When innovative adaptation strategies meet actors and institutions

1. 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, WageningenUR, the Netherlands

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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 environmental competing 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 other issues are more urgent unconvinced about the need to adapt unequal drivers across sectors unclear who should pay over emphasis on uncertainty

5. Ontology and normative assumptions Perspectives on governance and barriers

6. 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

7. 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?)

8. 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 • Intervene to manage: • Avoid • Reduce • Remove

9. Ontology and normative assumptions Context Bio/physical system - nature of the problem - impacts/events Socio-economic systems - Institutions - Resources Stability / change Governance of adaptation interactive process of managing competing values/ideas Intervention (feedback to actor, process, context) Encountered and valued barriers • Actor • Key variables: • - Beliefs and values • - Motives and willingness • Goals, objectives and strategy • Attribution threat • Skills, creativity • Mobilize resources Erratic episodes Political struggle Conflict Controversy Political bias Asymmetric power Indicators: Process: Stagnation Impasse Deadlock Influence on Outcome: Failure Increased costs Efficacy/effectiveness Missed opportunities Types of intervention Avoidance Reduction Removal

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Water Squares – Actions and events

14. Water Squares – Failure and barriers

15. Water Squares – Failure and barriers

16. 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

17. 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’

18. 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?

19. Thank you robbert.biesbroek@wur.nl