Opportunities and challenges to coordination

While the horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms have been found to be important in adaptation context, there are still challenges posed by them for implementation of an effective integrated climate change adaptation policy (Christensen & Lægreid, 2019; Sanderson et al., 2018). There are factors such as knowledge and information exchange, coordination of stakeholders, assignment of responsibilities, general transparency and institutional factors (e.g.

legal frameworks) that can both support and present challenges to coordination (Christensen &

Lægreid, 2019; Sanderson et al., 2018; EEA, 2014). In Europe, for instance, these factors have been identified to, when in place, contribute to successful coordination but when missing, make coordination more challenging (EEA, 2014). Table 1 presents an overview of some of these coordination factors and related challenges and opportunities.

Table 1. Examples of challenges and opportunities for coordination (adapted from EEA, 2014, p. 63).

Coordination factors Challenges for coordination Opportunities for coordination

Knowledge and information

Coordination of stakeholders Limited resources and involvement of relevant stakeholders

As horizontal and vertical coordination are important in systems with multilevel governance, the need for both mechanisms increase when countries advance to implementation and evaluation stages of the adaptation policy process (Bauer & Steurer, 2014; Sanderson et al., 2018; EEA, 2014). According to EEA (2014), when it comes to all stages of the adaptation policy process, horizontal coordination mechanisms were generally assessed to be more effective than vertical coordination mechanisms. However, as working groups or task forces are established most commonly to answer the coordination issues, the temporary nature of them may present challenges for cumulative learning, whereas councils or advisory panels can provide more permanent mechanisms that can support both horizontal and vertical coordination.

Difficulties experienced in vertical coordination might be because many areas of administration see that vertical coordination to the regional or municipal level is more challenging than horizontal coordination due to structural and cultural factors. Such factors are e.g. the local nature of practical adaptation actions and the relative autonomy of regional and local decision-making when it comes to the implementation of policies (Christensen & Lægreid, 2019).

Moreover, there might be difficulties in getting sufficiently detailed cross-sectoral information on vertical coordination in adaptation as vertical coordination is generally a task of each sector of administration (Christensen & Lægreid, 2019; Sanderson et al., 2018). According to EEA (2014), when it comes to adaptation actions, rather than establishing new mechanisms for adaptation alone, vertical coordination of adaptation can also be mainstreamed into general administrative coordination mechanisms without the need for new permanent mechanisms.

The governance of adaptation takes place through both formal and informal institutions and networks of actors at different levels (Sanderson et al., 2018). Such networks provide opportunities for actors at subnational levels to engage in planned adaptation, but any lack of coordination at the national level may be an impediment for involvement (Juhola & Westerhoff, 2011). However, adaptation governance mechanisms have been found to depend not only on political systems but also on other variables such as financial and economic circumstances, cultural values and societal expectations (EEA, 2014; Sanderson et al., 2018). For the same reason, it is difficult to make any definitive claims concerning the differences in approaches to horizontal and vertical coordination. Whatever the approach, unclear responsibilities, conflicting values and interests, legal issues (e.g. conflicting legislations), limited cooperation among stakeholders and lack of knowledge exchange can become obstacles to effective coordination.

These challenges are likely to be reflected in incoherent policies for adaptation (Sanderson et al., 2018; EEA, 2014).

Addressing the challenges of coordination should be a top priority, although solutions to them are likely to depend on the particular societal context, including general governance structures (Christensen & Lægreid, 2019; Sanderson et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is considerable diversity in the ways coordination has been developed and implemented, for example, in European countries (EEA, 2014; EEA, 2015). This diversity in the coordination mechanisms and sharing of lessons learnt are likely to benefit the development of effective coordination for adaptation. Putting more emphasis on this in adaptation policies could contribute to the potential for learning and exchanging experiences that have strengthened coordination as also called for by the EU Adaptation Strategy (European Commission, 2013; EEA, 2014).

5 Results

Here, the results of the analysis of this study are presented. This chapter is divided into three main sections. Section 5.1 concentrates on climate risk awareness in general in the sectors.

Section 5.2 concentrates on the identified direct risks to biodiversity following a section on indirect risks and impact chains related to biodiversity ending with a separate section on overall awareness of actors on biodiversity related risks. Section 5.3 analyses the coordination aspects concerning biodiversity across scales and sectors. The sections in this chapter are divided into different subsections relating to the themes relevant to this study. After each section, the key points are summarised.

The quotes in this chapter are from the focus-group interviews with administrations and the answers stem from the set of questions described in Annex 1. The quotes are translated from Finnish to English and the original quotes are seen in Annex 3. There are no quotes from the stakeholder workshops because unlike the administration interviews, the workshops were not transcribed and the analysis is based on extensive notes as described in section 3.3. The stakeholder views stem from the discussions based on regional themes and questions in workshops seen in Annex 2. Furthermore, even though the stakeholder workshops were regional, the data from them is handled here as representing views from stakeholders on a national level, although regional differences are emphasised if found relevant.