Is the participatory formulation of policy strategies worth the effort? The case of climate change adaptation in Austria

Participation is usually regarded as a good practice in environmental policymaking, but its effects on policy strategies are unclear. Based on literature research, surveys, and interviews with participants, the present paper assesses whether decisional participation in formulating Austria’s National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) was worth the effort. Assessed against the goals of the participation process, we find that it raised awareness for adaptation and facilitated an exchange among the participants and that it improved the content of the NAS. However, regarding the goal of enhancing the acceptance of and commitment to the NAS, we find that this has been achieved among those who participated but not among high-level policymakers who are responsible for implementing the NAS. We conclude that (decisional) participation has its benefits in formulating comprehensive policy strategies but that it is most likely not able to overhaul their well-documented weaknesses, among them weak political commitment and implementation failures.

     

Barriers and guidelines for public policies on climate change adaptation: A missed opportunity of scientific knowledge‐brokerage

Progress in formulating and implementing effective adaptation policies is often hampered by a wide variety of barriers that are well documented in the literature. Among the barriers are lack of awareness, certainty, resources and political commitment. Since these and other barriers can be overcome (e.g., by raising awareness, closing knowledge gaps, and increasing resources), numerous decision‐support frameworks (mainly written guidelines) have been developed for this purpose. The present paper takes stock of both the barriers in adaptation policymaking, as documented in the literature, and the guidelines that aim to facilitate public policies on climate change adaptation. It then compares to what degree selected adaptation guidelines serve as knowledge‐brokerage tools that provide guidance on how to overcome the barriers addressed in the scientific literature. The comparison shows that adaptation guidelines address barriers of adaptation policymaking neither comprehensively nor systematically. Since most adaptation guidelines focus on (subjective) experiences with good practices than on empirical research findings, we conclude that they represent a missed opportunity of scientific knowledge‐brokerage in climate change adaptation.     

Climate change adaptation at different levels of government: Characteristics and conditions of policy change

Climate change adaptation strategies that aim to minimize harm and maximize benefits related to climate change impacts have mushroomed at all levels of government in recent years. While many studies have explored barriers that stand in the way of their implementation, the factors determining their potential to mainstream adaptation into various sectors are less clear. In the present paper, we aim to address this gap for two international, six national, and six local adaptation strategies. Based on document analyses and 35 semi‐structured interviews, the 14 case studies also explore in how far the factors facilitating climate change adaptation are similar across levels of government or level‐specific. Although located at three different levels of government, we find that the 14 adaptation strategies analyzed here represent “one‐size‐fits‐all governance arrangements” that are characterized by voluntariness and a lack institutionalization. Since adaptation strategies are relatively weak coordination hubs that are unable to force adaptation onto sectoral policy agendas, they rely mainly on sectoral self‐interest in adapting to climate change, largely determined by problem pressure. We conclude that one‐size‐fits‐all governance arrangements are rarely adequate responses to complex challenges, such as climate change. Although climate change adaptation depends more on framework conditions such as problem pressure than on administrative or governance features, the findings presented here can help to understand under what circumstances adaptation is likely to make progress.     

Assessment practices in the policy and politics cycles: a contribution to reflexive governance for sustainable development?

ABSTRACT

This article examines systematic assessment practices linked to sustainable development policies. We consider five types of assessment—monitoring, policy evaluation, formal audit, peer review, and specialist reporting—and explore their fate in the policy and electoral politics cycles. In contrast to traditional views of the policy cycle, we note that systematic assessments provide complementary feedback around the entire policy cycle. However, despite this omnipresence, their policy relevance is usually severely limited, inter alia because the policy cycle captures only parts of the political reality. A major concern for politicians (but not necessarily for policy or governance scholars) that goes far beyond the formulation and implementation of policies is the broader cycle of electoral politics that determines the state's political personnel as well as government priorities. Here, we highlight that the findings of systematic assessments are often lost in a cacophony of voices to which politicians are more carefully attuned, such as media responses and opinion polls, implying that scientific evidence is simply ‘overwritten’ with other kinds of evidence representing alternative rationalities and priorities. Despite numerous shortcomings, the true value of systematic assessment practices lies in their potential to furnish ammunition to state and non-state actors interested in securing change.     

The EU's double-track pursuit of sustainable development in the 2000s: how Lisbon and sustainable development strategies ran past each other

For almost a decade, the EU has pursued sustainable development not with one but with two overarching strategies: the so-called Lisbon Strategy and sustainable development strategies. While the Lisbon Strategy was a genuinely European policy response to global economic and social pressures, which was superseded by the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy in 2010, sustainable development strategies are ongoing cyclical processes that aim to better coordinate and integrate economic, social and, in particular, environmental policies at both the EU and Member State levels. This paper explores the horizontal governance linkages that existed between the two strategies. It first contrasts the Council rhetoric, emphasizing the complementarity of the two strategies with their different histories and governance arrangements. This paper then shows that the Council rhetoric of complementarity never materialized in the everyday governance routines of the two strategies, and provides three explanations for this finding. Based on these findings, this paper finally provides a brief outlook discussion on how to proceed with the governance of sustainable development in Europe.     

The vertical integration of Lisbon and sustainable development strategies across the EU: How different governance architectures shape the European coherence of policy documents

In Europe, sustainable development (SD) is pursued with not one but two overarching strategies, i.e., the so-called Lisbon and SD strategies. While the Lisbon Strategy is a genuinely European response to global economic and social pressures, SD strategies are national efforts corresponding with international (mainly United Nations) guidance to better coordinate and integrate economic, social and, in particular, environmental policies. The present paper explores the vertical coordination and coherence of the two pan-European strategies. After reviewing the international background of SD strategies and the EU origins of the Lisbon strategy, the paper characterizes and compares the governance architectures of the two strategies. With a solid background on how vertical policy integration functions in the two processes, the paper then shows how this affects the coherence of respective strategy structures and monitoring indicators. Based on an extensive empirical stocktaking study of the objectives and indicators in Lisbon and SD strategies across Europe it is shown that, despite the stronger European coordination through the Open Method of Coordination, the Lisbon process entailed only slightly more coherent national strategies than international guidance did in the context of SD strategies. Thus, the paper concludes that the influence international organizations such as the UN and the OECD have on national policy-making must not be underestimated.     

Climate change mitigation in Austria and Switzerland: The pitfalls of federalism in greening decentralized building policies

The present paper analyses and compares how federalism in Austria and Switzerland affected climate change mitigation in the fully decentralized building sectors of the two countries during the Kyoto Period (1990–2012). This is of interest because the environmental significance of federal political systems is still contested. We first review the literature on federalism in the context of environmental and climate policymaking, and we show that the effects of federal political systems can be positive or negative (depending on interactions between politics and problem characteristics). We then summarize the two qualitative country studies. By analysing who initiated and coordinated respective policies at what time and why, we show that respective policy changes neither emerged bottom-up nor diffused between provinces/cantons, although the latter are fully responsible for building policies. While most policy changes were triggered by federal and/or European Union interventions, the provinces/cantons usually delayed and/or watered down policy changes to smallest common denominator solutions. Based on these findings we conclude that the building sectors of the two countries became more efficient despite, not because of federalism. Against this background we recommend centralizing building policies, or to engage sub-national actors in national target-setting early on.