LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Marie Hrabanski, Senior Researcher, CIRAD, France, marie.hrabanski@cirad.fr

Alexandra Lesnikowski, Assistant Professor, Concordia University, Canada, alexandra.lesnikowski@concordia.ca

Gilles Massardier, Senior Researcher, CIRAD, gilles.massardier@cirad.fr

The main objective of this workshop is to compare various sectorial or/and multi-sectorial climate policy implementation to analyze, in a comparative perspective (between sectors and between countries), the situations of “(des) integration” of adaptation (Biesbrok, Candel, 2020).

Climate change is a “wicked problem par excellence” (Dupuis, 2014), in particular because it is global, multi-stake, multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral problem : “Climate change is a complex problem that transcends borders, and policies across a myriad of domains because they relate to adjacent sectors” (Schmidt, Fleig, 2018). According to a large part of the literature on public policies, it called for an integrated response, that is to say multi-sectoral, that would go against the structures and routines of the so-called public sectors. In addition, the prescriptions of group III of the IPCC and the Paris Agreement (Lesnikowski & al, 2016) soften this integrative approach to climate policies. These approaches and injunctions to a ‘good’ multi-sectoral climate governance raise the question of the efficiency of these policies in a complex universe: “how adaptation is integrated into existing constellations of policies, laws, rules, programs, and mandates within countries and at different levels of government (Lesnikovsky & al. 2016), and more precisely, how “'wicked problems'' crosscut the boundaries of traditional government sectors and levels. As such, one crucial part of the response lies in the integration of sectoral responses” (Biesbroek and Candel, 2019). “Complex policy-making faces substantial risks of failure when horizontal or vertical dimensions of policy-making are not well integrated” (Howlett, Vince, Del Rio, 2017).

However, from the perspective of the researchers who propose this workshop, this causal relationship between climate policy failures and their non-integration is not yet clear and calls for further study. Concerning agricultural sector for exemple, their conclusions are unequivocal: the agricultural sector confines the adaptation policies of agriculture but without compromising an adaptive capacity. In Agricultural sector, « administrative traditions matter », where this is less true for other sectors (Biesbroek & al., 2018). Should we conclude that there is agricultural exceptionalism or are other sectors part of this sectoral climate management? On the contrary, is sectorality a more anchored vector, than the literature predicts, of the concrete implementation of climate policy instruments ? In more normative terms, does the efficient response to climate adaptation go through the routines of the sectors or, on the contrary, by going beyond them?

How to characterize and define different types of integration? Is integration a mandatory condition for the efficiency of these climate policies? As mentioned by Trein & al. (2021), “there is a need for comparative research, which works towards systematizing factors explaining such reforms”.

In the political science field, an abundant literature has focused on the integration of climate issues into public policies. Firstly, climate policy integration is a derivative from the concept of environmental policy integration (Jordan and Lenschow, 2010) and is strongly anchored in policy integration literature in political sciences (Howlett, Vince, Del Rio, 2017; Schmidt, Fleig, 2018). Secondly, the concept of Climate adaptation mainstreaming refers both to sectoral integration and/or dedicated approach (Kok and De Cornick, 2007; Swart and Raes, 2007), usually investigating mainstreaming processes of climate adaptation objectives (Brouwer et al., 2013; Runhaar et al., 2017). Thirdly, the neologism ‘climatization’ is now frequently used in social sciences field (Aykut et al., 2017; Cournil, Parusso, 2018, Hrabanski, 2020; Aykut and Maertens, 2021) while not necessarily being further defined or debated. Fourthly, adaptive governance (Hurlbert, Gupta, 2016) consider sectors as a barrier to adaptation to climate change.

However, a number of arguments from the literature or from field research question the possibility of generalizing integration argument for evaluating the efficiency of climate change adaptation policies. First of all, “political commitments to strengthen integrative efforts often do not proceed beyond discursive levels (Jacob et al. 2008; Candel 2017), largely due to the same factors that were found by research on coordination, such as conflicting interests and lacks of genuine commitment”. Moreover, policy injunctions generally fail to overcome conflicts of interest between policy sectors” (Briesbroek, Candel, 2019). And, finally, the results of fieldwork researches concerning agricultural policies show that, on the contrary, adaptation and sectorization can go hand in hand. On the one hand, to use the distinction made by Candel & Biesbrok (2016, 2019), the policy frame is often integrative between climate, agriculture, land-use, or energy for example (at the international level and of national plans and programs), at objective level (Trien & al., 2021), likewise and sometimes for the instruments (in particular generalist financial instruments can fund agricultural systems). But, on the other hand, the objectives (often linked to the profitability of the sector) and the governance of the implementation of these instruments (no or little instrumental procedures to connect the sectors, climate adaptation instruments remain specific to the agricultural sector) are essentially agricultural and therefore very rarely multi-sectoral. The agricultural subsystem is, in term of climate instruments and their implementation, little invested in transversality (no or little "recognition of mutual dependencies between subsystems").

The main objective of this workshop is to compare various sectorial or/and multi-sectorial climate policy implementation to analyze, in a comparative perspective (between sectors and between countries), the situations of “(des) integration” of adaptation (Biesbrok, Candel, 2020).

In order:

- to compare surveys on the integration about climate issues,

- to question the existence of a “whole-of-government” and a “joined-up-governance” (Bogdanor 2005) in favor of integrated public policies, and their efficiency,

The workshop is structured according to three research topics.

1/ Social process for climate policy “(des)integration”

In the literature, the social and institutional process of integration refers to three elements. First, can we spot “coordination between public sector organizations (Metcalfe 1994; Peters 1998; Jordan and Schout 2006). Second, can we spot a learning process between sectors (cross-sector learning) that depends on the recognition of mutual dependencies between subsystems involved and of an associated variety of frames and perspectives on problems and solutions (Nilsson and Nilsson, 2005; Biesbroek, Candel, 2019). Finally, can we spot actors and coalitions of actors involved in the implementation of policies, by asking whether these formed coalitions go beyond the borders of a single sector (“coalition building”). Have they a social capacity for an “interactive approach between sectors”, or is there a “new network configurations in the governance of a particular problem” (Jochim, May 2010). This third element also refers to the question of brokers and policy who have the capacity to go beyond the sectoral boundaries (Jochim and May 2010; Faling, M., Biesbroek, R ., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., & Termeer, K., 2019).

2/ Policy instruments for climate policy “(des)integration”

The literature allows to identify the four following questions. First, the question of the types of policy instruments that are privileged to implement policy integration. The literature on adaptive governance indeed considers that 'nodality' instruments are to be favored insofar "by organizing dialogue between several public policy areas”. Others believe that policy mixes (Flanagan, 2011), capable of combining incentive, communication and/or regulatory instruments, could also tackle sector routines (Pacheco Vega 2020). Second, the integration of climate instruments need to be questioned through the prism of the different temporalities and scales of governance concerned. Are the instruments integrated at

all levels and at all times or, on the contrary, can we identify instruments that are particularly integrated at the time of their design at international or national scale, while their implementation would be exclusively the responsibility of sectors? The third question concerns the efficiency and consistency of the instruments. To what extent are the instruments are coherent in the sense that they may or may not refer to a real political work of building a concrete joined-up sectors management, and not only to display effects, symbolic innovations or even frame-based innovations (Upham et al., 2014). To what extend the accountability of stakeholders exists during the instruments’ implementation governance (Mees & Driessen, 2019). Indeed, we can legitimately question the clarity of the distribution of responsibilities between stakeholders and inside policy coalitions implementing instruments in this complex and multi-level and multi-sectoral process.

3/ Methodology to investigate climate policy « (des)integration »

The third axis of comparison will aim to identify the contributions and limits of the different methodological approaches to analyze the processes of “(de)sectorization” of climate issues. The transnational comparison, in the North and in the South, carried out on the basis of qualitative data seems to be a particularly heuristic method for questioning these issues. Indeed, south states are still under-studied from this angle apart from a few exceptions (von Lüpke, H., & Well, M., 2020, Milhorance et al., 2020). Studies also analyze these issues by mobilizing quantitative approaches (Schmidt, N. M., & Fleig, A., 2018). Integration issues are more often analyzed on the basis of comparative analyzes between sectors (Biesbroek & Candel, 2019). We can also observe works on environmental policy integration developed over the long term (Nilsson, M., 2005). Can other approaches complement these methodological options and possibly approaches in terms of network analysis or even process tracing? this line of research will therefore seek to promote innovative and relevant methodologies to grasp these issues.

Climate change is a « wicked » and complex problem that transcends borders, and policies across a myriad of domains because they relate to adjacent sectors. According to the international organizations and to the main literature, one crucial part of the response lies in the integration of sectoral responses. However, this workshop wants to wants to bring clarity to this debate that is not yet clear and calls for further study. Its main objective is to compare various sectorial or/and multi-sectorial climate policy implementation to analyze, in a comparative perspective (between sectors and between countries), the situations of “(des) integration” of adaptation.

To do so, the workshop is structured according to three research topics.

1/ Social process for climate policy “(des)integration”. The social and institutional process of integration refers to three criteria : coordination between public sector organizations ; learning process between sectors (cross-sector learning) that depends on the recognition of mutual dependencies between subsystems involved and of an associated variety of frames and perspectives on problems and solutions ; actors and coalitions of actors involved in the implementation of policies (“coalition building”) and the social capacity for an interactive approach between sectors.

2/ Policy instruments for climate policy “(des)integration”. What are the types of policy instruments privileged to implement policy integration : 'nodality' instruments ; policy mixes capable of combining incentive, communication and/or regulatory instruments that could tackle sector routines ?  Are the instruments integrated at all levels and at all times or, on the contrary, can we identify instruments that are particularly integrated at the time of their design at international or national scale, while their implementation would be exclusively the responsibility of sectors? To what extent are the instruments are coherent in the sense that they may or may not refer to a real political work of building a concrete joined-up sectors management ? To what extend the accountability of stakeholders exists during the instruments’ implementation governance?

3/ Methodology to investigate climate policy « (des)integration »

The third axis of comparison will aim to identify the contributions and limits of the different methodological approaches to analyze the processes of “(de)sectorization” of climate issues : qualitative ; quantitative data ; long term approaches ... Can other approaches complement these methodological options and possibly approaches in terms of network analysis or even process tracing?

Marie Hrabanski is senior researcher, CIRAD, University of Montpellier, MUSE, France. She works on environnemental policy (Climate, Biodiveersity, PSE). She is currently the coordinator of the TYPOCLIM scientific project (ANR-16-IDEX-0006). She is also co-coordinator of the CIRAD’s priority research topics on climate change: “Helping farming systems in the global South adapt to climate change” https://www.cirad.fr/en/our-activities-our-impact/priority-research-topics/climate-change. Some publications : Hrabanski, M. (2020). Science-driven climatization of agricultural issues? The controversies surrounding climate-smart agriculture. Critique internationale, (1), 189-208 ; Marie Hrabanski, Jean-François Le Coq. Tackling fragmentation of climate and biodiversity regimes complexes: the role ecosystem services and payment for environmental services : the role ecosystem services and payment for environmental services. Mundos Plurales - Revista Latinoamericana de Políticas y Acción Pública, 2018, 5 (2), pp.73-90

Alexandra Lesnikowski is Assistant Prof. At Concordia University, Canada. She works on climate change vulnerability and housing system governance and climate instruments. Some recent publications  : Lesnikowski, Alexandra, James D. Ford, Robbert Biesbroek, Lea Berrang-Ford. 2019. Characterizing climate change adaptation policy portfolios: Comparative measurement through policy instrument mixes. Climatic Change. 156(4): 447-469 ; Conevska, Aleksandra, James D. Ford, Alexandra Lesnikowski. 2019. Assessing the Adap-tation Fund’s responsiveness to developing country’s needs. Climate and Development ; Berrang-Ford, Lea, Robbert Biesbroek, James D. Ford, Alexandra Lesnikowski, AndrewTanabe, Frances M. Wang, Chen Chen, Angel Hsu, Jessica J. Hellmann, Patrick Pringle,Martina Grecequet, J.-C. Amado, Saleemul Huq, Shuaib Lwasa, S. Jody Heymann. 2019.”Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments”. Nature Climate Change, 9:440-449.

Gilles Massardier is senior researcher, CIRAD, University of Montpellier, MUSE, France. He works on water and climate policy in the americas. He is currently the coordinator of the TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE scientific project (MUSE). Some publications : G. Massardier, Political Regime Matters. Participation Practices in the context of a Competitive Oligarchic Policy Making. Water Management in Duque de Caxias, Brazil, 2007-2017. Latin American Policy, 2022 ; E. de Lima Caldas, G. Massardier, “Les paradoxes de l’adaptation de l’agriculture au changement climatique (AACC) dans l’Etat de Sao Paulo. La coordination des politiques à l’épreuve des agendas fragmentés, des instruments et mise en œuvre sectoriels et contrastés, Confins, 2020, n° 46 ; Poupeau Franck, Razafimahefa Lala , Robert Jeremy, Mercier Delphine, Massardier Gilles, Jacobi Pedro (dir.), Water Conflicts, Hydrocracy in the Americas. Coalitions, Networks, Policies, 2018