ARTICLE IN PRESS
Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191 www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance Kate Urwina, Andrew Jordanb, a
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK b School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Received 2 October 2006; received in revised form 16 August 2007; accepted 31 August 2007
Abstract Policy makers have now recognised the need to integrate thinking about climate change into all areas of public policy making. However, the discussion of ‘climate policy integration’ has tended to focus on mitigation decisions mostly taken at international and national levels. Clearly, there is also a more locally focused adaptation dimension to climate policy integration, which has not been adequately explored by academics or policy makers. Drawing on a case study of the UK, this paper adopts both a top-down and a bottom-up perspective to explore how far different sub-elements of policies within the agriculture, nature conservation and water sectors support or undermine potential adaptive responses. The top-down approach, which assumes that policies set explicit aims and objectives that are directly translated into action on the ground, combines a content analysis of policy documents with interviews with policy makers. The bottom-up approach recognises the importance of other actors in shaping policy implementation and involves interviews with actors in organisations within the three sectors. This paper reveals that neither approach offers a complete picture of the potentially enabling or constraining effects of different policies on future adaptive planning, but together they offer new perspectives on climate policy integration. These findings inform a discussion on how to implement climate policy integration, including auditing existing policies and ‘climate proofing’ new ones so they support rather than hinder adaptive planning. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Climate change; Adaptation; Policy making; Climate policy integration; Climate proofing
1. Introduction The need to adapt to a changing climate is now widely acknowledged. For instance, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have adopted a 5-year programme to help countries make better informed decisions on adaptation (SBSTA, 2005). In the European Union (EU), the European Commission has issued similar policies (EU, 2006a), including a Green Paper on adaptation (EU, 2007), as have many member states (see EEA, 2005). However, identifying what and how to adapt remain far from clear. To that end, the existing literature—be it academic or more policy related—has successfully identified a range of different factors, ranging Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1603 592552; fax: +44 1603 593739.
E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (K. Urwin),
[email protected] (A. Jordan). 0959-3780/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.08.002
from scientific uncertainty, through to the current state of technology, the availability of financial resources and short time horizons, which most constrain effective adaptive planning (EEA, 2005; EU, 2007; Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; Lorenzoni et al., 2000a, b; West and Gawith, 2005). However, there is a growing appreciation amongst policy makers and societal actors that the policy context in which adaptive decisions are made must also be considered (e.g. Burton et al., 2002; Lim et al., 2005; EU, 2007), as it may have a similarly constraining effect. The United Nations Development Programme has, for example, recently investigated how to integrate climate change into all strands of policy making in ways that support adaptive planning (Lim et al., 2005). Its Adaptation Policy Framework explicitly notes that ‘‘an important step in the process of formulating options is the integration of adaptation policies and measures between different sectors’’ (NiangDiop and Bosch, 2005, p. 190). A key principle of the EU’s
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
latest Sustainable Development Strategy is that: ‘‘adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change should be integrated in all relevant European policies’’ (EU, 2006b, p. 8). The EU’s Green Paper on adaptation, which was published by the European Commission in 2007, sought to identify practical ways to integrate adaptation into existing and also new policy measures (EU, 2007, p. 14–24). Meanwhile, a stakeholder consultation exercise led by the United Kingdom (UK) environment ministry in 2005 identified ‘‘policy conflicts and legislative barriers to adaptation’’ as a major research priority (DEFRA, 2006a, p. 6). The UK government has developed a comprehensive Adaptation Policy Framework, which explicitly aims to ‘‘ensure that adaptation to climate change is integrated into the wider policy making process’’ both domestically and in the EU (DEFRA, 2005, p. 5). The perceived need to integrate a climate change dimension into all areas of policy making—climate policy integration (CPI)—has undoubtedly become more acute, but the evidence base is still weak and there are still no accepted methods for achieving it. The wider policy context in which adaptation decision making occurs has two main elements: existing policies and new policies. The vast majority of existing policies in Europe were designed and implemented long before climate change was a significant political issue. Understanding the extent to which these nonclimate policies support and/or constrain the scope for implementing adaptive responses is a long way from being fully understood. Similarly, it is becoming more obvious that new policies in climate and nonclimate sectors will need to be designed in ways which facilitate rather than hinder adaptive decisions—a process which could be termed ‘climate proofing’. However, there is still no agreed method for undertaking this sort of policy analysis at single or across a variety of interconnecting spatial scales. The primary aim of this paper is to identify and empirically test one method for understanding how far policy influences climate change adaptation, and how far adaptation requirements can in turn be integrated into policy making decisions in nonclimate sectors. These questions are not, as noted above, only very policy relevant, but they also connect directly to at least two broader themes in the climate change literature. The first is the perceived need to integrate climate change into all areas of policy making—i.e. CPI. Nilsson and Nilsson (2005, p. 364) regard this as a subset of the much wider principle of environmental policy integration (or EPI), which was originally popularised by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 and is now widely enshrined in very many legal systems and in policy discourse more generally (Lenschow, 2002; Jordan and Lenschow, 2008). However, most of the debate on CPI has been framed in terms of the need to mitigate climate change; thus, it has mostly centred on policies to govern emission reductions at international, EU and national levels. Critical adaptation decisions, by contrast, tend to emerge and be more strongly expressed at more local levels—hence the link to the second pertinent
181
theme in recent scholarship—spatial scale (Adger et al., 2005; Young, 2002). Issues of spatial scale bulk large when attempts are made to understand the interaction between policy decisions made ‘top-down’ at international and/or national levels, and those made in a bottom-up manner at more local levels. For example, Brooks and Adger (2005, p. 178) note that ‘‘policies designed to address issues at a regional scale can have unforeseen effects at local scales.’’ In relation to adaptation decisions, the existing literature has identified numerous examples of policies pursued at higher scales that clash with attempts to adapt at more local scales. For example:
Local authorities in the UK claim that they have been prevented from thinking across longer timescales by short-term budgetary cycles imposed by central government ministries (Lorenzoni et al., 2000a, b); Local municipalities in Norway believe that large-scale flood defence schemes have undermined their capacity to develop more robust and locally attuned adaptive responses (Næss et al., 2005); Managed retreat has been identified as the preferred policy for managing some coastal areas, but this has been complicated by the relatively static biodiversity protection requirements of inter alia the EU’s EU biodiversity and habitats policies (Ledoux et al., 2000).
However, it is still far from clear whether these apparently constraining effects—or instances of institutional and policy interplay (Young, 2002)—exerted by past policies in nonclimate sectors are widespread or just isolated examples. Drawing on a case study of the UK, this paper therefore aims to develop a method for auditing the extent to which broader swathes of policy decided centrally are perceived to be compatible and/or clash with preferred adaptive responses at more local levels. This method involves comparing and contrasting the formal, written content of relevant climate and nonclimate policies on the one hand, and then comparing this picture with relevant stakeholder perceptions of how these different policies interact in the everyday processes of policy implementation ‘on the ground’. The rationale for adopting these two perspectives is to be found in the policy implementation literature, which has usefully demonstrated that what one makes of the interplay between different policies (both vertically and horizontally), is contingent upon the standpoint taken (i.e. ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’). After defining these two methodological standpoints, the remainder of this paper explores the scope for developing a ‘climate proofing’ mechanism to inform ongoing attempts to integrate climate change factors into new policy making activities in nonclimate sectors. The rest of this paper unfolds as follows. Section 2 starts by discussing the theoretical matter of how policies interlink or interplay with one another, before outlining our method for investigating how it plays out in the realm
ARTICLE IN PRESS 182
K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
of climate change adaptation. As noted above, our discussion draws on the top-down and bottom-up methodological perspectives which have emerged in the public policy literature. Section 3 reports the findings of our audit of climate policy constraints on adaptive decision making in the UK. Our empirical focus is on the East Anglian region of England, which encompasses the counties of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. This region was selected because it is already known to be one of the most vulnerable to climate change (EERA and SDRT, 2003). Given obvious space constraints, we restrict ourselves to looking only at the interactions between three (albeit rather broad) policy sectors, namely agriculture, water resources and nature conservation. These three were selected on the basis of their regional importance and climate sensitivity. In one sense, this selection does bias our findings somewhat. But, as will become clear, in our work with local-level stakeholders we encouraged them to think freely about future adaptation in much broader terms (e.g. including nonclimate drivers of future decision making, as well as ‘nonpolicy’ enablers and constraints). Section 4 reviews our findings and discusses the wider policy implications of our approach. Then, Section 5 assesses the scope for developing a mechanism to ‘climate proof’ new policies and Section 6 draws together our main findings and identifies a number of important conclusions.
2. Different perspectives on policy interplay 2.1. What is policy interplay? Different dimensions Those seeking to integrate a climate policy dimension into all policy areas immediately run into the vexed issue of institutional or—in our case-policy interplay. There is, as Oberthu¨r and Gehring (2006, p. 4) have helpfully pointed out, a sizeable literature on this and related topics, such as policy (inter)-linkage, policy overlap and policy interconnection. For the most part, this literature has tended to focus on the interplay between different policies and institutions at the global level (between the international climate change convention and the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion for example). In his seminal work on fit, interplay and scale, Oran Young (2002, p. 23–24) has usefully identified this as an example of horizontal interplay (that is the relationship between policies at the same level of governance, e.g. international, European, national, subnational, etc.). However, it is also important to consider another related dimension—that concerning the vertical interplay or interaction between policies located at different spatial scales of governance. Here, he introduces the terms macro, meso and micro, to describe the different scales at which policy development activities can conceivably take place (Young, 2002, p. 23), although he accepts that these are far from precise terms. To make matters even more confusing, the word ‘policy’ is also ‘‘not a precise or selfevident term’’ (Parsons, 1995, p. 13).
To demonstrate the importance of these points, consider the literature which has emerged around one empirical instance of interplay—the impact of EU legislation on national policies. Since the late 1990s, researchers working under the banner of ‘Europeanisation’ have sought to understand the interplay of policies produced at the EU and national levels. Their starting assumption was that the greater the congruence between the formal written content of EU policies and that of national policies, the less significant would be the pressure on national policy systems to fall into line with EU policy norms (Bache and Jordan, 2006). In a useful critique, Radaelli (2003, p. 45) noted that policy at the two levels is neither independent nor restricted to the goals expressed in the formal mandates of laws and policies: there is no absolute compatibility or mismatch: it is up to political actors at [the two scales] to define what they are. This interpretation is part of the process of interpretation and political conflict. The notion of mismatch neglects this process (emphasis added). By this, he essentially means that analysts need to be careful when they move from looking at policy interplay in a horizontal sense, to that operating vertically, because the way in which the intentions of policy are expressed at the higher level, can be very different to the way in which it is actually conducted (and thus interacts with cognate policies) at lower levels. Crucially, a great deal of this ‘definitional (re)interpretation’ emerges informally during the implementation process, when laws and policies are translated into action by implementing officials operating ‘on the ground’. For example, implementers at lower administrative levels can (and very often do) find creative ways to avoid the appearance of potential conflicts which are suggested in the formal, written content of policies. Similarly, conflicts between policies can appear at the implementation stage, which were not foreseen by those who formally adopted them at the higher level. Of course, many of these reasons why ‘policy’ and ‘interplay’ are not self-evident terms, surfaced in the policy implementation literature well over 30 years ago. What they show, is that any analysis of interplay—and particularly vertical interplay—needs to be sensitive to the fact that the policy process can usefully be viewed from the topdown (i.e. from the policy maker’s perspective) or the bottom-up (i.e. the policy implementer’s perspective). In the remainder of this article, we shall endeavour to show that CPI (and, even more fundamentally, the very nature of any ‘horizontal policy interplay’ which is perceived to be occurring) can (and often does) look very different depending on which of these two methodological perspectives one chooses to adopt. It is for this reason, that we advocate an approach which compares and contrasts both perspectives.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
2.2. Different degrees of interplay Before moving on, it is worthwhile exploring what kinds of horizontal interplay could in principle be expected to arise. The first type of interaction is a negative one. Willows and Connell (2003, p. 56), for example, have referred to ‘‘climate adaptation constraining decisions’’, by which they essentially mean a situation in which a policy (be that either climate or nonclimate) limits or in some way or another constrains the ability of policy actors to manage, reduce or otherwise adapt to the consequences of climate change. This is analogous to what Oberthu¨r and Gehring (2006, p. 46) refer to as adverse interaction (or ‘disruption’). But it could just as easily result in enhanced adaptation (‘synergy’), or possibly no change at all (‘indeterminate’ or ‘neutral’) (Oberthu¨r and Gehring, 2006). 2.3. Different sub-elements of policy Oberthu¨r and Gehring (2006) do not, however, set out precisely which sub-elements of ‘policy’ could in principle interact in these different ways. In order to focus our analysis, we therefore draw upon Peter Hall’s (1993, p. 279) three-fold division of policy into three elements. The most basic element of policy comprises the overall goals that guide policy interventions. The second is the instruments or techniques by which these policy goals are attained, e.g. regulation, taxation or voluntary agreements. The third level relates to the calibration of these instruments, e.g. the level at which an emission standard or tax is set, and/or the time frame in which it applies, etc. These three elements are bound together by a wider narrative or policy paradigm, which is a ‘‘framework of ideas and standards that specifies not only the goals of policy and the kind of instruments that can be used to attain them, but also the very nature of the problems they are meant to be addressing’’ (Hall, 1993, p. 279). We can illustrate how these three levels map onto important policies in our case study area, by taking, as an example, the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). The goal of the ERDP was to create a productive and sustainable rural economy in England. The main policy instruments used to achieve this were a series of farm support mechanisms, e.g. schemes such as agri-environment and less favoured areas. Finally, these instruments were calibrated to cover distinct time horizons, e.g. annually for less favoured areas and up to 10 years for agri-environment schemes. Crucially, Hall (1993) argues that change at some of these levels tends to occur more easily and hence more frequently than others (for further discussion of why this might be the case, see Clemens and Cook (1999), and Jordan and Liefferink (2004)). More specifically, he argues that shifts in the second and third levels occur regularly and incrementally, and are therefore associated with periods of ‘normal’ policy making. For example, changing the calibration of a policy instrument, while retaining the
183
overall framework of goals and instruments constitutes a relatively straightforward (or ‘‘first-order’’) adjustment (Hall, 1993). These may arise when the actors involved achieve ‘‘single-loop learning’’ (Argyris, 1999) with respect to new policy challenges (e.g. climate change). Altering the instruments themselves, while maintaining the overall policy goals, is harder still (‘‘second-order change’’). However, a paradigm shift of seismic proportions may well be necessary to alter the underlying goals of a policy area (‘‘third-order change’’). Such shifts are said to occur only very rarely as anomalous or ‘unexplainable’ events accumulate. Hall (1993, p. 279) refers to these as changes in the prevailing ‘‘policy paradigm’’ (which in organisational terms is broadly equivalent to ‘‘double-loop learning’’ (Argyris, 1999)). The obvious point to take away from this discussion, is that antagonistic interplays at the level of policy goals are likely to be much more fundamental (and hence difficult to correct) than those occurring with respect to policy instruments and their respective calibrations. 2.4. Top-down and bottom-up perspectives on interplay In seeking to understand how, to quote Radaelli (2003), policy actors at different levels define or otherwise perceive the interplay between existing items of policy in relation to their adaptive planning decisions, we found it useful to employ the well-know distinction between top-down and bottom-up, which first emerged in the policy implementation literature (for useful reviews, see Sabatier (1986) and Hill and Hupe (2002)). Very simply put, a top-down methodology assumes that legislation and policies set explicit aims and objectives, providing a blueprint that is then directly translated into action ‘on the ground’. However, it is now recognised that policy development continues long after policies are formulated and formally enshrined in legislation. By contrast, a bottom-up (or ‘backward mapping’) approach recognises the importance of additional actors, other than ‘policy makers’ at the top, in shaping the detailed content of policies as they interact with one another in congested policy spaces and are eventually implemented (Elmore, 1979). This is why Barrett and Hill called for analysts to focus on the implementing ‘‘actors and agencies themselves and their interactions, and for an action centred or ‘bottom-up’ mode of analysis as a method of identifying more clearly who seems to be influencing what, how and why’’ (quoted in Hill 2005, p. 184). Crucially, any attempt to investigate issues of interplay must be aware of the tendency for policy to mutate as it travels down the policy chain from those that originally made it (‘the top’) to those at the ‘the bottom’ charged with implementing it. These two perspectives are methodologically and— interestingly—also normatively very different with respect to manner in which they interpret the nature and hence the definition of ‘policy’. To use them as different methodological standpoints is ‘‘noty particularly contentious’’ compared to the very much more normatively charged
ARTICLE IN PRESS 184
K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
question of where policy should be made and by whom (i.e. elected politicians at the top, or trained professionals operating closer to or even at street level) (Hill and Hupe, 2002, p. 56). Be that as it may, in this article we wish to explore how far these two approaches are capable of illuminating the inter-relationship between climate and nonclimate policies, and thus reveal the different ways in which they might interact. The top-down approach is better suited to exploring the interplay between the written content of policies formulated centrally and the standard adaptive responses which are identified in the climate change impacts literature. By contrast, the bottom-up approach draws upon the expertise of sectoral actors (specifically those responsible for implementing policies on the ground), to establish the extent to which ‘policy’ (defined broadly to mean both climate and nonclimate) affects their perceived vulnerability to and ability to respond to climate change. 2.5. Different methodological approaches Our top-down approach incorporated a content analysis of key policy documents within the three sectors. These documents included international conventions, EU policy, UK primary and secondary legislation (e.g. statutory instruments), as well as guidance notes and nonstatutory instruments. We began by noting any explicit references to climate change (adaptation). Second, the capacity of policies to indirectly support adaptation was assessed. This involved evaluating the interplay between policy goals, instruments and instrument calibrations, and the types of potential adaptive responses summarised in the existing literature (e.g. EERA and SDRT, 2003). These preliminary findings were refined during a set of elite interviews with national-level policy makers and relevant nongovernmental stakeholders at national level, who together constitute ‘ the top’. We used a very different approach to explore policy interplay from the bottom-up. Here, we developed a suite of integrated climate change (Hulme et al., 2002) and socioeconomic (UKCIP, 2001) scenarios, and used them to semi structure interviews with thirty-five actors working in organisations that are formally responsible for policy implementation within the three sectors. For example, at the time of this writing, with respect to the ERDP (discussed above), the environment ministry (DEFRA) was responsible for implementing EU policy. In other cases (e.g. the 2003 Water Act), DEFRA was the policy maker, with much of the implementation being undertaken by the national Environment Agency. Although these organisations are not at the absolute ‘bottom’ of the policy making chain,1 they do operate at the lowest administrative level (and geographical scale) at which many important 1
Strictly speaking, they are not, therefore, examples of what Lipsky (1980) famously termed ‘street-level bureaucrats’ such as police officers, teachers or social workers.
adaptive decisions are taken, and thus constitute ‘the bottom’. The scenarios aimed to present different potential climate futures. During these interviews we asked the interviewees to assess the relative importance of prevailing policies as a constraint on their decision making, as well as identify specific policies that might conceivably influence their ability to adapt under different climatic conditions. By proceeding in this way, we were able to encourage the participants to consider adaptation in terms that went well beyond ‘their’ sector or scale of operation, thereby identifying examples of horizontal and vertical interplay that had not been previously highlighted by the top-down analysis. 3. Policy interplay and adaptation to climate change 3.1. The view from the top-down Our top-down analysis revealed that climate change adaptation is yet to be explicitly incorporated into the majority of existing sectoral policies, despite the high-level political pledges to achieve greater CPI. In fact, it was only included in one statutory policy (the EU’s Rural Development Regulation), and then only in the preamble. While adaptation was specifically mentioned in national government strategies for water, farming and biodiversity (DEFRA, 2002a, b, c), these tended to be in the form of often quite vaguely worded ‘statements of intent’. This does not necessarily undermine adaptation; much depends upon the extent to which nonclimate policies indirectly support or undermine adaptation requirements. So, then we moved on to explore the extent to which the goals, instruments and calibrations of existing policies interplayed with one another and/or supported any preferred adaptive responses. Table 1 summarises the findings of our analysis. In general, we found that the management of the UK agricultural sector was dominated by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Recent reforms of the CAP have sought to decouple subsidies from production (and thus replace direct payments with payments based on land area) (see HM Treasury and DEFRA, 2005). The crosscompliance element of the CAP required farmers to meet statutory management requirements, and maintain their land in good environmental and agricultural condition in order to receive payments. Promoting environmentally sensitive practices and increasing the land types that can be set aside from farming, arguably reduces vulnerability to climate change, for example, by promoting soil management and enhancing water efficiency. Increasing emphasis on rural development (through modulation and the Rural Development Regulation) encourages crop diversification, thereby reducing the reliance on one main source of income and, therefore, decreasing the vulnerability to climate stresses. However, these reforms were still at a relatively early stage, and their precise implications for adaptive management were thus far from clear. Furthermore, policy instruments were calibrated over relatively short
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
185
Table 1 Examples of synergistic and antagonistic interplays between sectoral policies with respect to adaptive responses: a top-down perspective Agriculture
Water resources
Nature conservation
Quantity Key policies:
2003 CAP Reform Regulation 1999 Rural Development
Quality
2003 Water Act 2004 Periodic review
Regulation 2000 England Rural Development Programme
2000 Water
policy guidance
Goals: Instruments:
Instrument calibrations:
Integration of:
Sustainability Decoupling subsidy from production Rural development schemes (modulation) Cross-compliance Set-aside
Sustainability Long-term resource management plans Drought plans Time-limited licences Powers to revoke licences Demand management Catchment Abstraction Management Plans
1 year (subsidies) 1 year (set-aside) 1–15 years (ERDP schemes)
25 years (resource
CAP cross-compliance with
WFD with Birds,
Birds, Habitats, Sewage Sludge and Nitrates Directives Agri-environment schemes with conservation and water quality standards
management plans) 5 years (periodic review process)
Habitats, Sewage Sludge, Nitrates Directives Periodic review guidance with BAPs Water Act and WFD
timescales, potentially undermining longer-term adaptive planning. In the water sector, the 2003 Water Act introduced a variety of new instruments such as time-limited licences, and water resource management and drought plans, which could increase the capacity of decision makers to plan for, and respond to, climate change. It proved harder to draw absolute conclusions regarding the interplay between water quality policies and potential adaptive steps. For example, with respect to drinking and bathing water, absolute EU standards remained desirable on environmental protection grounds, but may have been harder to attain under climate change. The Water Framework Directive permits ‘temporary’ deterioration in water quality during ‘natural’ events such as floods or droughts. Much is likely to depend on whether the Commission (and ultimately the European Court of Justice) views such events as natural ones, in which case how permanent will any derogations be? The Water Framework Directive also establishes a framework for management of water resources across river basins, which does increase the potential to integrate climate
Framework Directive (WFD) EU Directives (various) River quality objectives (UK)
Protection Water quality standards River basin management plans
15 years (WFD) 5 years (river management plans)
2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act
1992 Habitats Directive
1979 Birds Directive 1994 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Protection Designated sites Species and habitats action plans
1–15 years (UKBAP) 10 years (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)
Conservation obligations under a variety of international & European regimes
change considerations. Finally, there are antagonistic interplays between the calibrations of different water policy instruments and adaptive planning requirements. The main goals of nature conservation focus upon protecting ecologically important sites, but this may not be sustainable under a changing climate. In fact, an approach to policy that relies heavily on protecting such sites may well undermine the ability of decision makers to respond flexibly as the climate changes. According to the written content of policy, reasons of overriding public interest can be cited to permit the degradation of Special Areas of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive, but only if adequate compensatory measures are provided. However, this cannot be relied upon as a general response: it is resource-intensive and, notably in East Anglia, the habitats to be protected are restricted to very specific locations (Hossell et al., 2000). Finally, Table 1 highlights the extent of policy integration across the three sectors. This suggests that increasing efforts are being made both at European and national levels to integrate cross-sectoral policy objectives
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
186
(Niang-Diop and Bosch, 2005). However, examples of antagonistic interplays spanning scales remain, e.g. there is no integration between the EU’s Water Framework Directive and the UK’s Water Act. 3.2. The view from the bottom-up When viewed from the bottom-up, slightly different antagonisms and synergies revealed themselves. Some examples are given in Table 2. With respect to nature conservation policy, the constraining effect of relying on designated sites identified by the top-down method was confirmed. Similarly, interviewees suggested that schemes under the ERDP and UK Biodiversity Action Programme could have enhanced adaptive capacity, though much depended on the mode of implementation selected (and
particularly the resources committed to the schemes). Some new antagonistic policy interplays (i.e. policies that were identified as supporting adaptation in their sector, but which potentially undermine adaptation in cognate sectors) were also picked up by the bottom-up approach, e.g. the constraining effect of the 2003 Water Act. A bottom-up perspective also identified a number of policy inconsistencies arising from policies adopted outside all three sectors covered in our study (e.g. the Sustainable Communities initiative and a variety of Building Regulations). Interestingly, a bottom-up approach demonstrated that important constraints on adaptive planning can arise from seemingly unrelated policies. For example, attempts to recreate a wetland habitat at Lakenheath near Cambridge were greatly complicated by the Reservoirs Act (which required a protective bund to be placed around the whole
Table 2 Examples of antagonistic interplays between sectoral policies with respect to adaptive responses: a bottom-up perspective Identified by:
Adaptive response
Dissonant policy
Reason
Sectoral policy
Comparison with topdowna
Agriculture
On-farm reservoir Long-term planning Increase irrigation
1975 Reservoirs Act
Increases time and cost involved
N
+
2003 Water Act
Time-limited licences and potential for revocation of licences increase uncertainty Influence availability of water for agricultural use Possible for the Environment Agency to impose restrictions in times of water shortages Schemes often too narrow and inadequately resourced Development in water scarce areas will exacerbate problems of water supply Water companies not a statutory consultee regarding proposed new developments Time-limited licences increase uncertainty in future planning for water companies Lack of compulsory metering
N
*
N
+
N
+
Y
*
N
+
N
+
Y
*
Y
¼
N
+
Y
¼
N
*
N
+
Y
*
N
+
N
+
N
+
1992 Habitats Directive 1991 Water Resources Act
Diversification Water resources
Ensure future water security
Demand-side management
ERDP (AE and energy crops) ODPM’s ‘Sustainable Communities’ initiative Planning Regulations 1999 No.3280 2003 Water Act 1999 Water Industry Act 2000 Building Regulations
Nature conservation
Sensitive land-use management
1992 Habitats Directive, 1981 WCA AE schemes Agricultural tenancy law
In situ conservation
Biodiversity Action Plans
Habitat recreation
1975 Reservoirs Act PPG7 and RPG6 Town and Country Planning Acts
Water efficiency measures not statutory requirements for new developments Too much emphasis on designated sites Too fragmented and inadequately resourced Difficult for conservation organisations to regain control over land Lack of explicit inclusion of climate change within species and habitat action plans Increase the time and cost of wetland recreation projects Need to store soil if land being reclaimed from agriculture Restrict location of projects (cannot be in vicinity of airports)
AE, agri-environment; N, no; ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; WCA, Wildlife and Countryside Act; PPG, Planning Policy Guidance; RPG, Regional Planning Guidance; Y, yes. a Note: A comparison is made with the top-down approach, noting whether the interplays identified are additional (+), alternative (*) or broadly comparable ( ¼ ).
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
site despite flooding only being a concern at one end), Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (which required the storage of topsoil in the (unlikely) event that the land was returned to agriculture), and a Town and Country Planning Direction (which aims to protect aircraft from bird strike hazards, even though the wetland did not attract large numbers of birds). Crucially, when viewed from the top-down, these policies appeared to have little to do with one another, but when viewed from the bottom-up it was obvious that they could—if interpreted very inflexibly based on a very strict reading of the law—constrain adaptive responses. This confirms Radaelli’s earlier point (see above) about the need to explore the ‘definitional (re)interpretation’ of policy interplay as policies travel down from higher scales to lower ones during the implementation process.
4. How well does public policy support adaptation? 4.1. Existing policies Even within three policy areas within one region of one country, there evidently are policy interplays that constrain adaptive planning. Clearly, those associated with some levels of policy are likely to be more important than others. For example, the policy instruments of the ERDP appeared to be consistent with climate change adaptation requirements, but the way they were calibrated (specifically the timescales over which they were set) may not be. Additionally, there may be certain instruments of the same policy that are consistent and others that clash. For example, river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive were perceived to mesh with adaptation requirements, whereas water quality objectives under the same Directive may have adverse effects on the capacity of more local-level organisations to adapt. Furthermore, the type of interplay appears to depend upon the adaptive strategy being considered. For example, the CAP Reform Regulation and ERDP encouraged environmentally sensitive practices. While these seek to facilitate better soil and water management, they may disrupt other adaptive responses, such as using more pesticides (EERA and SDRT, 2003). Issues of spatial scale further complicate attempts to understand the extent to which policy constrains adaptive planning. For example, nature conservation decisions could be influenced by policies such as the Ramsar Convention (international), the Habitats Directive (EU), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (national), Coastal Habitat Management Plans (regional), and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Our study mainly focused on policies made at EU and national levels, but additional scales of policy making, namely those at international, regional and local levels could also influence adaptation. In addition to these sectoral policies, sites could also be influenced by water (e.g. the Water Framework Directive), agricultural
187
(e.g. the CAP and agri-environment schemes) and flood protection policies (e.g. Shoreline Management Plans). Climate change adaptation will therefore require responses at all these spatial scales. For example, they may range from an individual farmer changing her crop types (local level), to water companies organising cross-catchment water transfers (cross-regional), and central government designing policies to avoid development in flood risk areas (national) to the international community developing frameworks to assist developing countries in designing adaptation strategies. There are likely to be numerous interactions between adaptive responses at different spatial scales, and an optimal strategy or policy at one level may undermine adaptive steps at another (Adger et al., 2005). 4.2. Bringing together top-down and bottom-up perspectives The policy implementation literature suggests that the merits of adopting top-down and/or bottom-up approaches depends upon the type of issue or policy under investigation (Sabatier, 1986). Our analysis has clearly confirmed that both perspectives do provide important insights into the potentially constraining effects of public policy on adaptive planning for climate change. The topdown approach indicates that despite the limited inclusion of climate change issues in the formal written text of most policies, there is still plenty of scope for adaptation to occur within existing policy frameworks. This was particularly the case for recent policy developments (e.g. the CAP Reform Regulation and the Water Act), which arguably do increase the capacity of actors to respond to external change (even though they were largely driven by sustainability objectives rather than climate change concerns per se). Therefore it would be most unwise to adopt only one of these two perspectives, because they both have something to offer. For instance, top-down approaches may fail to grasp some of the complicated cross-scale and crosssectoral interplays noted above. Furthermore, most organisations are still only just beginning to consider how climate change may affect them, hampering their ability to identify policies that hinder their adaptive planning. Consequently, the findings displayed in Tables 1 and 2 simply represent the tip of a much larger iceberg when it comes to exploring how far existing policies influence adaptive planning. Much more intensive research is still required to inform specific policy recommendations. 4.3. Adapting existing policies Central policy makers might be tempted to argue that altering each and every existing policy to cope with climate change will be an impossible task. Indeed, it may even be counterproductive to do so, given that those operating closer to the ground are often better placed to identify and iron out inconsistencies. We have a great deal of sympathy with this view, but doing the complete opposite—that is
ARTICLE IN PRESS 188
K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
leaving everything to local-level actors to sort out—is not really an effective option either. When attention spans are short and resources are limited, policies set centrally do send out a very clear message about which matters should be considered and in what order. For example, Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 advised against developments on flood plains, and the environment ministry provided guidance on sea-level rise and river flows (based on climate change scenarios) to inform flood and coastal defence strategies (DEFRA, 2006b). Furthermore, recent regulations in the UK have forced privatised water companies to integrate climate change considerations into their resource management plans (see, e.g. EA, 2003). With this in mind, there is certainly scope for altering the content of EU and national-level policies to overcome some of the more obviously antagonistic forms of policy interplay noted above. For example, policy makers could explore the scope for re-calibrating policy instruments, particularly with respect to timescales, so they synergise with adaptation requirements. As discussed above, this is (in theory at least) the easiest element of policy to alter (Hall, 1993). National policy could also provide stronger statutory support for ‘no regrets’ measures and integrate such options into policy instruments, e.g. ensuring that all new housing developments incorporate water efficiency measures (see, e.g. SDC, 2005). Over the longer term, the underlying goals of some policies (e.g. with respect to nature conservation) may also need to be re-assessed, a task which cannot be performed by those operating at or close to ‘the bottom’. In making these changes at national level, governmental bodies should also try to avoid creating new policy antagonisms by subjecting new policy proposals to a climate proofing process—a matter which we address in Section 5. 5. Climate ‘proofing’ new policies 5.1. Centralised proofing systems One of the most important insights offered by the bottom-up school of policy implementation analysis was to show how divorced much activity at the street level is from what is expressed in the formal, written content of policies. As exemplified by our case studies, policies often do interplay in complex and unforeseen ways as they travel down the implementation chain. Nonetheless, some kind of framework for adaptation is arguably essential in order to provide a supportive context for local-level adaptation decisions. At the same time, it is prudent to ensure that new nonclimate policies do not undermine any high-level frameworks. One way of achieving this is by ‘proofing’ new policies. ‘Proofing’ essentially involves assessing policies early on in the formulation process, to identify any obvious spillover effects on cognate sectors (DARD, 2003, p. 1). The practice of ‘policy proofing’ is very well advanced in the UK, where it has been used to assess the potential
impacts of new policies on inter alia human health (HDA, 2002), the environment (DEFRA, 2003b; Russel and Jordan, 2007) and rural areas (MAFF, 2000). The need for climate proofing-type procedures has been noted by, amongst others, the IPCC (Smit and Pilifosova, 2001), the UNDP (Lim et al., 2005) and the UK government (DEFRA, 2003a; 2005). Having conducted a stakeholder consultation exercise on adaptive planning, the UK environment ministry concluded that more had to be done to ensure that ‘‘regulation and policies are looked at holistically and do not lead to maladaptation or adaptation constraining activities across sectors’’ (DEFRA, 2006a, p. 7). But what should a climate proofing process look like? In the UK, climate change is explicitly included within one existing policy appraisal tool—Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Indeed many countries already have RIA systems up and running. Because it already exists and is widely employed, these would appear to be the most effective vehicle for pursuing climate proofing rather than designing a whole new set of systems just for climate change. This is what has happened in the UK, where, since 2004, RIA system is the principal mechanism for appraising all new policy proposals (Russel and Jordan, 2007). With respect to climate change, policy makers are asked: ‘‘will the policy option be vulnerable to the predicted effects of climate change?’’ (Cabinet Office, 2005). However, while it assesses the potential impact of climate change on a policy, it should also consider the impact of that policy proposal on the capacity of other actors to adapt to climate change. In particular, there is a need to consider the influence that proposed policies might have on other departments and stakeholders. Given the strongly sectorised style of working in UK central government (Flinders, 2002), it makes sense to give the Cabinet Office responsibility for leading on climate proofing, rather than the environment ministry. The RIA unit is already based in the Cabinet Office, which has overall responsibility for resolving disagreements between line departments on policy issues. This move would highlight the need to view climate change as cross-cutting issue, rather than simply as an ‘environmental’ one. 5.2. Decentralised systems Our work also suggests that climate change considerations need to be integrated into the development of new policies at local and regional levels. The point that proofing works best when it extends to more local levels is one that has been learnt by the UK Countryside Agency during its work on rural proofing (Countryside Agency, 2003). It is also consistent with what is known about other joined-up government initiatives in the UK and elsewhere (Ling, 2002; Perri et al., 2002; Russel and Jordan, 2008). Consequently, a more localised proofing process along the lines suggested above (i.e. one involving policy implementers as well as policy makers), could play a role in minimising the most antagonistic policy interplays.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
The UK government is developing an Adaptation Policy Framework (DEFRA, 2005), which highlights the role of public and private sector organisations at national, regional and local levels in climate change adaptation. This could involve climate proofing, which draws on top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Our work shows that bringing the two together provides different, but potentially supportive, perspectives on the vexed issue of CPI. 6. Conclusions The discussion of CPI in the existing literature has tended to focus on mitigation decisions taken at international and national levels. Evidently, there is also a more local adaptation dimension to achieving greater CPI which has still not been adequately explored. At international, European and national levels, increasing attention has been devoted to understanding the extent and importance of CPI. Drawing on a case study of the UK, this paper has utilised top-down and bottom-up perspectives to audit how far policies within the agriculture, nature conservation and water resource sectors support or undermine potential adaptive responses. Despite very high-level political commitments made by political leaders and policy makers to pursue greater CPI in adaptation decisions, we found that surprisingly few existing policies explicitly encourage climate change adaptation across the three sectors, although some do (indirectly) support or undermine adaptive responses. In this respect, policy makers still have more work to do: there has certainly been no conscious effort to audit, let alone amend existing policies, or to comprehensively ‘climate proof’ new policies. The ongoing discussion at EU level has, however, helped to emphasise the importance of prioritising these things in the future (EU, 2007). The horizontal and vertical dimensions of policy making, and the relatively early stage that many ground-level actors are at in developing adaptive responses, render the identification of the most significant policy interplays very difficult. So too does the ever-present tension between what can and should be done by ‘the top’ of the policy process, and what is possible to do at ‘the bottom’ of it. Put more concretely, many problems (climate change adaptation included) do look rather different depending on the perspective adopted, hence the importance of seeing topdown and bottom-up as potentially complementary, rather than alternative ways of visualising the adaptation dimension of CPI. Nonetheless, this paper has highlighted a number of existing policies that do appear to impact negatively on the scope for pursuing adaptation at lower levels (even though they do not specifically mention climate change), as well as myriad opportunities for policy to more directly support localised adaptation responses. This sort of auditing work is needed to give the political wish for ‘more CPI’ a more specific and implementable focus. Many of the local actors
189
that we interviewed argued that altering the written content of policy would never be a panacea, but it could, they argued, provide a stronger political signal that adaptation should be taken much more seriously at all stages of the policy process and all levels of governance. Meanwhile, the development and implementation of a process to ‘climate proof’ new policy proposals would provide one means of avoiding the most obvious examples of negative interplay (both within and across sectors), while primarily offering opportunities to maximise adaptive capacity, for example, by integrating ‘no regrets’ measures into policy. Existing systems such as RIA provide a ready means to consider climate change alongside other priorities in the policy-making process. However, the climate change element of RIA in the UK needs to be amended and/or reinforced to ensure it considers the potential impact of a new policy on adaptation, as well as the impact of climate change on the policy itself. Proofing activities also need to be supported by appropriate institutional structures. For example, coordinating the process from a central part of government would powerfully emphasise the political importance and cross-cutting nature of climate change, rather than something which only concerns the environment sector. Proofing activities should also incorporate a vertical (bottom-up) element, which draws in different sectoral stakeholders. To conclude, policy makers are absolutely right to focus on policy as a potential facilitator of and/or constraint on adaptive planning. Policy is an important aspect of the wider context in which adaptive decisions are made. But it is not the only determinant and probably not even the most important one2. Indeed, the development of the policy implementation literature over the last 30 years has highlighted the danger of taking the views of local actors at face value; they may have ulterior motives for ‘blaming’ national policy makers for their problems. There is another reason why the quest for ‘‘synoptic rationality’’ in policy systems (to use a phrase originally coined by Charles Lindblom, 1959) by ‘proofing’ each and every item of new and existing policy against climate change is unlikely to be a panacea: a great deal of what takes place at ‘the street level’ is not and never will be completely determined by the formal aims of policies decided centrally. Rather, policy is often the outcome of—to quote Lindblom again—‘‘muddling through’’ a catalogue of different problems, some of them climate related, some of them not. Nonetheless, our research suggests that governments are undoubtedly right to raise the profile of adaptation by identifying and resolving the most obvious antagonisms between existing policies, while building flexibility and adaptability into policy systems to facilitate, rather than inhibit, robust adaptive planning.
2
Our local-level interviewees, perceived ‘policy’ to be the second most important constraint on their ability to make adaptive decisions, behind ‘financial resources’ but well ahead of ‘information’.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 190
K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Natural Environment Research and Social and Economic Research Councils in the UK for funding Kate Urwin’s interdisciplinary PhD studentship (grant no. R42200134153). We would also like to thank all those from the agriculture, water and nature conservation sectors who agreed to be interviewed about adaptation to climate change. Andrew Jordan’s involvement was generously funded by the European Union’s Framework 6 programme via the ADAM and MATISSE projects. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors of this journal for their perceptive comments on earlier versions of this paper. References Adger, W.N., Arnell, N., Tompkins, E., 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15, 77–86. Argyris, C., 1999. On Organizational Learning. Blackwell, Oxford. Bache, I., Jordan, A. (Eds.), 2006. The Europeanization of British Politics. Palgrave, Basingstoke. Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., 2005. Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In: Lim, B., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Burton, I., Malone, E., Huq, S. (Eds.), Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 165–181. Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, B., Schipper, L., 2002. From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2, 145–159. Cabinet Office, 2005. Regulatory Impact Assessment Cost and Benefits Checklist. Cabinet Office, London. Clemens, E., Cook, J., 1999. Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 441–466. Countryside Agency, 2003. Rural Proofing in 2002/3: A Report to Government by the Countryside Agency. CA Publications, Wetherby. DARD, 2003. A Guide to Rural Proofing. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland. DEFRA, 2002a. Directing the Flow: Priorities for Future Water Policy. PB7510. DEFRA, London. DEFRA, 2002b. Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future. PB7751A. DEFRA, London. DEFRA, 2002c. Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England. PB7718. DEFRA, London. DEFRA, 2003a. The Impacts of Climate Change: Implications for DEFRA. PB7753. DEFRA, London. DEFRA, 2003b. Policy Appraisal and the Environment: Policy Guidance. DEFRA, London. DEFRA, 2005. Adaptation Policy Framework: A Consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. PB11431. DEFRA, London. DEFRA, 2006a. Adaptation Policy Framework: A Summary of Responses to the Consultation. /http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ climatechange/uk/adapt/policyframe.htmS. DEFRA, 2006b. Flood and Coastal Defence Guidance-Supplementary Note to Operating Authorities. DEFRA, London. EA, 2003. Water Resources Planning Guidelines. Supplementary Guidance Note 1: Treatment of Climate Change. Environment Agency, Bristol. EEA, 2005. Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. EEA Technical Report No.7/2005. European Environment Agency, Switzerland. EERA, SDRT, 2003. Living with climate change in the East of England. Stage 2: draft guidance for local service provisions. East of England Regional Assembly and Sustainable Development Round Table.
Elmore, R.F., 1979. Backward mapping: implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94, 601–616. EU, 2006a. European Climate Change Programme II: Impacts and Adaptation. /http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/eccp_impacts.htmS. EU, 2006b. Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy. DOC 10117/ 06. /http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/S. EU, 2007. Adapting to Climate Change-Green Paper from the Commission, COM (2007) 354 final, 29-6-07. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Flinders, M., 2002. Governance in Whitehall. Public Administration 80, 51–75. Hall, P.A., 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25, 275–296. HDA, 2002. Introducing Health Impact Assessment (HIA): Informing the Decision-Making Process. Health Development Agency, London. Hill, M., 2005. The Public Policy Process. Longman, Harmondsworth. Hill, M., Hupe, P., 2002. Implementing Public Policy. Sage, London. HM Treasury, DEFRA, 2005. A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy. HSMO, Norwich. Hossell, J.E., Briggs, B., Hepburn, I.R., 2000. Climate Change and UK Nature Conservation. DETR, London. Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J., Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R., Hill, S., 2002. Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre, UEA, Norwich. Jordan, A., Lenschow, A. (Eds.), 2008. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Jordan, A., Liefferink, D. (Eds.), 2004. Environmental Policy in Europe. Routledge, London. Ledoux, L., Crooks, S., Jordan, A., Turner, R.K., 2000. Implementing European Union biodiversity policy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy 17, 257–268. Lenschow, A. (Ed.), 2002. Environmental Policy Integration. Earthscan, London. Lim, B., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Burton, I., Malone, E., Huq, S. (Eds.), 2005. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, UK. Lindblom, C., 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19, 79–85. Ling, T., 2002. Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems. Public Administration 80, 615–642. Lipsky, M., 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in the Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Lorenzoni, I., Jordan, A., Hulme, M., Turner, K., O’Riordan, T., 2000a. A co-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment: Part I. Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Global Environmental Change 10, 57–68. Lorenzoni, I., Jordan, A., O’Riordan, T., Turner, K., Hulme, M., 2000b. A co-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment: Part II. A scenario-based case study in East Anglia (UK). Global Environmental Change 10, 145–155. MAFF, 2000. Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London. Næss, L.O., Bang, G., Eriksen, S., Vevatne, J., 2005. Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Global Environmental Change 15, 125–138. Niang-Diop, I., Bosch, H., 2005. Formulating an adaptation strategy. In: Lim, B., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Burton, I., Malone, E., Huq, S. (Eds.), Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 183–204. Nilsson, M., Nilsson, L., 2005. Towards climate policy integration in the EU. Climate Policy 5, 363–376. Oberthu¨r, S., Gehring, T. (Eds.), 2006. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Urwin, A. Jordan / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 180–191 Parsons, W., 1995. Public Policy. Edward Elgar, Aldershot. Perri, 6., Leat, D., Seltzer, K., Stoker, G., 2002. Towards Holistic Governance. Palgrave, Basingstoke. Radaelli, C.M., 2003. The Europeanization of public policy. In: Featherstone, K., Radaelli, C.M. (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 27–56. Russel, D., Jordan, A., 2007. Gearing up governance for sustainable development: patterns of environmental policy appraisal in UK central government. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (1), 1–22. Russel, D., Jordan, A., 2008. Joining up or pulling apart? The struggle to coordinate policy making in the United Kingdom, Policy and Politics, in press. Sabatier, P.A., 1986. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy 6, 21–48. SBSTA, 2005. Decision 2/CP.11 Five-year programme of work of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on impacts,
191
vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. FCCC/CP/2005/5/ Add.1. SDC, 2005. Sustainable Buildings—The Challenge of the Existing Stock. Sustainable Development Commission, London. Smit, B., Pilifosova, B., 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 892–912. UKCIP, 2001. Socio-Economic Scenarios for Climate Change Impact Assessment. UKCIP, Oxford. West, C., Gawith, M. (Eds.), 2005. Measuring Progress: Preparing for Climate Change through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. UKCIP, Oxford. Willows, R.I., Connell, R.K. (Eds.), 2003. Climate Adaptation: Risk Uncertainty and Decision-Making. UKCIP, Oxford. Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
