The early experiences of local climate change adaptation in Norwegian compared with that of Local Agenda 21 and climate change mitigation Paper presented at the Resilient Cities 2011-2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change Bonn, 3-5 June 2011 Dr. Carlo Aall (Western Norway Research institute)
Outline of presentation 1. Affiliation and empirical basis 2. What are the major lessons of the Local Agenda 21 (LA21) experience? 3. What are the major lessons of working with local climate change mitigation (CCM)? 4. What are the early experiences of local climate change adaptation (CCA)? 5. What of the LA21 and CCM lessons are applicable to the challenge of local CCA? 6. Concluding remarks
Affiliation and empirical basis Western Norway Research Institute (WNRI) Where I work, located in Sogndal in the western part of Norway The Nordic Centre of Excellence NORD-STAR: Nordic Strategic Adaptation Research Financed by the Nordic ministry Top level research initiative WNRI associated partner Empirical basis for my presentation SUSCOM 1995-2001: A six year involvement in a European 12 country study of LA21 lead by professor William M. Lafferty at ProSus/University of Oslo Local Climate- and Energy Planning 2000-03: A three year project financed by the Norwegian Research Council and the SAMSTEMT research program NORADAPT 2008-11: A four year project financed by the Norwegian Research Council and the NORKLIMA research program, carried out in co-operation with Cicero, the Meteorological institute of Norway and Eastern Norway Research Institute Clim-ATIC 2008-11: A four year project financed by the Northern periphery program, carried out in co-operation with a large number of partners in Finland, Sweden, Scotland, Norway and Greenland
What were the major lessons of the Local Agenda 21 (LA21) experience? Policy process Globally, LA21 appears to have been the most successful follow-up of all of the chapters in Agenda 21, at least measured in the volume of activity Much stakeholder involvement, to a lesser degree getting into grip with serious politics Lack of vertical policy integration: The lack of substantive success (in the sense of seriously contributing in creating more sustainability) in most countries is governed by the lack of serious support from any national initiative (NA21) Policy content Mostly soft, to a lesser degree hard policy measures A split policy focus: Local (the small 3b in Norwegian: bushes, benches and waste ) and global (the big 3B in Norwegian: housing, food and transportation ). Most frequently the 3b perspective is applied. The few front runner municipalities focusing on 3B are also running in front also of national governments; and as an unintended side-effect thus serving as a lighthouse to distract attention from a passive national policy (Lafferty, 2001; Aall et al, 2002; Lafferty et al, 2006)
What are the major lessons of working with local climate change mitigation (CCM)? Policy process No formal global policy input specifically requesting for local CCM, even though ICLEI and others have requested for local authorities to be included in the global climate policy negotiations and global networks on local CCM have existed for more than 20 years In Norway: Less focus on stakeholder involvement, to a larger degree an in-house planning exercise but still with limited access with serious politics In Norway: Some signs of vertical policy integration: A soft-policy approach (e.g. requesting and economically and in other ways supporting local CCM planning processes) but local governments not included (so far) in economic measures (e.g. Emission Trading Systems) and still unclear how much is expected of local authorities Policy content In Norway: More focus on hard policy measures than was the case for LA21 In Norway: A split policy focus: Reducing production versus consumption related emissions. The latter is banned in national CCM policies, but is picked up by some local and regional authorities (e.g. Stavanger and the county of Sogn og Fjordane). Also in the case of CCM we find examples of front runner municipalities running in front also of national governments (e.g. Stavanger and Fredrikstad) (Aall et al, 2007; Aall and Husabø, 2010)
Hindrances for local climate change mitigation policy-making (case of Norway) Number of statements on what is believed to be the most important hindrances in working with sustainable development and climate policy at the local level of Number of informants stating the three most important hindrances government (258 answers from informants in each of the 97 municipalities taking part in a in working with environmental policy survey among two local sustainability networks in Norway in 2008) Lack of administrative capacity Lack of administrative competence Lack of tools and methods Lack of financial resources Other reasons Lack of data Lack of network with other municipalities Lack of interest among local politicians Lack of external consultants to hire Insufficient cooperation between administration and local politicians Lack of competence among local politicians Lack of interest in local community - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 (Aall et al. 2009)
What are the early experiences of local climate change adaptation (CCA): policy process? Policy agenda-setting A total lack of global policy input, no global networks on local CCA A lack of strong support from environmental NGOs (at least in Norway) CCA late on the Norwegian national policy agenda (Green Paper on CCA published in autumn 2010). The civil protection community the main driver (Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning as a key actor). CCA somewhat earlier on the Norwegian local policy agenda (first front runner municipality was Flora in 2006). The research in combination with climate policy and land-use planning community at the local level the main drivers. Policy integration of CCA Implementation of both soft (e.g. national web-portal) and hard (e.g. as from 2010 it has become mandatory to make climate risk assessments as part of local land-use planning) measures. Measures on vertical (between national and local levels of government) is more pronounced than horizontal (between sectors) policy integration Lack of administrative capacity (to some extent, also lack of competence) viewed by the local authorities as the main hindrance for engaging more actively in CCA (Aall, 2011)
Hindrances for local climate change adaptation policy-making (case of Norway) Is your municipality concerned about the possible negative effects of climate change? Has your municipality attempted to assess the possible local impacts of climate change? Has your municipality implemented any measures in order to adapt to climate change? Do you think that your municipality has sufficient institutional capacity to handle the possible challenges related to climate change? - 1,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 Not at all To a little extent To some extent To a large extent Questionnaire sent to all Norwegian municipalities. Response rate: 72 %. 14 questions translated into the four indices in the figure above (Aall et al, 2009; DSB, 2007)
What are the early experiences of local climate change adaptation: policy content? A split focus in ongoing the initial analytical stages of local CCA policy making Assessing climate change vulnerability as (1) a partial effect of climate changes, or (2) as a sum-effect of changes in both climate and society? Addressing (1) only the vulnerabilities caused by changes in local climate conditions, or also (2) local effects of global climatic changes (e.g. changes in global food security)? The stages of action planning and implementation are still to come The question of cost allocation vertically (between national and local government) as well as horizontally (between sectors and between the private and public sector) is not addressed so far Existing knowledge that can be derived from downscaling climate scenarios (e.g. expected increase in precipitation) is still not incorporate in existing national guidance relevant in relation to natural hazards (e.g. national flood risk maps) Also in the case of CCA we find examples of front runner municipalities running in front also of national government (e.g. Flora and Fredrikstad) (Aall, 2011)
Eight success factors of LA21 and local CCM: also valid for local CCA? 1. Outside-in soft policy support No formal global policy support for local CCA similar to LA21, until recently no supportive global local government networks on CCA similar to that of CCM, and only reluctant support on CCA from environmental NGOs (at least in Norway) 2. Outside-in hard policy support Government support is crucial for achieving results locally in the controversial parts of environmental policy. Whereas government support have been rather weak for the case of LA21 and CCM, there are signs of stronger support on local CCA (at least in Norway) 3. Build local partnerships LA21 was much about public participation and stakeholder involvement. So far is local CCA mainly an in-house planning exercise (at least in Norway) 4. Seek for multiple benefits LA21 and local CCM often benefits from multiple benefits (e.g. LA21: improving livelihood conditions and CCM: reducing local air quality. What are the potential multiple benefits for CCA? (Lafferty, 2010; Aall, 2011)
Hindrances of LA21 and local CCM: also valid for local CCA? (cont.) 6. Sufficient local institutional capacity Deregulation and downsizing of public government can seriously hamper the core activities in LA21, CCM and CCA - namely that of strategic planning and community development and reduce such activities to in-house processes ( green offices etc) 7. Balancing between picking the low- and high-hanging fruits Trying locally to pick also the high-hanging fruits (global instead of local environmental problems, consumption instead of production related GHG emissions) often don t deliver concrete policy outcome, but triggers important political debates. For CCA a similar split is between the local effects of local climate change versus local effects of the sum of global climate change. 8. Utilizing the positive role of front-runner municipalities LA21 and CCM have numerous examples of front-runner municipalities serving as a guiding star for other municipalities. However, there are also examples of such municipalities serving as a lighthouse in distracting attention from a passive national policy. What will be the case for CCA is still to be seen. (Lafferty, 2010; Aall, 2011)
Concluding remarks How closely related are LA21, CCM and CCM? LA21 and CCM: transforming societies in order to reduce the pressure on nature and improving global justive CCM: protecting societies from negative effects of changes in nature Is it probable that policies developed in order to protect societies in rich countries like Norway from the possible negative effects of climate change will be in line with the transformative ambitions of policies aimed at promoting global justice and reducing GHG emissions in the range of 50-80 % in rich countries?
Concluding remarks (cont.) If we apply a one-sided climate change vulnerability analysis, focusing only on the possible partial effect of climate change, we may: miss information of new vulnerabilities created by changes in society, and thus; distract us from applying also a cause-oriented CCA policy in addition to the regular effect-oriented policy If we apply only a local perspective on climate change vulnerability analysis, forgetting the possible local effects of climate change taking place elsewhere, we may: miss the the global problems of climate change, and thus; run the risk of creating a serious mismatch between local and global assessments of climate change vulnerabilities, which in turn can create a political back-fire ( why all the fuzz. ) (Aall, 2011)
References Lafferty, W.M. (ed) (2001): Sustainable Communities in Europe, London: Earthscan Publications Aall, C., Høyer, KG., Lafferty, W. (2002) (red.): Fra miljøvern til bærekraftig utvikling i kommunene. Erfaringer med Lokal Agenda 21. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Lafferty, W.M., Aall, C., Lindseth, G., Norland, I.T. (red) (2006): Lokal Agenda 21 I Norge: Så mye hadde vi så mye ga vi bort så mye har vi igjen. Oslo: unipub Aall, C., Groven, K., Lindseth, G. (2007): The scope of action for local climate policy: the case of Norway. Global Environmental Politics, Volume 7, Number 2: 83-102 DSB (2007). Klimatilpasning 2007. Klimatilpasning i kommuner, fylkeskommuner og blant fylkesmenn. Rapport. Tønsberg Direktoratet for samfunnssikkerhet og beredskap. http://www.dsb.no/global/publikasjoner/2008/rapport/klimatilpasning2007.pdf Aall, C., Halvorsen, L.J., Heiberg, E., Tønnesen, A. (2009): Følgeevaluering av Livskraftige kommuner og Grønne energikommuner. Sluttrapport. VF-report 7-2009. Sogndal: Vestlandsforsking. http:///filearchive/rapport7-09- sluttrapport-gronne-energikommuner.pdf Aall, C, Husabø, I.A. (2010): Is Eco-Efficiency a Sufficient Strategy for Achieving a Sustainable Development? The Norwegian Case, Sustainability 2010, 2, 3623-3638 http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/12/3623/pdf Lafferty, W.M. (2010): The positive and negative lessons learned from Local Agenda 21. What are the challenges for local climate adaptation? Keynote address at the Clim-ATIC International Project Conference, Florø, Norway 26-28 October 2010 http://www.clim-atic.org/documents/final%20conference/presentations/climaatic_lafferty_2610_rev1.pdf Aall, C. (2011): The early-stage experiences of local climate change adaptation in Norway: Comparisons with previous experiences of MIK and LA21. [Manuscript in progress chapter in forthcoming book on Democracy, governance and sustainable development: Moving beyond the impasse, Meadowcroft, Langhelle and Ruud (eds), Edward Elgar 2011]
Thank you for your attention! Carlo Aall Western Norway Research Institute + 47 991 27 222 caa@vestforsk.no