Search the SPREP Catalogue

On 11 November 2014, a remarkable event occurred. President Barack Obama of the United States and President Xi Jinping of China announced a bilateral agreement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause global warming by their respective nations. On 12 December 2015, a year and a month later, representatives of 195 countries attending the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris, France, announced the Paris Climate Agreement. The goal of the Paris Climate Agreement is to limit the future emission of GHGs such that the rise in global mean surface temperature will be no more than 1.5 °C (target) or 2.0 °C (upper limit) above the pre-industrial level. The Paris Climate Agreement utilizes an approach for reducing the emissions of GHGs that is distinctly different than earlier efforts. The approach for Paris consists of a series of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), submitted by the world’s nations, reflecting either a firm commitment (unconditional INDCs) or a plan contingent on financial and/or technological support (conditional INDCs). The Obama–Xi announcement was instrumental in the framing of the Paris Climate Agreement. The INDCs submitted by the USA and China were built closely upon the November 2014 bilateral announcement. China and the USA rank number one and two, respectively, in terms of national emission of GHGs. Practically speaking, unified global action to combat global warming required these two nations to get on the same page.

Large-scale environmental problems have become prominent byproducts of the interactions between human activities and the biophysical settings in which they occur. Some of these problems, such as the destruction of tropical forests, arise in areas within the jurisdiction of individual states but have consequences (e.g., biodiversity loss, climate change) that are regional to global in scope. Other problems, including the seasonal thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer, occur in areas that lie beyond the jurisdiction of nation states. Still others, like marine dead zones, originate in areas within the jurisdiction of individual states but can spread and have impacts on areas outside these jurisdictional boundaries. In all these cases, efforts to come to terms with the relevant problems require international (often global) responses that call for transboundary cooperation and, more often than not, eventuate in the development of regulatory arrangements designed to limit or even prohibit the human actions that give rise to the problems.

Since thousands of years, the human race has been developing cultural skills and technological capabilities that support its struggle for survival and lead to dominance over all other species. Since about a century, the exponential growth of knowledge, technology, industry and population (see Fig. 1.1) has reached a scale where man modifies biosphere to an extent, that living conditions on the whole planet earth start to change significantly. Resources that had been abundant are becoming scarce within decades. We have arrived in the Anthropocene [1] where man has a significant impact on the basic living conditions of the biosphere of the whole planet. A continuation of this growth rate will unavoidably reach its natural limits where resources vanish; the biosphere will change more rapidly than the ability of organisms and ecosystems to accommodate, and contaminations will endanger living. When such a condition is reached, it is likely that our human civilization will collapse and human population will diminish rapidly. Historic examples demonstrated that drought, hunger, wars and epidemics were typical endpoints of drastic environmental changes and overpopulation. While historic examples mostly affected only individual towns, islands, countries or indigenous nations, the limits of growth this time affect the whole planet and there is no “new world” to which our civilization can migrate. Recent research has proven that the era of a new biological mass extinction has already started [2] and it can be assumed that finally also our species will be affected.

This book is about governance for drought resilience. But that simple sentence alone might rouse several questions. Because what do we mean with drought, and how does that relate to water scarcity? And what do we mean with resilience, and why is resilience needed for tackling drought? And how does governance enter this equation? We argue that governance assessment—the study of restricting and facilitating characteristics of a governance setting—can greatly aid implementation of drought adaptation measures, thereby increasing drought resilience. In this chapter we will first discuss the occurrence of drought in (Northwest) Europe, and why governance matters for increasing drought resilience (Sect. 1.1). Second, we will shed more light on the notion of governance and how governance is dealt with by us (Sect. 1.2). Third, we will review existing governance assessment methods (Sect. 1.3). Fourth, we will use this knowledge on governance and governance assessment to introduce our key principles in governance assessment, and discuss how we have applied these in a real-life project setting (Sect. 1.4). Fifth, and last, this chapter ends with an outlook into the rest of the book, to guide the reader in reading (Sect. 1.5).

Reflect on the present, on the dynamics and the conditions that built it, and look forward at the same time, in search of a prospect to improve the future. Since Howard (1850–1928) and Geddes (1854–1932), this has been the dominant logic supporting the work of all those (architects, urban planners, planners, landscape architects, etc.) who grappled with city and territorial management and planning. However, from the 1970s, territorial planning has been confronted with new concepts – such as sustainable development, environmental sustainability and social equity – and more recently, new challenges – such as the ones linked to climate change, which led to the need to redefine territorial planning in disciplinary and operational terms. For some years now, the planner’s new role is under discussion, especially in relation to the challenges posed by climate change. Sustainability, mitigation, adaptation, renewable energy, low-carbon transition, ecosystem approach and post-disaster planning are just some of the new keywords surrounding the discussion on territorial management and planning. This chapter aims to present rationally, what it means to re-organize and re-think the city, in a long-term perspective. It wants to show how it is possible, and above all is a duty to integrate the new concepts mentioned above in urban planning, to deal with the effects of climate change. The Urban Heat Islands contrast enters fully into the feasible experimentation with appropriate innovations in territorial planning. The paper draws attention to the Italian situation, in the light of the European reference framework.