Building institutional capacity for climate adaptation?: The case of beach erosion in Sweden
2009 (English)In: Paper presented at the GECHS synthesis conference "Human Security in the Era of Global Change", session "Sustainable adatation: from theory to practice", Oslo 22-24th of June 2009., 2009, 1-20 p.Conference paper (Other academic)
Managing the effects of climate change calls for increased knowledge of how, when, why and under what conditions climate adaptation occurs as well as what influence the success or failure of different adaptation strategies. Working with climate adaptation at the local level raise questions of how to increase adaptive capacity for integrating climate considerations in policy-making, planning and decision-making. The aim of this paper is to analyse critical factors that from an institutional perspective condition the capacity to adapt to both current and future risks of erosion in a Swedish municipality with the assumed name of Coastby. The institutional framework of the paper focus on formal and informal "rules in use" that structure interaction and working practices. Following previous studies, we look at to what extent individual and organisational performance, the broader institutional context in the form of networking capacity, the regulatory framework as well as social norms, values and practices enable institutional capacity-building. Conclusions drawn from the analysis point to certain additions and adjustments of the enabling factors previously identified in research. The municipality of Coastby has taken a proactive approach to erosion-management where the a selective few key actors have played a critical role building a strong networking capacity in connection with other exposed municipalities and within the framework of EU-projects. While key actors undoubtedly are important for driving change too much emphasis on strong singular actors in the local administration also has a flip-side in terms of a weak coordinating capacity between different sectoral units where mutual ownership and the needed dialogue between risk-management, planning and environment is missing today. To what extent the recent shift in rules of integrated coastal zone management "on paper" also have a bearing on internal working practices and rules in use remains to be seen. We also identify a weak vertical administrative interplay and lack of formal coherent policy, procedures and regulations for managing our eroding land between local, regional and national administrations. Further tensions and trade-offs between policy-agendas, vales and political priorities today pose a barrier for capacity-building and calls for processes to mediate conflicting priorities in policy-making, planning and decision-making. That such tensions and trade-offs may severely restrict institutional capacity-building needs to be more clearly acknowledged in analytical frameworks for institutional capacity.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. 1-20 p.
institutional capacity, climate adaptation, erosion-management, barriers, actors, priorities
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-19350OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-19350DiVA: diva2:224527