Towards a framework to assess, compare and develop monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation in Europe.

Adaptation is increasingly recognised as essential when dealing with the adverse impacts of climate change on societies, economies and the environment. However, there is insufficient information about the effectiveness of adaption policies, measures and actions. For this reason, the establishment of monitoring programmes is considered to be necessary. Such programmes can contribute to knowledge, learning and data to support adaptation governance. In the European Union (EU), member states are encouraged to develop National Adaptation Strategies (NASs). The NASs developed so far vary widely because of differing views, approaches and policies. A number of member states have progressed to monitoring and evaluating the implementation of their NAS. It is possible to identify key elements in these monitoring programmes that can inform the wider policy learning process. In this paper, four generic building blocks for creating a monitoring and evaluation programme are proposed: (1) definition of the system of interest, (2) selection of a set of indicators, (3) identification of the organisations responsible for monitoring and (4) definition of monitoring and evaluation procedures. The monitoring programmes for NAS in three member states-Finland, the UK and Germany-were analysed to show how these elements have been used in practice, taking into account their specific contexts. It is asserted that the provision of a common framework incorporating these elements will help other member states and organisations within them in setting up and improving their adaptation monitoring programmes.

Database support for adaptation to climate change: An assessment of web-based portals across scales.

The widely recognized increase in greenhouse gas emissions is necessitating adaptation to a changing climate, and policies are being developed and implemented worldwide, across sectors, and between government scales globally. The aim of this article is to reflect on one of the major challenges: facilitating and sharing information on the next adaptation practices. Web portals (i.e., web sites) for disseminating information are important tools in meeting this challenge, and therefore, we assessed the characteristics of select major portals across multiple scales. We found that there is a rather limited number of case studies available in the portals-between 900 and 1000 in total-with 95 that include cost information and 195 that include the participation of stakeholders globally. Portals are rarely cited by researchers, suggesting a suboptimal connection between the practical, policy-related, and scientific development of adaptation. The government portals often lack links on search results between US and European Union (EU) web sites, for example. With significant investments and policy development emerging in both the United States and the European Union, there is great potential to share information via portals. Moreover, there is the possibility of better connecting the practical adaptation experience from bottom-up projects to the science of adaptation. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:627-631. © 2016 SETAC.

Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: Framing the controversial.

We analyze how metaphors are used in presenting and debating novel technologies that could influence the climate and thereby also future climate change policies. We show that metaphors strengthen a policy-related storyline, while metaphors are rarer in purely descriptive accounts. The choice of metaphor frames the technologies. War metaphors are used equally in arguments that are for, against and neutral with respect to the further development of geoengineering, but differences arise in the use of metaphors related to controllability, health and mechanisms. Controllability metaphors are often used in justifying further research and development of good governance practices, whereas health metaphors tend to be used against the very idea of geoengineering by portraying technological interventions in the climate as an emblematic case of an unacceptable development. These findings suggest that metaphors are early indications of restrictions in the interpretative flexibility that influences future governance of geoengineering and geoengineering research.

Beyond REACH: roadblocks and shortcuts en route to integrated risk assessment and management of chemicals.

This paper addresses obstacles and opportunities for the development and application of novel methods for integrated assessment of cumulative risks from chemicals, exemplified by the REACH legislation of the EU, in the context of multiple stressors and of chemicals policy. We examine the role of such methods in connection with REACH by models of integration and innovation of risk information in multi-actor risk governance; analyses of key documents on REACH; and interviews with EU regulators and stakeholders. We first explain the emergence of REACH as a response to tensions in EU chemicals, environmental and other policies. We then analyze the present configuration of REACH particularly in relation to key dimensions of risk integration: across stressors; exposed organisms; and impacts. Among the policy aspects of integrated risk information, we focus on its interaction with management and the contesting framings and interpretations of assessment. Avenues and barriers are identified for integrated treatment of risks under REACH and with other instruments. We emphasize how bounded, formal and static assessments interact with open and informal approaches that have more flexibility in integrating risks in new ways. We conclude with a generalizing discussion on the role of novel methods of integrated risk assessment in the development of reflexive and participatory governance under REACH and beyond.

Integrated risk assessment and risk governance as socio-political phenomena: a synthetic view of the challenges.

To call for integration in risk assessment and governance as a self-evident goal is deceptively easy. For more insight, we ask: what level and kind of integration and for what purposes is needed and sufficient? What opportunities and obstacles can be identified for integrative treatment of risks? What causes and impacts are there of developments in risk integration? To answer these questions we investigate the socio-political processes and factors surrounding integrated risk assessment and risk governance through a combination of literature reviews and original research. We emphasize regulatory assessment and governance of risks associated with chemicals in the EU, but we link them with other areas to better grasp options and problems in integration. We relate the problems to political factors and barriers in sector and vertical integration, including deviating interests, and further to conflicting information, concepts and mindsets. Risk assessment and risk governance involve varying notions of risks and knowledge, with tensions between stressor- or impact-oriented, exclusive or inclusive, positivist or relativist, and fixed or reflexive notions and approaches. These tensions influence the trajectories of integration between sectors, actors and regions, constraining the fulfillment of ideals of integrated governance. We conclude that risk assessment and governance can be integrated, harmonized and innovated to a limit only, but this limit is variable and flexible, and provides opportunities especially if attention is paid to the socio-political contexts, value choices and decision structures in each case. Generally, the results underline a reflexive approach whereby the meanings, framings and implications of risk integration are probed in open processes of deliberation and negotiation, as a learning process to transcend the formal and prescriptive modes of regulation and knowledge generation.