Sharing the Burden of Adaptation Financing: An Assessment of the Contributions of Countries

Climate change may cause most harm to countries that contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions. This paper identifies deontology, solidarity and consequentialism as the principles that can serve as a basis for a fair international burden sharing scheme of adaptation costs. We translate these principles into criteria that can be applied in assigning contributions of individual countries, namely historical responsibility, equality and capacity to pay. Specific political and scientific choices are discussed, highlighting implications for international burden-sharing. Combining historical responsibility and capacity to pay seems a promising starting point for international negotiations on the design of burden-sharing schemes. From the numerical assessment, it is clear that UNFCCC Annex I countries carry the greatest burden under most scenarios, but contributions differ substantially subject to the choice of an indicator for capacity to pay. The total financial contribution by the Annex I countries could be in the range of $55-68 billion annually.Adaptation Financing, Burden-Sharing, Historical Responsibility

Strengths and Weaknesses for Climate Change: Adaptation in Water Governance: A Comparison Across Six European Regions

This chapter comparatively analyses the policy and governance contexts of six European regions that are affected by different hydrological impacts of climate change. The results demonstrate that a major governance strength across regions lies in the organization of management capacities to deal with existing water-related risks. For example, the Dutch context focuses on water safety, Cyprus has a clear policy framework to deal with water scarcity and in the Norwegian city of Bergen, wastewater is well managed. As a consequence of this focus on present-day risks, climate adaptation governance also focuses on historical risks. New or exacerbated risks posed by climate change remain largely untreated, and responsibilities for dealing with climate-related risks remain unspecified, as also becomes clear in the German and Spanish cases. A high degree of governmental fragmentation is identified as another point of weakness. Identified most clearly in the Portuguese case but recognizable in all regional contexts, different subdomains of water management are dealt with under separate policies and are governed by different responsible agencies. Consequently, information about current performance of the water system is scattered and coordinative efforts, which are key to developing adaptation strategies, are hampered

How to assess the adaptive capacity of legislation and policies

Abstract: Intuitively it is clear that institutions can both enhance and hamper the adaptive capacity of a society. But what characteristics make an institution more or less helpful for development and implementation of adaptation strategies? Based on the literature, we developed an analytical framework to assess the adaptive capacity of institutions. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel consists of six dimensions: variety, learning, autonomous ability to change, leadership, legitimacy and resources. The six dimensions were operationalised into 22 criteria and were applied to formal institutions in a content analysis. We conclude that sometimes dimensions and criteria seem to contradict each other, which is not surprising, because this reflects existing paradoxes in the governance of society. We would like to discuss the analytical instrument and its possible uses with the audience of the Amsterdam Conference

Changed knowledge requirements for spatial flood governance

Floods have not only occurred with greater frequency, they have become more damaging over the years. The associated rising costs have challenged traditional governance approaches that aim to provide full protection against floods. By aiming for protection, these approaches have allowed value to accumulate in high-risk areas. Now that climate change puts more floods on the horizon, policy-makers around the world have turned to "spatial-planning" measures that aim to reduce exposure to flood risks rather than provide full protection. This policy transition not only involves the development of new policy approaches and governance arrangements, it places new requirements on knowledge to support these approaches and arrangements. I analyze these changed knowledge requirements in a case study on the Netherlands. The Netherlands thrived on a technical safety approach in the 20th century, but since the late 1990s, a number of spatial planning policies have been forwarded. Building on the policy arrangements framework as a conceptual model, I add a new knowledge dimension to this framework to analyze what new knowledge requirements emerged in the Dutch turn to spatial-planning measures and how these new forms of knowledge could be organized within existing safety institutions. Based on the analysis, I conclude that spatial-planning measures require new forms of "localized" policy knowledge to support the more decentralized responsibility structures that underpin spatial-planning measures. I also conclude that this form of expertise may be difficult to organize within safety institutions due to the strong interactions between nationally oriented engineers and policy-makers that characterize safety approaches

Adapting to new realities: an analysis of institutional work in three cases of Dutch infrastructure planning

The social and institutional context of infrastructure planning has shifted tremendously over recent decades. From top–down implementation, infrastructure planners are now forced to incorporate the demands and wishes of citizens and other external stakeholders. This paper adopts the analytical perspective of institutional work to analyse how a number of Dutch infrastructure planning organisations try to remain in control over these changes in their institutional context. Building on social systems thinking, this paper distinguishes three environments in which this control can play out: the internal environment over which an organisation has complete control, an external environment over which an organisation has little control and a transactional environment where the organisation, through its interactions with other actors, can influence institutional development. The paper concludes that while most forms of institutional work applied by the infrastructure planning organisations under study aim to change the organisations’ interactions with stakeholders, the forms of institutional work are predominantly located within the internal environment of planning organisations

Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands

Stakeholder dialogues are proposed as a method for assessing complex ecological and environmental problems. Stakeholder dialogues aim to enhance mutual learning by generating and evaluating divergent knowledge claims and viewpoints, i.e. problem structuring. Problem structuring requires that the diversity of perspectives is represented in the dialogue. We argue therefore that stakeholder dialogues should involve procedures for stakeholder selection that allow for the identification of the diversity of perspectives as well as of stakeholders identifying with those perspectives. We explore the use of Q methodology as a tool for pursuing this goal. Q methodology can be used to uncover perspectives that exist within a particular (policy) field. We applied Q methodology to a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands to identify stakeholder perspectives on energy from biomass and to select stakeholders for the dialogue. In order to discuss the use of Q methodology for stakeholder selection, we compare this stakeholder selection with a hypothetical selection based on actor type (NGOs, knowledge institutes, industry, etcetera). Our analysis shows that, although often implicitly assumed, actor type is not a good proxy for perspective: the actor types appeared to be heterogeneous in terms of perspectives. This means that a stakeholder selection procedure based on perspectives will very likely result in a different group composition than a selection based on affiliation or actor type. The analysis however also shows that some actor types were more heterogeneous than others and that some perspectives are dominated by particular actor types. We conclude that Q methodology is a useful method for stakeholder selection in stakeholder dialogues and wrap up with a discussion of the results and the implications for the design and preparation of a dialogue process.Biomass Deliberation Participation Stakeholder dialogue Stakeholder selection Q methodology

Sharing the Burden of Adaptation Financing: An Assessment of the Contributions of Countries

Climate change may cause most harm to countries that contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions. This paper identifies deontology, solidarity and consequentialism as the principles that can serve as a basis for a fair international burden sharing scheme of adaptation costs. We translate these principles into criteria that can be applied in assigning contributions of individual countries, namely historical responsibility, equality and capacity to pay. Specific political and scientific choices are discussed, highlighting implications for international burden-sharing. Combining historical responsibility and capacity to pay seems a promising starting point for international negotiations on the design of burden-sharing schemes. From the numerical assessment, it is clear that UNFCCC Annex I countries carry the greatest burden under most scenarios, but contributions differ substantially subject to the choice of an indicator for capacity to pay. The total financial contribution by the Annex I countries could be in the range of $55-68 billion annually

Unpacking notions of residents' responsibility in flood risk governance

Environmental disasters, and especially floods, are among today's biggest sustainability challenges. The number and intensity of floods are increasing, challenging current governance approaches. Governments worldwide are looking to diversify their flood risk management and adaptation strategies, among others, by increasing resident involvement in flood risk governance. Such involvement of individuals shifts responsibilities from public to private actors. A clear understanding of the extent and implications of this shift is difficult to reach as theoretical perspectives on the concept of responsibility vary. Similarly, grounds for attributing responsibility for flood preparedness and response differ across countries. This lack of analytical and empirical clarity complicates academic and policy discourses on what it actually means to ‘be responsible’. The current article systematises these different approaches to responsibility in flood risk governance. To improve current knowledge on residents' responsibilities in flood risk governance, we present a conceptual framework that distinguishes among four theoretical notions of responsibility: legal responsibility, accountability, perceived responsibility, and moral responsibility. These notions are elucidated with the help of examples of flood risk governance practices in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the four notions are closely intertwined. In addition, this article documents divergences between what individuals perceive as their own responsibility in flood risk management and the responsibilities that governments assume. We conclude with a discussion on the tensions between perceived responsibilities and the other three notions. Explicit, transparent and open discussion on these tensions is needed to allow attribution of responsibility in flood risk governance and to reconsider residents' roles in particular

Unpacking notions of residents' responsibility in flood risk governance

Environmental disasters, and especially floods, are among today's biggest sustainability challenges. The number and intensity of floods are increasing, challenging current governance approaches. Governments worldwide are looking to diversify their flood risk management and adaptation strategies, among others, by increasing resident involvement in flood risk governance. Such involvement of individuals shifts responsibilities from public to private actors. A clear understanding of the extent and implications of this shift is difficult to reach as theoretical perspectives on the concept of responsibility vary. Similarly, grounds for attributing responsibility for flood preparedness and response differ across countries. This lack of analytical and empirical clarity complicates academic and policy discourses on what it actually means to ‘be responsible’. The current article systematises these different approaches to responsibility in flood risk governance. To improve current knowledge on residents' responsibilities in flood risk governance, we present a conceptual framework that distinguishes among four theoretical notions of responsibility: legal responsibility, accountability, perceived responsibility, and moral responsibility. These notions are elucidated with the help of examples of flood risk governance practices in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the four notions are closely intertwined. In addition, this article documents divergences between what individuals perceive as their own responsibility in flood risk management and the responsibilities that governments assume. We conclude with a discussion on the tensions between perceived responsibilities and the other three notions. Explicit, transparent and open discussion on these tensions is needed to allow attribution of responsibility in flood risk governance and to reconsider residents' roles in particular

Chapter Strengths and Weaknesses for Climate Change: Adaptation in Water Governance: A Comparison Across Six European Regions

This chapter comparatively analyses the policy and governance contexts of six European regions that are affected by different hydrological impacts of climate change. The results demonstrate that a major governance strength across regions lies in the organization of management capacities to deal with existing water-related risks. For example, the Dutch context focuses on water safety, Cyprus has a clear policy framework to deal with water scarcity and in the Norwegian city of Bergen, wastewater is well managed. As a consequence of this focus on present-day risks, climate adaptation governance also focuses on historical risks. New or exacerbated risks posed by climate change remain largely untreated, and responsibilities for dealing with climate-related risks remain unspecified, as also becomes clear in the German and Spanish cases. A high degree of governmental fragmentation is identified as another point of weakness. Identified most clearly in the Portuguese case but recognizable in all regional contexts, different subdomains of water management are dealt with under separate policies and are governed by different responsible agencies. Consequently, information about current performance of the water system is scattered and coordinative efforts, which are key to developing adaptation strategies, are hampered