Results of the Government Assessment Tool matrix implementation in case studies – Intermediate report.
Résumé
This Deliverable 2.3 (D2.3) provides a description of the governance in four case studies of the project ARSINOE. The target audience of this report are actors and institutions at all levels and scales of the decisional process regarding adaptation to climate change. It is dedicated to the multiple sectors impacted by climate change in the case studies such as water, agriculture, and environment. In particular, it is dedicated to all stakeholders who are interested in and have the power and capacity to initiate a bottom-up stakeholders’ co-creation process for fostering more supportive governance towards transition. The governance assessment in ARSINOE is part of the broader ARSINOE stakeholders’ co-creation approach supported by WP2, serves the purpose of supporting the stakeholders’ co-creation of bottom-up solutions to urge for more cross-sectoral collaboration, which in turn will contribute to improving sustainability in the case study regions. To this purpose, case study leaders were invited to participate to all interactions with stakeholders during interviews, focus groups and workshops and played a crucial role in identifying and engaging with the relevant stakeholders. Moreover, case study leaders contributed to have access to local information, local people and visit the case studies. Part A of this report presents the methodological aspects of governance assessment. This part of the report gives details on the content and use of the Governance Assessment Tool (GAT). The GAT is a matrix composed of 5 dimensions of the governance (actors and networks, levels and scales, problem perspectives and goals ambitions, strategy and instruments, responsibilities and resources) and 4 criteria of quality (extent, coherence, flexibility, intensity). Part B of this report presents the implementation of the GAT in the four project case studies which had the interest and possibility to implement it: Athens case study (CS1), Main River case study (CS3), Canary Islands (CS5) and Sardinia case study (CS9). After illustrating the data collection consisting of semi-guided interviews during field visits, with in person meetings sometimes complemented with on-line ones, with in addition some contextual information of the case study. The results are presented following the scoring (supportive, neither supportive nor restrictive, restrictive) of the matrix with following the evaluation of the capacity of the current governance system to urge for more climate change adaptation in the case study regions. The results of the implementation of the governance assessment methodology is described for each case study. It permitted to identify the main barriers and the main levers for more supportive governance to climate change adaptation. These can be found at the end of each case study chapter along with main concluding evaluation of the supportiveness of the governance in the case study region. Both barriers, levers and concluding evaluation are planned to be discussed with stakeholders engaged in each case study at the occasion of interactions with them planned for the next months. The main findings and reflections on the overall investigation across the four case studies are described as lessons learned. First a reflection on the success of the methodology and the characteristics of its implementation in the case studies is presented. The context of ARSINOE and the support of the case study leaders is an important point of the implementation. It facilitates interactions with stakeholders and also asks the governance assessment team to explain the need to interview stakeholders case study leaders do not already interact with. Second, a preliminary analysis of the main similarities and differences among the case studies are presented. The state of the governance is far from reaching fully supportive targets to climate change adaptation in case studies. However, many levers could potentially be activated to provide solutions to accelerate the process of adaptation engaged in all case studies. For instance, all each case study is lacking environmental human resources at all levels and all scales, with a negative impact on the capacity to urge for more cross sectoral governance. However, financial resources are not always the main barriers. The diversity of goals and ambitions can confuse the efficiency of some measures, mainly because of silo thinking. Thus, the work provide in Living Labs of the Systems innovation approach of Arsinoe can really bring coherence locally and increase the consistency of local actions to adapt to climate change. Finally, the next steps for the co-creation process impulsed in ARSINOE case studies, in close collaboration with stakeholders, are announced as consisting in workshops to present and debate those results locally with stakeholders in order to codesign recommendations and solutions. All this is embedded in the stakeholders engagement roadmap designed by case studies. PREAMBLE The authors would like to thank the case study leaders of the Arsinoe consortium where the governance evaluation was carried out, in CS1, CS3, CS5 and CS9. We would also like to thank all the stakeholders interviewed for the time they gave us and the warm welcome we received in the field. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of the stakeholders do not appear in the document, but the number of people interviewed in each case study is indicated. All texts in italics and in inverted commas are verbatims extracted from the interviews, all of which were recorded. We were delighted to visit the case studies and talk to stakeholders, and we look forward to returning to continue the dialogue based on these findings to encourage faster adaptation. The case study photos used to illustrate this deliverable were taken by Isabelle La Jeunesse, Claudia Cirelli and Ingrid Canovas during site visits.