C3 Alps - How to optimise impacts

623 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
623
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
384
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

C3 Alps - How to optimise impacts

  1. 1. capitalising climate change knowledge for adaptation in the alpine space wwww.c3alps.eu info@c3alps.eu How to optimise impacts CLISP Transnational Strategy for Climate-Proof Spatial Planning LP-Seminar, Munich, 11.-12.2014
  2. 2. 2 • Produced within CLISP – Climate Change Adaptation by Spatial Planning in the Alpine Space (2008-11) • 2010 only Germany and France adopted CCA strategies, CH, A at the beginning, Sl sectoral strategies, IT none • No policy paper at hand dealing with spatial planning at transnational level •  Aim to develop an integrated, cross-border document providing transferable approaches and proposals for action Background
  3. 3. 3 • Analyse ex-post the strengths and weaknesses of CLISP TPS and its impacts with regard to policy process of CCA in Alpine countries highlighting the impacts in the field of spatial planning Methodology: Guideline based expert interviews with participants of all countries and regions taking part in the development of the CLISP TPS Objective within C3-Alps
  4. 4. 4 • CLISP TPS has no binding character but mainly provides guidance for action • It provides recommendations on implementation on regional and local levels, on communication and on monitoring and evaluation Assessment I
  5. 5. 5 • Very comprehensive (large collection of options and recommendations for actions) • Functions as: o knowledge inventory oGuidance/reference for work oAwareness-raising instrument • Highly valued as bottom-up developed product with practice orientation and scientific basis Assessment II - Strenghts
  6. 6. 6 • Majority of partners have benefited from various possibilities of exchange • High value of cross border/transnational exchange (peer to peer) • Stimulus for self reflection • Science-practice exchange important for matching generated knowledge and its usability in the “real world” • Raised CCA awareness during the course of the project • Human-based Knowledge Transfer (process character) Assessment III - Strengths
  7. 7. 7 • Lack of obligation and responsibility after completion of the project • There is no transnational institution responsible for spatial planning • Too many compromises • Lack of precise/visualised definitions of measures Assessment IV - Weaknesses
  8. 8. 8 • Too conventional – lack of innovation and courage • Language (only english as a hindering factor) • Unsatisfactory project management odevelopment of TPS started too late,… oDecision processes towards the end lacking participation • Effectiveness low as no dedicated follow-up process Assessment IV - Weaknesses
  9. 9. 9 • Science vs. Practice  level of detail • Practitioners need more detailed spatial information to become active Assessment V – Stakeholder Cooperation
  10. 10. 10 • On transnational level hardly any impact (not feasible on transnational level) • On national level PPs feel no responsibilities to spread the TPS (see it rather as a reference guide) • CCA has until now low (emerging) priority in the spatial planning policy Impacts of the TPS
  11. 11. 11 • Awareness raising and interest • Austrian national climate change adaptation strategy • New Austrian Spatial Development Concept 2011 • Inter-sectoral working group on CCA in Upper-Austria • CLISP-TPS as reference work at Vienna University of Technology Impacts Austria
  12. 12. 12 • Key elements were “indirectly” implemented in the Bavarian climate change adaptation strategy • The regional development programme (legally binding) emphasises potential of spatial planning in CCA • STMUV develops planning guide based on TPS • BBSR (national level) launched model region project using elements of CLISP TPS Impacts Bavaria
  13. 13. 13 • The entire project CLISP (more than TPS) initiated a discussion process across sectors to deal with CCA – also transnational wise with CH • In depth study was launched • Dissemination via various channels Impacts Liechtenstein
  14. 14. 14 • With the involvement in CLISP the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) began engaging in the topic of CCA • CLISP was decisive for the engagement in the national climate change adaptation strategy • CLISP-knowledge was used for spatial planning sub-strategy • In the frame of Swiss Action Plan for climate change adaptation it is intended to apply the “climate change fitness checklist” elaborated for spatial planners (in 2012 ARE launched a study to make CLISP checklist applicable for Swiss context) • Integration of CC in the national law of spatial planning • Increased resources to deal with CCA at ARE • CCA has become an objective in the planning law of PP Grisons since 2010 Impacts Switzerland
  15. 15. 15 • No direct impacts of CLISP and its TPS observable • Human-based knowledge transfer (more participants from administration level might have brought more impact) Impacts South Tyrol/Italy
  16. 16. 16 • No national CC-adaptation strategy • In parallel the “Low carbon strategy for Slovenia 2060” was developed (CLISP and TPS are mentioned as good practice examples). • TPS distributed within directorate for spatial planning • In the future it is assumed that when revising strategic documents in spatial planning on national level the TPS will be input Impacts Slovenia
  17. 17. 17 • The document and in particular the development process generated CCA knowledge and increased awareness • Countries in the process of strategy development benefitted most o Integration in national, regional or local documents • Follow up studies and activities emerged • Potential to integrate content into national, regional and local strategic documents is high • There is no transnational spatial planning institution Conclusions/Lessons Learnt I
  18. 18. 18 • Awareness-raising process strongly takes place on an individual level (personal involvement)  integration of decision makers and/or policy makers in projects is decisive (process impact) • Bridging the gap between science and practitioners (finding a common language – hard but possible and necessary) • Dissemination: who is reponsible after project ends ? • Who is responsible/in charge of further development ? How to make people take over responsibility? • Language – a translation into native languages is considered vital for a broader use. Conclusions/Lessons Learnt II
  19. 19. 19 • Target group orientation from the beginning o Definition and survey of target groups (knowledge needs, communication preferences, …) o Dialogue with users of project results • Continuation of results/processes: transnational exchange platform of CCA policy makers • „Knowledge inventory“: select, organise, make accessible relevant information, present in digestable forms, and keep the knowledge evolving o Continuation: business plan (ownership, commitment) C3-Alps: examples for capitalisation approaches
  20. 20. 20 13 Pilot Activities in Alpine regions & municipalities Vinschgau/Val Venosta Mostviertel Gorenjska
  21. 21. Common understanding/ transfer Project capitalisation challenges KickOff Workplandefinition RP 1-n Thelastmonths
  22. 22. capitalising climate change knowledge for adaptation in the alpine space 22

×