Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)

Assessing adaptation in Assessing adaptation in New Member States: New Member States:

Central & Eastern EuropeCentral & Eastern Europe

Eric Massey – IVMEric Massey – IVM

Prepared for the 3rd EIONET Adaptation meeting, Prepared for the 3rd EIONET Adaptation meeting, Copenhagen, Jun/Jul 30- 01, 2009Copenhagen, Jun/Jul 30- 01, 2009

2

BackgroundBackground

How can adaptation measures be organized?How can adaptation measures be organized?

• Stage 1: Creation of Adaptation Policy Framework

• Stage 2: Application of framework to 29 countries

• Stage 3: In depth study and survey of select Member States

3

Purpose of Stage 3: Shortcomings of previous Purpose of Stage 3: Shortcomings of previous workwork

While stages 1&2 were informative there limitations…While stages 1&2 were informative there limitations…Key limitations

Information came primarily from UNFCCC National Communications and reports – these are now old and perhaps do not reflect current activities…

The source material was only in English – Some countries have adaptation strategies (Hungary) however not in English….

Focused on the number of policies and measures with cursory look at the content…

Did not take into account the institutional aspects of challenges of effecting adaptation.

4

Purpose of Stage 3: The Survey Purpose of Stage 3: The Survey contd.contd.

Purpose of the survey in general was to gather Purpose of the survey in general was to gather information on 3 key dimensions of adaptationinformation on 3 key dimensions of adaptation

• Institutional setup of adaptationInstitutional setup of adaptation: Which actors/institutions were involved in adaptation planning and execution?

• Policy arena of adaptationPolicy arena of adaptation: What policies are in place and what are planned?

• Procedure of adaptationProcedure of adaptation: The constraints and enablers implementing actions.Survey asked a series of question and presented data from

previous study we did to comment upon.

5

Country selectionCountry selection

8 New Member States were selected8 New Member States were selected

Czech Republic SlovakiaSlovenia Poland

Hungary Estonia Latvia Lithuania

People from ministries, government agencies, universities and research institutes were interviewed.

6

Country selection reason 1Country selection reason 1..

• Based upon the previous study these countries were in a nascent stage of adaptation (data from 2006 or older)

Adaptation Level: C & E Europe

4%

44%52%

Policy measure Policy recommendation Policy concern

7

Country selection reasons Country selection reasons contd.contd.

• In terms of their adaptation aims they were quite similar…

• Because they are new Member States not much research has been conducted in context of EU…

• PEER network had done extensive work on EU-15.

888

Overview of survey questionsOverview of survey questions

• Priority of adaptation and institutions that deal with it

• Focus on policy development: mainstreaming???

• Institutional cooperation (levels and scales as well)

• Knowledge generation on climate impacts, adaptation etc.

• New policy development etc.

• Constraints to effecting adaptation

9

Priorities & institutional Aspects: ResultsPriorities & institutional Aspects: Results

Priorities, Institutions & Cooperation

• All but one country states adaptation as “Priority of national government, but in initial phase”

• Apart from Hungary, no country has yet an Adaptation strategy per se.. Majority are working on plans to be finalized “in the near future” or have a basket of documents.

• Two countries have sectoral strategies focusing on agriculture & water.

• Ministry of Environment takes the lead and in a minority there is inter-ministerial cooperation. There appears to be little input from others than Ministry of Agriculture.

• All countries save for one put the focus of policy development as a “Combination of mainstreaming and new policy development” Other state mainstreaming is the main focus.

• Cooperation with regional and local governments is limited in terms of adaptation, main focus on disaster risk management.As a subfield of climate policy As a subfield of climate policy

adaptation in this area is still noveladaptation in this area is still novel

10

Priorities & institutional Aspects: DiscussionPriorities & institutional Aspects: Discussion

The appearance of a “slow” policy response towards adaptation is 3-fold:

- Concept of climate change is still largely mitigation focused…

- Since Green Paper, governments have undergone transition & priorities have shifted…

- Financial crisis has moved many issues to back burner.

• Almost all countries are EU followers in this field. They welcome EU direction. Hence mainstreaming. The White Paper will provide new impetus for action.

• Despite “adaptation to climate change” being a new field in terms of policy development and action, the concept of taking impact response measures sectorally is not (especially in water and agriculture)

11

Policy: Results

For each country we presented policy data from previous study on For each country we presented policy data from previous study on their policy actions to see what has changedtheir policy actions to see what has changed

• When presented with the data on number and type of policy actions 5 countries said we captured an accurate picture, 3 countries said they had more or added much more (Latvia, Hungary, Czech Republic).

• When asked if previous policy recommendations had been turned into measures, the majority responded “yes”, some have been converted.

• When asked if new domains/sectors were added, primarily the 3 with new policies said yes. (e.g. national security, financial management, health)

• There were no concrete responses that any more new policies were planned apart from an overall adaptation strategy and or perhaps some institutional restructuring.Landscape, water and agriculture still top the list of domainsLandscape, water and agriculture still top the list of domains

12

Policy: Discussion

Reason behind asking previous question:Reason behind asking previous question:

- Not just to see if they have changed and how,- Not just to see if they have changed and how,

- But also the driving force (if any) behind policy - But also the driving force (if any) behind policy movement or stagnation (in particular domains)movement or stagnation (in particular domains)

• Knowledge lock-in: Intellectual and institutional• Limited research agendas and resources• Definition of what should be labelled

“adaptation”• Cultural preference• EU policy• Political priorities

13

Procedure: Constraints and outlook

Apart from the previous list, we Apart from the previous list, we also specifically asked also specifically asked countries to discuss & rank countries to discuss & rank their main constraints to their main constraints to effecting adaptation.effecting adaptation.

Top 4 constraints• Knowledge and research• Financial• Institutional capacity• Lack of networks

• Despite constraints many countries are optimistic they can be addressed and are trying to address them…

• Recognize that ministries of education can play a greater role in setting research agendas

• Hope EU White paper will encourage their governments spend more for adaptation

• Need for better inclusion in European framework research projects

• Need for better communication between research institutes and ministries

DiscussionDiscussion

One thing most countries lacked was a NAS…

• Do all countries need a NAS?

• Should the EU provide guidance on what a NAS should include?

EU has proposed an Adaptation Framework, Phase1 has 4 pillars.

• What or how can the actions under these pillars help address the constraints in Central & Eastern Europe?

• Especially Pillar 1 (knowledge base) & 4 (international cooperation)?

14

15

Thank You

Grazie

Merci

Dank U

DankeTak

Gracias Spasibo

www.ivm.vu.nl