently
downscaled localised data. For example, the EA (+HCC?) have suggested the need for local risk maps to
facilitate adaptive planning, echoing calls from throughout the ‘adaptation community’ for more localised
scenario data (EEA 2007). Currently, the EA recommend using multiple scenarios and explicitly stating the
confidence of results to spread the risk of basing decisions on uncertain data (Decision Making Framework
and tools, EA). In The Netherlands, an explicit policy of choosing mid-level scenarios as decision reference
points is meant to fast-track planning decisions as a way to avoid the cyclical trap of uncertainty in planning.
This is a potential solution to the barrier of uncertainty, as long as its underlying assumptions are made clear.
However, the WSRL stakeholder workshop also pointed out that some models, when available, are not likely
to be used by stakeholders, and the LfU suggest that low-budget data collection is non-productive.
Not only is the quality of data important, but information must be targeted and used in the right way for it
to be useful. Many case studies report that information exchange or dissemination is not enough to create
agency for change. SECCP recommend that workshops and conferences need to be more than a simple
information providing mechanism. At the 4th Joint workshop the observation was made that events, such as
Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami and the summer heatwave of 2003, have done more to push the
adaptation agenda than information dissemination. This point supports the LUC report’s call for “actionoriented research”. Information needs to be rich enough in detail and targeted to the spatial and time scale of
the adaptive planning measure in question. If not, information is not only used inefficiently, it can also
constitute a barrier in itself.
There is a growing volume of information and research into climate change. Such an onslaught of data can
be confusing and resource-intensive to process and relate back to an adaptation measure. The SECCP
highlight the exposure to ever greater volumes of information as a barrier to adaptation. This relates to the
problem of having significant awareness of the climate change issue without a corresponding sense of
agency, or empowerment to take action (see section x.y.z [3 A’s]). In such circumstances, increasing levels of
information and research data does not increase adaptation outputs, indeed it can hinder them by
complicating and slowing down attempts to adapt.
Therefore, better quality, localised data in climate models is needed to enable productive adaptation in the
planning sector, but the provision of sub-standard data, or exposure to overwhelming amounts of data, is as
much a barrier as the lack of high quality information.
2.2.2 Roles and responsibilities
Where the requirements of policies, especially environmental protection policies, are unclear, this presents
problems to those planning adaptation measures. For example, there is still a level of uncertainty as to the
exact requirements of the WFD beyond its first phase, which has implications for adaptation initiatives that
will impact and be impacted by water courses.
The lack of targets and deliverables in adaptation strategies, especially in comparison to mitigation strategies,
makes their implementation difficult and often confusing for planners on the ground. This factor relates to
the institutional preference for mechanisms and target-setting as a core methodology and partly explains the
“lock-in” to mitigation perspectives on climate change and a refusal to engage with the adaptation agenda.
Finally, following on from above, the lack of ‘best practice’ or even ‘good practice’ guidelines and practical
experience of adaptation initiatives holds back adaptation. Best practice examples are highlighted and
communicated for certain features of the adaptation process, for example WSCC and RLZZZ ‘best practice
guidelines’ on awareness raising at the local level, but overall project experience is low. The ESPACE case
studies are the first of their kind and so the project itself will help address this problem, but the lack of
reference points and examples is cited as a barrier by several partners.
2.3 Behavioural change
The need for behavioural change in adaptation refers to personal and collective barriers to adaptation. These
include subjective barriers such as shared norms and worldviews, as well as objective barriers such as the
limitations of roles, relationships, skills and structures (HCC Behavioural Change Workshop Exec Summary).
Below is a simple matrices that demonstrates the different contexts in which change occurs.
1. Individual subjective factors
Limiting personal values,
worldview, assumptions
2. Individual objective factors
Limitations of one’s skills,
knowledge, contacts
3. Collective subjective factors
Organisational cultures,
shared norms, national
and regional characteristics
4. Collective objective factors
Political, economic, social,
technological, legal and
environmental limitations
[Source: adapted from Ken Wilber in ‘Context: a critical issue’, Alexander Ballard & HCC 2007]
These kinds of barriers can be overcome through behavioural change, and therefore require management
and leadership. This contextual understanding of change is integral to successful behavioural change.
2.3.1 General public
The general public’s perception of adaptation, whilst changing in response to the recent salience of the issue
in public discourse (Stern review, IPCCC 4th Report), can encumber the carrying out of measures. This can
manifest itself as a failure to engage as stakeholders in the planning process, or as an unwillingness to accept
changes, such as land reclamation, or bear the costs of adaptation, even when the public stands to gain from
adaptive measures, in the form of enhanced flood protection for example. The RLZZZ work with rural
communities found that once the perception of high costs is dispelled, communication and cooperation is
much easier.
2.3.2 Private sector
The private sector’s need for targets and forecasts make cooperation in adaptation difficult, in some cases.
What is more, the investment timescales of private companies do not always overlap with the requirements
of adaptive measures, which can obstruct cooperative adaptation. There are also many private organisations
and leaders who still lack awareness of climate change impacts and in particular of the relevance to their
own practices, and the need for adaptation.
2.3.3 Public institutions
As mentioned above, many institutions fail to recognise their obligation to adapt, and specifically the need
for behavioural change within the institution to enable successful adaptation. HCC’s ‘Analysis of
opportunities in Hampshire’ showed that many LA service delivery stakeholders did not see the relevance of
climate change to their operations, nor did they recognise that some of their existing actions constitute, or
could easily be adapted to perform, adaptation and mitigation. A greater engagement with the issue of
climate change and willingness to change practises, management approaches and planning will increase the
adaptive capacity of public institutions. Tools designed as part of the ESPACE process will enable this
behavioural change to take place (communication tool? 3 A’s? …).
2.3.4 Short-termism
There is a tendency for the general public and private and public institutions alike to prioritise short-term
over long-term gains (time-preference). This can erode support for adaptation initiatives, especially if they
are seen to trade-off short-term and long-term benefits. Whilst time-preference is a feature of all human
planning, effective adaptation to climate change requires a shift towards longer term planning horizons, and
the inclusion of long-term impacts on short term planning decisions. This is a behavioural development that
might be brought about by a deeper awareness of the nature of climate change and its impacts on everyday
life.
2.4 Tools
2.4.1 Tools as barriers
In conditions of high uncertainty, making decisions on the basis of cost information, either through costeffectiveness or cost-benefit analysis, can incentivise short-termism. Where an incomplete understanding of
non-monetary benefits (or costs) exists, or where the use of high discount rates skews analysis towards
short-term tangible costs, the under-representation of future benefits can obstruct the implementation of
optimal (long-term) adaptation measures. This is partly because such analyses are based on incomplete or
highly uncertain data. It is also a consequence of the economic rationale that is bound up in some decision
making models, and the difficulties of measuring and imputing non-monetary costs and benefits into these
models. Whilst the importance of such tools is necessary for avoiding mal-adaptation, the ESPACE process
has highlighted the benefits of effective stakeholder engagement and communication in climate change
adaptation.
2.4.2 Tools as solutions to overcoming barriers
However, many of the barriers highlighted in this scoping report are surmountable with the proper
application of various tools available to decision makers and planners. Achieving appropriate levels of
stakeholder engagement, giving consideration to alternative measures and existing legislation, integrating
behavioural change and learning, and designing efficient adaptation are all made possible with the proper
application of tools such as strategic environmental assessment (SEA), social learning, CBA and the
application of the 3 A’s principle.
3 The 3 A’s Principle: a framework for overcoming barriers?
[short overview of the development of the 4 A’s /3 A’s principle at ESPACE]
3.1 The 3 A’s
3.1.1 Awareness
On a basic level, awareness means acknowledgement and understanding of the issue, here of climate change.
Without a basic level of awareness no stakeholder will take seriously the challenge nor understand how to
react. However, the ESPACE project has clearly demonstrated that this basic level of awareness is severely
limited in bringing about meaningful change.
Awareness needs to be specific: not awareness of the global warming phenomenon, but, for example, of the
local impacts on water system that will affect spatial planning in particular ways. There also needs to be
awareness of the relevance of certain information to an individual agent or organisation at specific, tangible
scales and over appropriate timescales. The HCC Behaviour Change Report (Appendix D) defines three
levels of awareness: basic awareness, awareness of urgency and importance, and structural awareness of the
issues.
Planners therefore need to be aware of specific localised impacts, their relevance to current and future
planning, and the implications of these impacts on planning over time.
As suggested above, too little awareness is a barrier to adaptation, but so is too much awareness without
corresponding ‘association’ or ‘agency’.
3.1.2 Agency
Developing agency means cultivating a sense that meaningful action can be taken to address the issue of
climate change. A typical response to climate change is, “it is too great a problem for me to do anything
about”. Actors and stakeholders therefore need to develop a strategy of manageable steps and a feeling of
empowerment in order to create agency.
Short-termism, especially among politicians, can reduce the ‘stock’ of agency by giving the impression that
nothing meaningful can be achieved within short timeframes. Overcoming the (false) mindset that
adaptation requires impossibly long-term commitments is key to developing agency for adaptation.
3.1.3 Association
Networks and relationships are key to both developing agency and achieving action. Association with other
stakeholders, decision makers and actors increases the chances of lasting change and is essential to the
sustainability and effectiveness of working towards adaptation goals.
3.1.4 “The 4th A”: Action & Reflection
Developing awareness, agency and association is meaningless unless it leads to some sort of action. Once
action has been taken, especially where measures are treading new ground and involve ‘unlearning’ old
habits or employing new methods in association with new partners, ‘reflection’ is essential for learning,
improving and maintaining the momentum of change. This will feed back into developing agency for
change, showing that the whole process is cyclical and self-reinforcing. Undertaking action naturally leads
to greater awareness of problems and solutions also.
It is therefore relatively unimportant where in the cycle of change begins, as long as agency and deeper
awareness can be developed.
3.2 How the 3 A’s relate to the categories of barrier
If significant awareness can be achieved, overcoming many of the ‘uncertainty barriers’ is made possible.
Where the relevance and spatial/ timescale horizons of impacts are properly understood, the problem of
uncertainty diminishes. Therefore, seeking to achieve a proper understanding of awareness reduces
uncertainty.
Many of the institutional barriers could be overcome if the importance of ‘association’ was understood by
those involved in managing change. Whilst the conflicts that exist between institutions are the product of
wider political and budgetary tensions, the gaps that impede communication and collaboration between
different institutions, and between public and stakeholder groups, can be tackled by an appreciation of the
need for association.
The provision of suitable decision-making tools, and the availability of best practice examples (‘Champions’)
and pilot projects, can help to create a sense of agency, especially where awareness is prevalent but shallow.
The 3 A’s itself is one such tool, an understanding of which should aid change-managers to bring about
effective adaptation where the behavioural barriers identified above are to be found.
4 Conclusions: key focus areas
4.1 Institutional barriers
 Clear channels of communication between institutions, and with stakeholders, are needed.
 Communication tools can be used to aid this flow.
 Conflicts exist between institutions for political reasons, which obstructs adaptation.
 Existing policies create conflicting obligations that complicate adaptation.
 Institutions become “locked-in” to certain methods, responses and time cycles that do not fit with
adaptation
 The changing ratio of costs to benefits throughout the lifecycle of an adaptation measure plagues
attempts to adapt.
 The spatial planning sector has its own complexities and inflexibilities that might be overcome by
restructuring planning models (and behavioural change).
4.2 Uncertainty
 Spatial planners need downscaled model data in order to plan effective adaptation.
 Information must be produced and disseminated in appropriate formats to enable successful
adaptation.
 Too much information leads to confusion and inefficiency. Agency is needed to compliment
awareness.
 Effective adaptation requires that all actors clearly understand their role and responsibilities.
 Adaptation measures often lack targets and deliverables, which makes progress difficult.
 There is a lack of (visible) ‘best practice’ (or even ‘good-practice’) examples. ‘No Champion, no
change!’.
4.3 Behavioural barriers
 Management and leadership are required to bring about behavioural change.
 The general public need to feel a sense of ‘agency’ for change and be sufficiently ‘aware’ of specific
impacts in order to cooperate with adaptation initiatives.
 The private sector must adjust its planning schedules and management styles in order to successfully
adapt.
 Public institutions need to recognise their role in adaptation and adopt new management practices
and outlooks.
4.4 Tools
 A suite of suitable tools should be used to achieve effective, efficient and acceptable adaptation.
4.5 Summary
[to be completed]
5 References