The governing of nature has been an essential part of the story of urbanization. Whether through the conversion of rivers for transportation, the creation of urban drainage systems for wastewater removal or the installation of parks for their recreational and aesthetic value (Gandy, 2004; Gleeson and Low, 2000; Rydin, 1998), nature has played a critical role in urban development. Yet, conservationist thinking, which has dominated environmental governance and policy, has tended to equate the environment as belonging to either “rural” or “wilderness” places that needed to be protected from the encroachment of (urban) society (Owens, 1992). As a result, much of the governance of biodiversity at the urban scale during the twentieth century was focused on the designation and enforcement of protected areas (Vaccaro et al., 2013).

Agricultural land systems, covering about 40 percent of the world’s ice-free terrestrial surface, are the single largest contributor to biodiversity loss worldwide (Chapin et al., 2000; IPBES, 2018a; 2019). Agricultural practices have been linked to staggering losses in critical ecosystems such as tropical forests and ecologically functional species such as pollinators, raising concerns of losing biodiversity as both an intrinsic global value and as a central pillar of food security and ecosystem functions (IPBES, 2016; Laurance et al. 2014; Ramankutty et al., 2018).

Environmental policy integration (EPI) is the incorporation of environmental concerns and objectives into non-environmental policy areas, such as energy, transport and agriculture, as opposed to pursuing such objectives through purely environmental policy practices. EPI is promoted to overcome policy incoherence and institutional fragmentation, to address the driving forces of environmental degradation and to promote innovation and synergy. But how effective are EPI strategies employed in practice? In this chapter we provide a meta-analysis of scientific, empirical research on EPI to address this question. An important finding is the discrepancy between the adoption of EPI in terms of objectives and commitments and its actual implementation, that is, translation into concrete measures. Overall, we found relatively few cases where environmental objectives were given a substantial status in non-environmental policies. The barriers we identified suggest that the actual detailed design or architecture of the strategies that are employed to promote EPI really matters.

ABSTRACT

This chapter presents and applies an interdisciplinary (law & governance) method for the assessment of the climate resilience of critical infrastructural network sectors. Broadly applicable, this methodological framework comprises three phases, within which six logically arranged steps are set out. The central assessment criterion for climate resilience, the ‘expected effectiveness’ of responsibilities for climate adaptation, is operationalized through six indicators. These are: awareness, proactivity, appropriateness, explicitness, transparency and legitimacy. Apart from academic purposes, this assessment framework can prove useful to law and policy makers in assessing and (re)developing the relevant arrangements that govern critical infrastructural network sectors. To give examples of the functioning of the assessment framework, this framework is applied in two case studies that address the Dutch electricity and internet sectors. These case studies show a rather low level of expected effectiveness of responsibilities for climate adaptation in both sectors. Apart from their exemplary purpose, these case studies provide insights into potential pitfalls which can be relevant for increasing the climate resilience of other network sectors in the Netherlands, in other EU Member States and abroad.

INTRODUCTION

Modern societies and key societal functions, such as emergency management and health care, depend largely upon the smooth-functioning of critical infrastructural networks, such as energy, ICT, drinking water and transportation networks. The collapse of such networks can cause an array of societal disruption and damage. Critical infrastructural networks are particularly prone to external influences, such as floods and other water-related events. The expected climate change increases the chance of such events, thus also increasing the infrastructural networks’ vulnerability. International, EU and domestic climate change scenarios display rather clear trends. Focusing on the EU and its Member States, increases in the duration, probability and intensity of weather extremes (e.g. heavy rainfall and extreme droughts) are already being perceived throughout the continent and are expected to increase even further. The associated risks, in this chapter, are referred to as climate risks. The question arises how the responsibilities to combat climate risks for critical infrastructural networks are divided in the EU and in its Member States particularly, and to what extent these responsibilities, and the division thereof, are expected to be effective.