Denna   rapport   redovisar   delar   av   resultat   och   analyser   från   Mistra-SWECIAs   arbete   i Stockholmsområdet.   Vår   förhoppning   är   att   den   är   av   intresse   för   de   som   arbetar   med anpassningsfrågor inför klimatförändringar på olika sätt i regionen och i andra delar av Sverige.

SWECIA står för Swedish Research Programme on Climate, Impacts and Adaptation och finansieras av Stiftelsen  för  miljöstrategisk  forskning,  Mistra.  Forskningsprogrammet  studerar  klimat,  ekonomi, effekter och anpassning med gemensamma socio-ekonomiska förutsättningar, och med hänsyn till kopplingarna   som   finns   mellan   dessa   forskningsområden.   Forskarna   arbetar   vid   Stockholm Environment Institute  (SEI),  Linköpings  universitet, Lunds  universitet,  Stockholms  universitet  och SMHI.  I  Mistra-SWECIA  är  kommunikationen  mellan  forskare  och  avnämare  central  då  dialogen hjälper till att planera forskningen och bidrar dessutom till effektiv omsättning av resultaten. Första programfasen är fyra år (2008–2011). Denna rapport är en första sammanställning av delresultat från den fallstudie som påbörjades i Stockholms län 2008.

Inledningsvis   diskuteras   delar   av   den   deltagandestudie   som   genomfördes   med   aktörer   i Stockholmsregionen under hösten 2008. Vi redogör översiktligt för hur deltagandeforskningen har genomförts och varför vi valt detta sätt att bedriva forskning; på vilket sätt socialt lärande bidrar till anpassningsarbetet;     vilka     intressenter     som     är     engagerade     direkt     eller     indirekt     i klimatanpassningsarbetet, och vilka faktorer vi har uppfattat som kritiska och viktiga för anpassning,. Rapporten  avslutas  med  att  presentera  resultat  från  Mistra-SWECIAs  forskning  inom  Lunds universitet  och  SMHI  angående  framtida  flöden  och  vattennivåer  i  Mälaren,  samt  beräknade klimatscenarier för Stockholmsregionen. Dessa har ockå använts som underlag för studien.

Författarna är mycket tacksamma för deltagarnas kommentarer och engagemang i studien men eventuella felaktigheter eller missuppfattningar är helt och hållet författarnas egna. Delar av resultat som presenteras i denna rapport återfinns även i andra kommande publikationer som t ex Simonsson m fl. (kommande); André & Simonsson (2009); Simonsson & André (2009), och Nilsson & Gerger Swartling (2009).

Information   om   resultat   och   aktiviteter   inom   Mistra-SWECIA   presenteras   fortlöpande   på www.mistra–swecia.se.

To improve decisions and awareness considering climate change it is argued that stakeholder interaction and dialogue is essential. Engaging stakeholders in research on adaptation thus requires analysis of stakeholder landscape and identification of relevant actors at different levels in society. The term 'stakeholder' is broad and researchers and practitioners might have both interrelated and contrasting views on who is at stake, the need for adaptation and climate risks.

The aim of this paper is to analyse the stakeholder landscape in a Swedish region, as part of increasing the understanding of the adaptation process. The stakeholder analysis has been initiated by the research teams through stakeholder mapping and complemented by local and regional actors' notions of who is, or should be, involved and active stakeholders in adaptation to climate change. The results indicate the importance of careful stakeholder analysis for sustainable adaptation. The actors' expert knowledge of the regions deepens the picture, show important links and gaps between different actors and illuminate unclear relationships and responsibilities as well as identify those actors who have important roles to play.

Civil society involvement has grown to become an integral part of the UN negotiatingprocess. The side events at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are today the most visible componentof and the only formal avenue of civil society involvement in international climate negotiations. This study assesses the extent to which side events effectively: a) provide input to the negotiations and b) contribute to the construction of the climate regime. Through surveying organisers of and participants in side events as well as COP delegates, we have analysed i) who attends side events, ii) why they attend them, iii) why organisations arrange side events, and iv) the outcome of side events.

We distributed a questionnaire to all organisers of side events at COP 13 and the participants in twenty of the 200 side events held in Bali in November 2007. In addition, we also surveyed a strategic sample of the 10,800 participants at COP 13, receiving a total of nearly 1,100 responses.

This report concludes that the side events fulfil the broader official objective of benefitingCOP participants, as these events are rated of high value across all participant groups and geographical categories. Negotiators were by far the most important target audience of all categories of side events, followed by representatives of UN organisations and researchers. Organisers considered the G77 plus China to be the most important Party groupings to reachin all categories of side events.

The average number of side event participants was 82. The attendance at mitigation side events was 42% higher than at adaptation events. However, more negotiators and governmentrepresentatives attended adaptation side events, whereas there was very little media andbusiness and even less NGO and researcher presence at adaptation compared with mitigationevents. If we up-scale the results of this survey, approximately 1,400 of the 3,500 Party participants attended side events.

The study indicates high side event participation from countries with large economies,countries near the COP venue, and the host country. Three of eight side event participants were NGO representatives. About one quarter of the participantsconsisted of negotiators or government representatives. Each side event was attended by anaverage of seven negotiators, 14 government representatives, eight business representatives, seven UN/IGO representatives, and three media representatives. Business representatives.

Denna rapport ingår i forskningsprojektet Kartläggning av risker, sårbarhet och anpassning inför klimatvariationer och klimatförändringar i Östergötland, vilket finansieras av Centrum för kommunstrategiska studier (CKS) och utförs av forskare verksamma vid Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning (CSPR). Projektet syftar till att bidra till en ökad förståelse för kommuners sårbarhet och förutsättningar för att öka sin robusthet inför klimatförändringar och klimatrelaterade risker. Projektet pågår från augusti 2008 till augusti 2011 och studerar huvudsakligen tre övergripande problemställningar:

1. Varför, när och hur är lokalsamhället sårbart? Vi identifierar kritiska faktorer, som enskilt eller i kombination, bidrar till sårbarhet – både samhälleliga och biogeofysiska aspekter.
2. Hur gör man för att bedöma en kommuns sårbarhet? Vi testar metoder/övningar för mer integrerade sårbarhetsbedömningar på lokal nivå. Vi diskuterar bland annat: krav på information och kunskap, resurser, uppdateringar, analyskapacitet, tillämpbarhet och implementering i existerande organisationer och förvaltningar.
3. Hur kan man minska en kommuns sårbarhet? Vi analyserar vilka möjligheter, hinder och begränsningar för anpassning inför klimatförändringar som uppfattas inom kommunala förvaltningar för såväl beslutsfattare som tjänstemän.

Denna rapport utgör steg 1 i projektet och består av en kartläggning av läget i samtliga kommuner i Östergötland. Syftet är att ge en bild av hur östgötakommunerna ser på risker och sårbarhet inför samtida klimatvariationer och kommande klimatförändringar, pågående arbete (kartläggningar, policy, strategier, åtgärder, etc.) kopplat till risker, sårbarhet och anpassning samt frågor kring organisation, samverkan, roll- och ansvarsfördelning. Utifrån kartläggningens resultat kommer ett mindre antal fördjupningar att genomföras under 2010.

Kartläggningen (kapitel 6) har genomförts och sammanställts av Madelaine Johansson. Mattias Hjerpe har varit huvudförfattare för kapitel 2 och 5, Louise Simonsson för kapitel 3 och Sofie Storbjörk för kapitel 4. Kapitel 8 har skrivits gemensamt av Hjerpe, Simonsson och Storbjörk. Arbetet har koordinerats av Sofie Storbjörk.

Författarna riktar ett varmt tack till alla kommunrepresentanter som så generöst delade med sig av sin arbetstid, sina reflektioner och erfarenheter, CKS för finansiering av projektet, Eva Lindblad för layout och granskning och Tora Friberg för granskning.

Within the scope of this project, tools for conducting systematic and integrated climate vulnerability and sustainability assessments have been developed. Two municipalities in the lower Göta Älv catchment were selected as study cases. Together with representatives from key municipal departments and national government agencies, the interdisciplinary research team designed and conducted a co-production process. Results obtained using the developed tools demonstrate that conducting such a systematic assessment of the current situation and potential impacts of climate change adaptation measures would contribute to synergies between adaptation strategies and other policy arenas. Our recommendation for enhancing the capacity of local vulnerability management in Sweden is to shift foci in four fields: from static analysis of climate vulnerability to a dynamic approach to social vulnerability, from a sectorwise fragmented approach to integrated management, from a focus on technical fixes and physical measures to institutional adaptation measures, and, finally, from sustainability-blind adaptation investments to long-term sustainable climate adaptation measures. The processes and mechanisms for succeeding in this requires that knowledge be produced, shared, and managed in partly new ways, allowing stakeholders both inside and outside local government administration to voice and synergise their concerns and solutions.

n/a

Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras in October 1998 with disastrous results. Lack of accessto adequate land, credit or technical assistance had forced subsistence farmers and semi-urbanpopulations into high-risk marginal areas. Deforestation and inappropriate farming practicesexacerbated their vulnerability. The losses experienced by the country ranged from lost lives,to lost livelihoods, to destroyed infrastructure.

Our goal in this study was to identify those factors in Honduran society that needed to bechanged in order to reduce future vulnerability to natural hazards. During natural disasters,different groups experience distinct, widely ranging levels of harm, from minor economicdamage to widespread mortality. Disasters occur through the interaction between naturalevents and vulnerable social and ecological systems. Most vulnerability research suggeststhat we should stop dealing with disasters as if the natural hazard itself is the principal cause.Instead, the underlying root causes and dynamic influences on vulnerability need to beaddressed. For these reasons, we focused on the institutional (formal and informal) factorsaffecting vulnerability to natural hazards. In this context, we interpret institutions to be therules that shape the behaviour of organisations and individuals in a society. This approach hasallowed us to reach many insights regarding ways in which Honduras can reduce vulnerabilityby reforming cross-level institutional processes contributing to differential vulnerability tonatural hazards.

The focus of our study was on the social vulnerability to Hurricane Mitch experienced bythree rural case study areas in Honduras. Our aim was to: 1. identify key factors contributingto and affecting this social vulnerability to Mitch; and 2. capture and evaluate the importanceof identified informal and formal key institutions and cross-level linkages influencing thosefactors. Methods included a literature review, close to 110 interviews within the localcommunities, focus groups, about 50 meetings and interviews at municipal and national levelsas well as representatives of international organisations, and non-governmental organisations,and two workshops with a total of about 40 representatives of varying organisations involvedin disaster management at different levels. We used a vulnerability framework that has beendeveloped in previous research at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Clark Universityin the U.S., highlighting the socioeconomic and environmental/ecological conditions, tostructure the analysis and assess the influences of the identified institutions and cross-levelinteractions on vulnerability to natural hazards.

“National adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) provide a process for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to identify priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change - those for which further delay would increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage. “

This is the reasoning behind UNFCCC’s development of the NAPAs as one means of responding to climate changes in the LDCs. However how will this work in practice?

The goals and objectives of the NAPAs are:                  

• to lay out a plan of action about how to build capacity to adapt to climate change and how to enhance coping strategies to adverse impacts of climate and climate change
• it is not an obligation –it is an opportunity for those that have urgent needs
• to including major stakeholder groups, and to be coupled to national development plans and activities
• NAPA is a bottoms-up approach, designed to build enable communities of stakeholders in countries to have an active role in enhancing their adaptive capacity
• An important characteristic of NAPAs is the emphasis on rural communities, and the use of traditional knowledge about coping strategies, and the need for the process to be bottoms-up so it can capture most important vulnerabilities of stakeholders
  • The NAPA would thus be a concise document that would communicate those urgent needs that a country may have, and a ranked list of actions to address these needs, including project briefs.
  • While the process will be comprehensive to arrive at the NAPA, the final product should be a concise and well justified list of actions and projects to address priority vulnerabilities for the country, or at least to build the capacity to address those vulnerabilities

This study examines how NAPAs are implemented in LDCs and whose vulnerability they aim at reducing. In short – Does NAPAs reduce vulnerability and for whom? In the discussion of adaptation Eriksen and O’Brien (2007)[1] argue that in order to reduce vulnerability to climate changes through poverty reduction measures and adaptation polices they should: (i) reduce risks (also the biogeophysical) that are linked to climate changes so that people can secure their livelihoods and well-being; (ii) increase the adaptive capacity among the poor;, and (iii) limit the processes that drives and creates vulnerability and that also complicates and hinder sustainable development. Policies and adaptation measures should thus focus on the areas where poverty and vulnerability to climate change overlaps to create ‘Sustainable adaptation’.

Cambodia has come quite far in their NAPA process, it is a country that still is recovering from genocide, war and violent conflicts, natural hazards has turned into disasters, a great share of the population suffers from poverty and corruption is a major obstacle to many development goals. The study build on analysis of official documents and interviews with those who are responsible and involved in the NAPA process, ranging from the Ministries, donors and UN organizations, as well as with those who are to implement the projects, mainly NGOs, once approved.

The objective of this study is to further understand who will benefit from adaptation projects and how ‘sustainable’ is it? Do adaptation projects strengthen existing coping and adaptation strategies? Is there capacity and capability to implement NAPA projects in LDCs? One of the preliminary conclusion is that NAPAs might delay some urgent actions and several of the obstacles to adaptation present in developing countries might be barriers in LDC, in particular today’s capacity and capability to meet knowledge requirements and cross-sectoral issues. Also, in poor regions where food security and energy demands and vulnerabilities are critical a regional approach could be a more effective and sustainable way forward, rather than a national.

[1]

Eriksen, SH. and O’Brien, K. 2007. Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation measures. Climate Policy 7(4): 37-352.

n/a

The scope of climate change research has grown immensely over the last decade. Beyond the extensive efforts to map and understand how the various components of the climate system interact and respond to human forcing, academics from a range of fields are today deeply involved in the social and political struggle to develop effective and legitimate climate change policies. While initially focused on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, we have in recent years seen a growing academic interestin local, national, regional and trans-national climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.In a time when decision makers have linked such efforts to other policy areas such as energy security, finance, land use, and social development, new academic fields have also become involved in the study of climate change. Hence, climate change research is increasingly conducted at the interface between the natural and social sciences, engineering and the humanities. This development spurs self-reflection in the research community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the mandate to assess the latest research for decision-makers, is currently working and deliberating on how to design the nextround of assessment in the light of a widen agenda of climate change policy. It is at this dynamic interface that we find the expanding field of climate science and policy research.

Climate science and policy research is by no means a stable academic field. Rather, it is byvirtue a broad, diverse and hybrid enquiry that includes a range of epistemological, theoretical and methodological orientations. While much of the research under this umbrella has developed in parallel to (and often in direct response to) climate change policy, the field also includes a wide set of scholarly efforts to challenge and problematise the ideas and discourses underpinning such policies. This scholarly diversity may question climate science and policyresearch as a meaningful academic label. And indeed, as indicated by the various contributions to this report, the interpretations of what this field is all about vary considerably. However, despite this variety, we argue that the different academic contributions to this field converge around the quest to interpret, understand, problematise and, at times, solve the challenges facing society under a changing climate. Some of this scholarly work has, directly or indirectly, sought to inform climate change policy. In other cases climate change has emerged as a vantage point for advancing the academic understanding of how links between nature and society, science and policy, development and environment, North and South are constituted and sustained.

In this report we draw attention to a set of conceptual and methodological challenges that wethink arise from this broad scholarly enquiry. In the first chapter, Simonsson examines the importance of scale in climate change research. In order to effectively inform policy, she suggests that the academic study of climate change needs to adjust to the geographies ofclimate change policy-making. However, since science may not be able to deliver climate information at the spatial resolution asked by decision-makers, Simonsson also calls for greater scholarly awareness of the scalar challenges in climate science for policy. In the second chapter, Ostwald and Kuchler trace the conceptual genealogy of climate science and policy research. Starting in the historic development of the climate sciences, they end up in amuch more complex and inter-disciplinary research landscape. Ostwald and Kuchler ask how researchers in the field of climate science and policy research can relate to this complexity.

In the third chapter, Glaas, Friman, Wilks and Hjerpe situate climate science and policy research in the scholarly debate on Mode 1 and Mode 2 science. Following a long-standing debate on the role of science in climate policy making, they ask whether this field of enquirygains its legitimacy from autonomous basic research produced in sites distinctly demarcatedfrom the world of policy (Mode 1), or from knowledge produced in the context of application (Mode 2). While it may be  challenging for scholars of climate science and policy to engage inboth modes of knowledge production at the same time, the authors point at examples where the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 breaks down into a new research domain whichthey label as Mode 1.5. A similar discussion is raised by Hansson and Wibeck in chapter four.While climate science and policy research can be interpreted as an academic field in its own right, its close links to action can also result in a difficult balancing act for researchers. Drawing upon examples from public acceptance studies, Hansson and Wibeck highlight problems that arise when climate researchers advance a normative agenda and hereby influence the people they study. Finally, in chapter five, Jonsson, Lövbrand and Andersson offer examples of research produced in direct collaboration with affected stakeholders. While such participatory research. often is said to increase the legitimacy and problem-solving capacity of climate science and policy research, the authors discuss how and when thatpromise holds true.

The conceptual and methodological challenges discussed in this report are the result of a seminar series held at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR) at Linköping University from autumn 2007 to spring 2008. As such the chapters reflect an ongoing debate and internal self-reflection at a centre that still is young and under development. Since its establishment in 2004, the CSPR has grown steadily and today functions as an interdisciplinary platform for more than 20 senior and junior researchers active in the field of climate science and policy research. In this report we do not set out to give a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing researchers at the CSPR, nor scholars inthe broader field of climate science and policy research. Neither is it a statement of whatCSPR is, but rather a bouquet of thoughts around our own research. By sharing our reflections with a broader scholarship, we do, however, hope that this report will contribute to theongoing debate on the scope, direction and function of this expanding and dynamic academic field.

Burkina Faso is the 24th most vulnerable nation out of the 141 countries ranked1 by the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force et al. (2002). This means the country is vulnerable to stresses, which could be disastrous at both household and national level if preventive action is not taken (see Box 1 for definitions). It is therefore important to look more closely at what the threats are, how people are sensitive to these threats, and how they deal with them. We also need to consider geographical and social variations to understand who is most vulnerable. That is the purpose of this study, conducted as a part of Sida’s country strategy planning process in Burkina Faso. The aim is to help target support to increase people’s resilience to stresses, thus decreasing the number of people who are, and who are at risk of becoming, poor. A vulnerability assessment, therefore, is an important cornerstone for development assistance and policy formulations for sustainable development. Many of the issues discussed here relate to the process of achieving the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals.

Mali is the 19th most vulnerable of the 141 countries ranked1 by the Global Leaders for TomorrowEnvironment Task Force (2002). This means the country is vulnerable to stresses which, ifnot addressed, could be disastrous at both the household and national level. Vulnerability isa reflection of human capacity to cope with risks or shocks (see Box 1). Those who are leastvulnerable cope the best and enjoy security, while the opposite applies to those households,communities and broader populations who are most vulnerable and who stand to lose the mostfrom the effects of environmental change (UNEP, 2002). In participatory poverty assessments,the poor regularly identify vulnerability as a crucial dimension of poverty (Kanbur & Squire,1999). In this study, part of Sida’s country strategy planning process in Mali, I discuss thetypes of threats present in Mali, why people are sensitive to those threats and how they dealwith them. I also look at how variations within society and geographical location shapevulnerability.

A more thorough understanding of vulnerability may help support to be targeted so as toincrease people’s resilience to stresses, thus decreasing the number of people who are, and whoare at risk of becoming, poor. A vulnerability assessment is therefore an important elementof development assistance and policy formulations for sustainable development. Many ofthe issues discussed here relate to the process of achieving the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme’s Millennium Goals.

It is now widely accepted that adaptation will be necessary if we are to manage the risks posed by climate change. What we know about adaptation, however, is limited. While there is a well established body of scholarship proposing assessment approaches and explaining concepts, few studies have examined if and how adaptation is taking place at a national or regional level. This deficit in understanding is particularly pronounced in developed nations which have typically been assumed to have a low vulnerability to climate change. Yet as recent research highlights, this assumption is misplaced: developed nations are experiencing the most pronounced changes in climatic conditions globally and have significant pockets of vulnerability. Chapters in this book profile cases from different sectors in developed nations where specific adaptation measures have been identified, implemented, and evaluated. The contributions provide practical advice and guidance that can help guide adaptation planning in multiple contexts, identifying transferable lessons. It is a comprehensive and timely piece of work on an emerging body of literature that is critical for both academics and policy makers to be aware of and learn from in regards to the importance of adaptation and adaptation needs associated with climate change and variability. It is a strong step forward in bringing together this literature and thinking in one collective piece of writing. Chris Furgal, Trent University, Canada Lead Author IPCC 4th Assessment Report This volume is ambitious in scope and distinctive in focus. It is not about climate change science or mitigation or impacts... but focuses clearly on the processes of adaptation. This volume represents a valuable compilation of ideas, methods and applications dealing with adaptation to climate change in developed nations. Barry Smit, University of Guelph, Canada Canada Research Chair in Global Environmental Change This book provides key insights from leading scholars who are addressing an important but neglected question: How easy is it to adapt to climate change in practice? Focusing on evidence from developed countries, the contributions provide reasons for both optimism and concern, and lessons that are critical for anyone interested in climate change policy and a sustainable future. Karen O Brien, University of Oslo, Norway Chair of Global Environmental Change and Human Security