Nielsen, H.Ø. & Pedersen, A.B. 2023. Gudenåpartnerskabet. En analyse af samarbejde om klimatilpasning på tværs af organisatoriske grænser. Aarhus Universitet, DCE – Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, 46 s. - Videnskabelig rapport nr. 549. http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR549.pdf

Summary

This report analyses the outcomes and cooperation processes of the Gudenå partnership, a sub-project under the Coast2Coast Climate Challenge (C2C CC) project funded by the ‘EU LIFE Programme’ to address climate adaptation in the Central Denmark Region. The River Gudenå runs through seven municipalities and the water basin is expected to be hit by more frequent and more violent flooding. The Gudenå partnership involves seven municipalities and a water utility company and was formed under C2C CC to identify joint solutions for optimizing climate adaptation efforts across municipal borders.

The partnership is organized as a network and the analysis therefore builds on scientific literature on network governance, which has identified factors that foster successful network outcomes. Based on this literature the analysis examines the following questions

1. What outcomes has the partnership achieved that would not have been achieved without it?
2. What key factors have promoted or inhibited the cooperation and achievements of the partnership?
3. How did specific actors contribute to the partnership? (covered in analysis of question 2)
4. What lessons can be drawn from the Gudenå-partnership for future cross-municipal cooperation about climate adaptation?

 

The analysis is based on qualitative interviews with 20 actors directly or indirectly involved in the project, including municipal employees, managers and politicians, stakeholders and the Ministry of Environment as well as analysis of key project documents.

The key outcomes of the partnership are:

• Knowledge building and tool development specifically an improved hydrological model for the river Gudenå, which allows for scenario analyses of different climate adaptation measures and development and demonstration of new stakeholder involvement methods, which produced new knowledge about the stakeholder landscape. These outcomes also lead to capacity building for future climate adaptation efforts.
• Adoption of a joint political vision among the participating municipalities and utility company for how to handle climate adaptation.
• Developing and solidifying cooperative relations between the participants which is expected to promote coordination of future efforts.
• Placing climate adaptation on the political agendas of local municipalities.

 

However, not all objectives have been achieved. Thus, several participants point out that the partnership did not succeed in developing joint measures or come to joint decisions among the participating municipalities. Some interviewees point out that the partnership has not demonstrated that political decision-makers can come together in joint decisions that involve differences of interest between organizations or municipalities.

The key factors that have facilitated the partnership’s achievements:

• The partnership provided a network for planning and environmental professionals in the participating organizations, who shared a professional interest and developed a joint mission.
• EU funding for capacity building provided an incentive to participate and a commitment to deliver on objectives in the project description.
• Engaging politicians – while not to a sufficient extent - resulted in an overall plan for the river basin although not with specific joint measures.

 

The key factors that have inhibited the partnership’s achievements:

• The large geographical coverage of the partnership and the multitude of stakeholders present meant that a wide variety of interests, problems and solutions were potentially at play. In this context the ability of the partnership to make decisions was challenged by the fact that municipal politicians did not have sufficient knowledge of, let alone ownership to, the partnership. Not all politicians bought into the idea of a joint climate adaptation plan for the river basin, and severe flooding incidents in 2020 it was clear that politicians in harder hit municipalities were under pressure to focus on solutions for their own municipalities.
• Moreover, at the administrative level participation has varied among municipalities. Municipalities with lower levels of risk of flooding were less interested in committing resources to the project. Despite EU funding, the participants find that programme administration required was heavy.
• Finally, the project had did not have adequate funding for project management, which has therefore rotated among three municipalities. Thus there was loss of knowledge and experience in the transitions, despite competent and committed project managers.

 

Key lessons for future inter-municipal cooperation about climate adaptation.

Partnerships need decision-making powers

• The Gudenå partnership has demonstrated that a project-based partnership provides a fruitful structure for intermunicipal cooperation and achievements at the administrative level. C2C’s approach of convening partners around project deliverables and knowledge activities has forged relationships and contributed to joint understanding of problems and tasks as well as capacity building. This may be particularly important for planners in smaller municipalities.
• However, the analysis identifies two challenges for a partnership model. One is that horizontal and vertical relations must be integrated to an extent that ensures that the partnership has the ability to make actual decisions. This required greater political ownership of the project, and interviewees therefore suggest that future partnerships should be anchored at the political level by involving politicians in the early stages of project development and needs identification. The other challenge is that partnerships work best when decisions involve plus-sum games, while they cannot easily make decisions that involve redistribution among partners. Some suggest that in some situations the partnership lacked a decisionmaker at the end of the table who could ensure decisions for joint benefits.

Some interviewees suggest that climate adaptation should be reassigned to a higher-level authority, e.g. the regional or national level or even independent waterboards. Each of these models involves different costs and benefits (local knowledge and ownership over climate adaptation vs. solving spill-over effects) and taps into a pertinent political question at the national level. Short of a redistribution of decision-making power, several suggest that the national government can promote inter-municipal cooperation by making available financing of more holistic adaptation measures, such as reallocation of land or a clearer national requirement that municipalities collaborate.

Commitments and funding promote collaboration

As mentioned, the partnership model is strengthened by being embedded in a binding framework. Funding and access to knowledge offered an incentive to participate, while the project description provided clear guidance and concrete deliverables committing partners to work together.