The document summarizes an assessment of the impacts and effectiveness of the CLISP Transnational Strategy for Climate-Proof Spatial Planning (CLISP TPS). The CLISP TPS aimed to provide integrated, cross-border recommendations and proposals for climate change adaptation through spatial planning. However, it lacked a mechanism for ongoing implementation and faced challenges in effectively bridging science and practice. While the CLISP TPS raised awareness and was used indirectly by some countries and regions, its overall transnational impacts were limited without a responsible body for spatial planning or follow up process. Key lessons included the need to directly engage policymakers, provide more localized information, and establish ownership and commitment to ongoing knowledge development after project

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Science vs. Practice  level of detail
• Practitioners need more detailed spatial information to
become active
Assessment V – Stakeholder Cooperation

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
13 Pilot Activities in Alpine regions & municipalities
Vinschgau/Val Venosta
Mostviertel
Gorenjska

21. Common
understanding/
transfer
Project capitalisation challenges
KickOff
Workplandefinition
RP 1-n
Thelastmonths

22. capitalising climate change knowledge for adaptation in the alpine space
22