7. Compa­rison and synthesis

As becomes clear from the country chapters above, all Nordic countries are experiencing the impacts of climate change and working to adapt to a changing climate in ways that enhance their resilience. While there are some similarities in terms of both the impacts experienced and the governance structures used to respond, the approaches to and experiences with adaptation also vary when it comes to planning, execution, and evaluation of climate change adaptation policies. The purpose of this chapter is to identify key progress factors for climate change adaptation and highlight best practices and main challenges to support learning and enhance adaptation across the Nordic region.

Throughout the country chapters, certain aspects of climate change adaptation stand out as being particularly important for assessing and furthering national adaptation. These can be identified as key progress factors, and include:

Table 7.1 shows a comparison of the five Nordic countries across these progress factors. Best practices and main challenges are described in the sub-section below.

The notion of progress factors is also partially addressed in the final chapter of the report, where we look ahead to what the Nordic countries might aspire to in the years to come.

* While there is no National Adaptation Plan (NAP) in Sweden, there are numerous sector-specific plans (SAP).
** The general lack of economic incentives in the Nordic countries makes it challenging to speak to progress within this area. The theme of economic measures and incentives is discussed in more detail below.

Across the five country chapters of this report, a wide range of best practices and main challenges emerge, some of which are common for all countries and some of which are unique to individual countries. As described in the introduction to this report, our identification and analysis of best practices and main challenges is in part based on how adaptation has been evaluated within each country as well as by our interviewees. For this chapter, we have prioritized those issues that are relevant for two or more of the Nordic countries. For issues that are unique to individual countries, please refer to the overview of best practices and main challenges at the end of the individual country chapters.

We have synthesized best practices and main challenges across three interrelated themes:

In all Nordic countries, adaptation is guided by a combination of national steering documents, such as national strategies, action plans, laws, and regulations of various sorts as well as sector-specific adaptation plans to varying degrees. This indicates a mainstreaming approach to adaptation. The strength of this approach is that adaptation is considered within most societal sectors. A weakness can be that adaptation is considered within these sectors to a varying degree and thus risks “getting lost” within the already existing priorities and mandates of individual sectors and authorities. This weakness is reinforced by the fact that the prerequisites for policy integration are only partially in place. The most noticeable thing lacking is a coordinating body with a sufficient political mandate to supervise and, if necessary, enforce policy actions in sectors that do not follow up on their adaptation responsibilities (see the section below on responsibility, coordination, and collaboration). This is a weakness of adaptation policymaking that applies to all the Nordic countries, with some minor differences.

The above challenge becomes a particularly pronounced risk in the absence of systematic and regular monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE). Currently, none of the Nordic countries have comprehensive MRE systems in place, yet Finland, Norway and Sweden have elements of such a system in place (e.g., formal annual reporting procedures on adaptation progress to the respective Parliaments) and are working on establishing more comprehensive systems. The lack of systematic and regular MRE means that the Nordic countries to some extents are “in the dark” when it comes to assessing and prioritizing adaptation work. The challenge of developing MRE systems is particularly related to the lack of appropriate national indicators for the diverse and multidimensional effects of climate change adaptation measures, including especially qualitative parameters, such as wellbeing (a weakness that applies to all the Nordic countries). The lack of MRE systems is related to the lack of a clearly articulated policy cycle where the production of risk assessments, strategies, plans, and evaluation reports follow each other in a predictable and regular manner, to track adaptation progress and ensure the timely development and implementation of appropriate measures.

All Nordic countries have well-established scientific communities that can provide the scientific basis for risks, vulnerabilities and adaptation needs. Much of the existing knowledge is made readily available through diverse platforms and websites, providing a rich resource for both planning and implementation. Despite the existence of relevant knowledge institutions and platforms, however, most of the Nordic countries lack sufficient mechanisms for systematic knowledge generation on climate change-related risks and vulnerabilities, including the socio-economic costs and benefits of action and inaction, and the inclusion of relevant user groups in co-production of knowledge. Funding for climate change-related research is predominantly directed at mitigation, while research on adaptation receives a fraction of the funding. Similarly, natural science research tends to be prioritized over social science research. This results in a persistent “black box” of how authorities and individuals can respond to climate change in ways that are effective, sustainable and equitable. A related challenge pertains to the translation of climate change-related knowledge to county and municipal-level actors who need to develop and implement adaptation measures.

Economic measures are a theme of growing importance in the Nordic countries, although the development of such measures is at an early stage. Economic measures can be divided into three main categories: positive (e.g., subsidies), negative (e.g., taxes), and neutral (e.g., insurance schemes that apply to natural perils). In general, for the Nordic as for most other high-income and western countries, no ‘negative’ economic policy measures have been established that specifically focus on the consideration of adapting society to climate change. In this respect, adaptation differs radically from the mitigation part of climate policy, in that negative economic instruments in the form of taxes and fees have such a central place - at least in the discussion (if not the actual implementation) of effective climate change mitigation policy measures.

Similarly, economic policy tools, and in particular cost-benefit analysis, are used far less compared to the emissions part of climate policy (Handberg et al, 2020). In recent years, several initiatives have been taken to develop and test practical schemes to use cost-benefit analysis in climate change adaptation, both generic (European Environment Agency, 2023; Nationella expertrådet för klimatanpassning, 2023) and within specific sectors (e.g., Handberg et al, 2023). However, this has proven to be demanding because of adaptation’s multidimensional character. In comparison, emissions policy is simpler as it generally operates with only one benefit dimension: reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.

To the extent that current adaptation policies in the Nordic countries do include economic policy measures, this relates to the category of ‘positive’ incentives (admittedly judged to be highly inadequate in terms of adapting society to a future climate), and the neutral category covering insurance schemes related to natural perils. Regarding the latter, Nordic countries – with Norway in the forefront – emerge as a leading region internationally. To a certain extent, insurance schemes are limited to today's climate, which constitutes a clear weakness, but the strength is that comprehensive schemes have been established giving the policyholders good financial security for the various forms of climate-related damage that may occur. There have been discussions, for instance in Norway and Sweden, about differentiating insurance premiums based on risk profile, so that, for example, owners of buildings located in high-risk areas for floods or landslides must pay higher premiums. But so far, such proposals have not gained traction. Such a differentiation could conceivably strengthen the incentives for preventive measures but would, on the other hand, have undesirable negative social consequences, which is likely why such proposals have so far been rejected. What makes the Norwegian system stand out in this context is a mandatory scheme where everyone who takes out home insurance must also pay a separate premium for natural damage, which constitutes an important mechanism for financing the scheme for natural damage.

The Nordic countries differ somewhat on how responsibility for adaptation is divided. In Iceland, Norway, and Sweden a designated ministry has the overall responsibility for adaptation (ministry of climate and/or environment). In Denmark and Finland, adaptation is the responsibility of the government as a whole. At the operational level of governance, the allocation of adaptation responsibility varies across the Nordic countries between ministries, directorates, and agencies. For instance, while in Norway, significant responsibility is transferred to multiple directorates and agencies, in Finland, only the ministerial level has official responsibility. Finland, Norway, and Sweden have established cross-sectoral groups at the national level with minor variations in terms of political mandate and organisational set-up, to help ensure coordination across ministries and agencies. These groups are perceived as helpful in enabling cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration.

Despite the importance of these leading government bodies and cross-sectoral working groups, in most Nordic countries they lack the political mandate to put adaptation high on their national political agendas within the relevant sectors. This pertains to the specific challenge of adapting society to the future as opposed to today’s (or yesterday’s) climate, a point that is made, for example, by the Norwegian National Audit Office. The lack of political mandate also makes it challenging for most Nordic countries to embrace their responsibility and be accountable to local-level actors involved in adaptation. It further disables public bodies and private actors from accepting risk ownership and ensure that all risks are accounted for in both the planning and implementation of adaptation measures.

The close dialogue and collaboration needed to ensure a coordinated effort on climate change adaptation is hampered by a “silo” structure among ministries and sectors within all Nordic countries. One particularly clear example of this is the division between adaptation and mitigation, which are areas with high mutual impact and dependencies, but that nonetheless are situated within different ministries and with highly different political mandates. The lack of coordination and strategic collaboration between the fields of adaptation and mitigation results in missed opportunities for creating synergies and enhances the risk of goal conflicts.

Apart from Iceland, municipalities play a central role in adaptation work in all Nordic countries and are supported nationally with both knowledge and financial resources. The country placing most emphasis on municipalities is Denmark, where the government’s primary role is to establish the legal frameworks for adaptation. As already mentioned, however, many municipalities across the Nordic countries find both knowledge and financial resources to be lacking, making it challenging for them to adhere to their mandate and assume responsibility. In some cases, it is unclear where the line is drawn between municipalities and the state, especially when it comes to financing adaptation. In most Nordic countries, there is also a lack of clarity with regard to the responsibility of property owners to ensure appropriate adaptation of private property.

In all Nordic countries, there is growing awareness of the interlinkages between climate change and biodiversity loss and the need to consider these two areas within the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). All five countries are considering Nature-based Solutions (NbS) as a way of enhancing synergies and reducing negative impacts between these areas, although most of this work is at an early stage. In most Nordic countries, municipalities have come the furthest in integrating adaptation into municipal planning, although a general lack of resources hampers this work. The commitment to NbS across the Nordic region is exemplified by the Declaration “Finalising the Global Biodiversity Deal – The Nordic Approach”, approved by the Nordic Ministers for the Environment and Climate (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2022a) and the subsequent Nordic Ministerial Declaration on nature-based solutions (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2022b).

Taking an integrative approach to adaptation is further hampered by a lack of knowledge of the most significant interlinkages between, for example, adaptation and mitigation, or energy transitions and nature protection. It is also hampered by a lack of appropriate and effective mechanisms for enhancing synergies and navigating goal conflicts. Linked to this challenge is a lack of appropriate indicators for measuring and evaluating societal impact beyond reducing immediate risks. This includes both long-term risks and vulnerabilities as well as qualitative aspects, such as wellbeing.

Finally, in some Nordic countries, the prioritization of economic growth and the weighting of quantitative criteria undermines the ability of adaptation efforts to sufficiently consider and integrate social and ecological concerns for the benefit of people and planet in a long-term perspective.

In Table 7.2 below, we have summarized the main findings of the report with respect to best practices and key challenges along the three interrelated themes.