Q&A: How to prepare for a warming climate? An assessment of climate change adaptation in the Nordic region

The relatively low prioritization of climate change adaptation, in contrast with mitigation efforts like the reduction of greenhouse gases, is not a challenge specific to Nordic countries. It reflects a global imbalance in climate action. There are many factors influencing the current state of affairs, but two stand out:

First, there has been a pervasive assumption that climate change is a problem for the future, not the present. With the growing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, it is becoming clear to governments, businesses and the public that the scenarios we once relegated to the future are already materializing.

Second, a common misperception suggests that climate change will predominantly affect more vulnerable countries in the Global South, making it less relevant for countries in the Global North. This assumption is false. The increased attention given to adaptation at the latest COP reflects a shift in the understanding that climate adaptation and mitigation is not a zero-sum game, we need to do both.

The impact of a warming climate and the necessary adaptations are often viewed as strictly local issues, which is a misleading perception. At SEI, we strive to change this understanding, as adaptation requires both local and global action.

Much of the work at the local level currently involves civil response and emergency preparedness. However, municipalities must also prepare for future risks by implementing climate adaptation measures, depending on the anticipated climate trajectories.

Our assessment revealed that while Nordic countries recognize the important role of municipalities in climate change adaptation, they often lack ownership of the risks climate change might bring to their area and the individuals living there – especially regarding legal responsibilities. These municipalities frequently lack both the institutional capacity and the financial resources required, even in countries where their responsibilities are more clearly defined. As such, it is vital for national governments to provide adequate support.

An important first step is for countries to understand their exposure to climate risks that transfer from one country to another, such as through trade or financial systems.

For instance, countries should attempt to quantify their exposure to supply chain risks based on foreign import reliance. Nevertheless, anticipating and quantifying risks from changing transmission patterns of diseases or pests, migration due to population displacement or tourism, remains a challenge. A second step can be to seek support from experts in identifying ways of minimizing the exposure to these risks.

Given our globally interconnected world, international collaboration is crucial to manage these risks. The Nordic countries could play an important role in advocating for better global collaboration in climate change adaptation.

All Nordic countries have well-established scientific communities that can provide a scientific basis for understanding risks, vulnerabilities and adaptation needs. Many have designated scientific advisory bodies on climate change. Notably, Sweden has a monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE) system in place, while Finland and Norway are working on establishing more comprehensive systems. Even though there is a lack of appropriate national indicators for the effects of climate change adaptation measures, these are steps in the right direction.

Moreover, Denmark and Norway have particularly active municipalities in climate adaptation work. There has also been some interesting work taking place on the subnational level in Iceland. The City of Reykjavik published a Climate Action Plan for 2021-25 with eight adaptation-oriented action points, incorporating flood risk information into open-access city maps for urban planning.

Our report identifies a key challenge across all the Nordic countries: the need for economic incentives for climate adaptation work, which are currently scarce. As a result, the private sector has become a blind spot in the Nordics.

Public procurement can be designed to encourage suppliers to adhere to requirements on adaptation to ensure that public sector supply chains are climate resilient. Legal obligations could also drive both private and public sector action on climate adaptation, but measuring progress remains a challenge. For example, should municipalities prepare for the most probable consequences of climate change or the worst-case scenario? How do they know whether their investments are effective or not? Thus, while a legal obligation can drive action, it also makes local governments politically vulnerable.

Even though there are differences in the level of climate-related policy development across countries, many challenges are similar, such as a lack of mandate, limited incentives for the private sector and data collection for monitoring risk over time.

Measuring progress in climate adaptation is inherently difficult because of a lack of clear definition. What constitutes as adaptation and how do we go about measuring it?. For example, investing in sufficient air conditioning in hospitals and factories could be an effective measure during a heatwave.

These challenges underscore that adaptation policies are still in their infancy; this is not a problem unique to the Nordics.