Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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?
adaptation as additional stressor
conflicting objectives
climate change as distant threat
climate change as plastic word
adaptation as additional stressor
careerist politicians
climate fatigue
climate fatigue
attitude of actors
budged/funding cycles
community disinterest
access of (scientific) knowledge
benefits of adaptation
asymmetric costs and benefits
conflicting strategies to adaptation
communication to public
acquiring of land
additional efforts to adapt
application of climate science
climate fatigue
additional costs to existing projects
climate sceptics cold winterscommunicating scientific uncertainties to policy
apathy
adapting individual behaviour
adaptation options available
competing policies
competition for scarce resources
adaptation as concept/word
complexity of climate change
Complexity of decision making
conflicting advice
conflicting incentives to adapt
conflicting interests
lack of funding for training
existing policies and measures
Existing national rules and regulations
fragmentation
financial and economic crisis
financial feasibility of adaptationfinancial support structures
focus on the costs of adaptation
framing climate change as environmentalfragmented funding budgets
from decision to implementation
extreme events for policy change
fixed patterns of operation
Greenwashing (unjustified appropriation of environment)
few national efforts
existing European legislation
gradual rate of changes
guidance for decision makersEuropean Union lags behind
Habits and routinesHigh costs of adapting
hype of climate change
Identification of specific riskeducation of public
fear of failure
ideals
emphasis on negative consequences of climate change
education of professionals
ignorance
Economic development (growth)
distinguish climate from non-climate drivers for change
issues of fairness and equity
economic measures
jargon
conflicting strategies to adaptation
consistency in policy
contradictive science
conservatism
confusion with mitigation
coordination between stages of the policy process
decisive government conflicting timescales
cross sectoral response versus sectoral policy making
Delta report
Institutional inertia lack of acceptance
IPCC errors
lack of adaptive capacity
lack of ambition
lack of capacity
lack of clear national policy drivers or incentives
lack of cooperation
lack of coordination between institutions
lack of coordination between scales
lack of cost-benefit models
lack of funding for research
lack of financial resources
lack of funding for adaptation initiatives
Management understandingPower
priority of adaptation
prevarication (in science)
procrastination
position adaptation high on political agenda
science-policy gap
reluctance to change
risk management (general approach)
safeguarding adaptation (knowledge and policy)
scale of change needed
Scenario approach to policy making
Quick fixes in policy
role of media
scientific discussions on climate change
Recognition of problem
Public private partnerships
Public perception
sense of responsibility
short-termism in private sector
poor governance
political oppositionsense of urgency (lack of)
political opinions
short-termism
scientific approach to climate change
separation between M and A
Public understanding (lack of)
shrinking responsibilities small community on adaptation
political competition
practical support/guidelines to adapt are missing
political willingness
public opinion
Present as reference for the future
state of climate science and need to adapt
slow turning wheels of politics
specific solutions versus generic objectives
skills knowledge of stakeholders
static policy
politics
tailored climate change knowledge
political discussions
tangibility of future climate change impacts
technological fixes (no faith
technological fixes
political scoring opportunities are low
Political parties
political support involvement
policy silos
Political fear
timing of measures
time staff resources
too few examples of successful adaptation
too much (finance for) research
too much information
political commitment (lack of)
political attention
political understanding (lack of)
policy cycle of four years
top down decision making
no shared language
path dependency of policy
traditional ways of policy making
trust in climate science
top-down and bottom-up approach
turning rate of staff
unawareness (lack of awareness)
perspectives for action
overcomplicated problem
uncertain scale and rate of climate change
uncertainty over the impacts of climate change
uncertainty in climate models
unclear who is responsible
other issues are more urgent
over complicated solutions
perception of the problem
over emphasis on uncertaintyunclear role of adaptation policy
no personal experience as driver to adapt
Uncertainty
uncertainty as excuse to do nothing
unclear costs of not adapting
no participative approach to adaptation
unclear effects of adaptation options
rigidity
Policy (interpretation of)
unclear who is taking the lead on adaptation
unclear who should pay
Ostrich effect (hoping the problem will go away)
valuing long term benefits
unequal drivers across sectors
one dimensional view of climate change impacts
Organisational inertiano standard for future
unwilling to invest in uncertain issues
unconvinced about the need to adapt
No incentives to adaptno clear end goal
unconvinced about climate change
NIMBYism
no integrated approach to adaptation
no methodology to adaptunwilling to work together
neglect need for capacity and change
National government
width of scenarios
naive researchersneed for certainty
motivation to act
newness of climate change adaptation
unknown vulnerabilities
vested interests
need for consensus in politics
missing need to innovate
Mistrust of politicians
mindset of actor
missing opportunities
market failure (big business)
misunderstood concept of climate change
wait-and-see-attitude
visibility of climate change
many actors/sectors involved
mitigation over adaptation
words no deeds
market failure (no involvement of market parties)
low learning capacity in organisations
negative framing
managing uncertainty
managerial courage
Local understanding (of politicians) of climate change
local/regional approach to adaptation
long term perspective on local level (lack of)
long term impacts of climate changelocal adaptive capacity (low) little use of practical experience
lack of understanding of win-win adaptation options
lack of understanding by decision makers
lack of tools and instruments
lack of policy levers / mechanismslack of short term return on investments
lack of pilot projects
lack of motivators
lack of long term vision
Lack of long term budget planning
lack of leadershiplack of knowledge on impacts lack of methods to finance adaptation
lack of monitoring/evaluation
lack of knowledge exchange
little experience of solutions that work
Lack of knowledge basis
lack of shared aspirations
Lack of social science research on adaptation
lack of joint-up approachlack of innovative capacity
lack of societal support
lack of indicators for the effectiveness of adaptation
lack of will to be first mover
little joint fact finding
lack of inclusiveness
maladaptation
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
Intervene to manage:
● Avoid
● Reduce
● Remove
Foreseeable Unforeseeable
Manageable Mismanagement; lack of skills; lack of information
Unintended consequences of actions
Unmanageable Tragic choice; institutions (stability)
Change of context
Ontology and normative assumptions
Actor Key variables:- Beliefs and values- Motives and
willingness- Goals, objectives
and strategy- Attribution threat- Skills, creativity- Mobilize resources
ContextBio/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
Encountered and valued barriers
Intervention(feedback to actor, process, context)
Types of intervention
AvoidanceReductionRemoval
Indicators: Process: Stagnation ImpasseDeadlock Influence on Outcome:FailureIncreased costsEfficacy/effectivenessMissed opportunities
Erratic episodesPolitical struggleConflictControversyPolitical biasAsymmetric power
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‘Waterplan’(2005-2007)
Explore concept further; create shared values (master case); integrate in city policy: Water plan 2 and spatial plan
Round 3‘Pilot’(2007-2008)
Explore concept further; establish project team; discuss and select pilot location; design plan; negotiate with city district
Round 4‘Failure’(2008-2010)
Change at political level district; renegotiations – need for public support; power struggles city/district; negotiated agreement to failure
Round 5‘Renewed’(2010-2011)
Reflect on actions, choices of events; avoid/reduce/remove barriers; change strategy; start with shared values, ideas; political acceptance;
Water Squares – Failure and barriers
Round 4 City alderman
Pfh District Project coordinator
Architect
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?
