Mainstreaming of climate change adaptation

The case study is describes the importance of applying mainstreaming of the climate change adaptation into existing municipal policies. It is argued that the main advantages of the mainstreaming approach are “increased coherence among policies, reduced chance of duplication and policies that contradict each other. Mainstreaming approaches are furthermore expected to deal more easily with trade-offs between adaptation and other concerns and take better advantage of synergies” (Rauken, et.al. 2015). The authors operationalize comprehensiveness, aggregation and consistency in order to measure and compare the approach. They argue that municipalities differ along those three aspects (arguments are summarized in the table 1).

In terms of comprehensiveness, the study shows that the level of awareness varies between the municipalities. Climate change adaptation in Skedsmo and Rælingen is considered as less important than other policy goals. However, even if the awareness in the other three communities (Oslo, Bærum and Dramen) was higher; none of them perceived themselves as especially exposed to climate change impacts (all municipalities experienced flooding, but not sea-level rise).

Climate change topics should be included in the General Municipal Plan and in their vulnerability assessment (RVA) in order ensure sectors’ awareness of the climate change impact. RVA applies to all sectors and ensures mainstreaming of climate change adaptation. However those two policy instruments (General Municipal Plan and RVA) are top –down and are mainstreamed by a vertical approach without any horizontal cross-sectorial communication.

Oslo and Drammen went beyond General Municipal Plan and RVA and established a cross-sectorial adaptation group with representatives from all relevant sectors. Authors of the case argue that success of the group depends on group members, their position and how much information they bring back to their department. If a member of the group has a central position in one department it usually has a positive effect on adaptation measures and spreading the message to the rest of the department members.

As a paradox, even if comprehensiveness in Bærum was low the municipality has operative adaptation measures for energy supply and sea-level rise. The use of climate change scenarios has resulted in establishing of safety zones in predicted flood prone areas. The requirement for annual report on adaptation measures is stated in the action plan for 2011-2014. In all municipalities the adaptation awareness was divided among spatial planning and water management. More adaptation measures are taking place in water sector than in the planning sector

Aggregation is achieved as adaptation is assessed from a joint perspective. Examples from the cross-sectorial adaptation group illustrates that the exchange of ideas between sectors has a positive impact. In Oslo the cross-sectorial adaptation group found joint solutions “through a common understanding of problems….the transport sector was…forced to see that excess surface water also pose health problems that had to be dealt with in deciding how to design new runoff infrastructure” (Rauken, ibid.). Similarly, the Water and Sewage Department in Drammen municipality involved other municipal departments in a pilot project on runoff water in a designated development area.
In contrast to Oslo and Drammen, where climate change adaptation had more of a political focus, the lack of cooperation in Bærum that may be explained by a lack of interest from the top level and the absence of the demand from municipal sectors. Thus the horizontal mainstreaming requires support from the top-leaders.

Consistency is achieved when the issue on climate change adaptation is in harmony with other policies when all concerned sectors try to solve the problem together (Underdal 1980).

Almost for all case municipalities but Rælingen there is a conflict between climate change adaptation and population growth. Population growth forces municipalities to build along the shorelines and river banks even it will cause problems according to future climate scenarios. Another issue, is the high cost of adaptation-friendly solutions (ensure proper drainage, raising new buildings to avoid flooded basements). As a result, developers in Bærum protested against costly regulations that make areas less exposed to climate change impacts. However the regulations were implemented. Solving such issues can be achieved through the use of Vulnerability Assessments (RVAs). Such mechanisms ensure that climate change considerations are included in all building projects and guarantees the introduction of policy goals.

The following variables may explain differences in approaches for climate change adaptation among the municipalities:

• Municipality Size. The larger municipalities have more human and financial resources. The more resources allocated to the issue, the more attention and thus a higher score earned on the comprehensive aspects. (See also Dannevig et al 2012)
• Political attention. The aggregation and consistency aspects of mainstreaming are better maintained when adaptation receives political attention. Oslo and Drammen had applied a cross-sectorial approach to ensure climate change adaptation.
• Extreme events. Even if Amundsen et al (2010) indicate that extreme weather events increase climate change awareness, this was not the case in chosen municipalities. Rælingen and Skedsmo experienced severe weather events in the 90s, but they were probably not linked to climate change.

A main challenge for adaptation, then, is that “...the feeling of complacency could affect attention given to adaptation because if it is not seen as a pressing issue different sectors would not bring it up. Thus it affects the comprehensiveness aspect of mainstreaming in that few sectors have it on agenda. And when this is the case adaptation will neither be discussed across sectors (aggregation) nor tested against other policy aims (consistency)” (Rauken, ibid.).