Adaptation to the detrimental effects of climate change is necessary and resilience of socio-ecological systems must be assured (IPPC, 2022). Like mitigation, adaptation to climate change governance can be labelled as a ‘(super) wicked problem’. It is a cross-sectoral policy that needs to be deployed in many other policies (Verschuuren, 2022) and across different scales and levels (Adger, 2001). In terms of governance, it entails that several levels of governments (from EU to local level) and several authorities are competent for adaptation policies. There is thus a strong need to ensure the vertical and horizontal coordination of adaptation policies. Law plays an important role for adaptation as it can inter alia either facilitate or impede coordination (McDonald, 2011). Our contribution shows theoretically the diversity of powers, scales and levels of adaptation policies which ends up in a complex legal system. Both EU and national legal frameworks must be considered to embrace the multiscalar and multilevel dimensions of adaptation policies. We illustrate it empirically through two main case studies (wildfires and alien invasive species) from Belgium, which is interesting because of its federal architecture. First, Belgian scholars usually erect its federal architecture as one of the reasons for its climate governance failure in terms of mitigation (Fermeglia, 2023). Second, it has been argued that European legal order ‘saves’, to a certain extent, federal Belgium as it initiates and frames policies (Beyers and Bursens, 2006). Our contribution examines whether those conclusions are applicable in the case of adaptation to climate change. Drawing on the literature of European integration process (Beyers and Bursens, 2006), climate federalism (Kaswan, 2015) and European and national adaptation legal frameworks (Albrecht, 2024) complemented by semi-structured interviews (yet to be conducted before summer holidays) with actors working in those two case studies, we test one hypothesis and seek to respond to two questions: 1. Obligations of reporting national climate change adaptation planning and strategies through European Climate Law and Regulatory 2018/1999 give legal impetus to the establishment of a Belgian national framework that is yet not necessarily entirely coherent nor comprehensively coordinated. 2. To what extent can the European adaptation legal framework and its various sectoral policies mitigate the deficiencies of Belgian federalism? 3. Are European policies and/or Belgian federalism well suited to allow subnational and local entities to adopt tailor-made adaptation policies? Under which conditions and limits? By doing so, our aim is twofold. First, we contribute to deepen the understanding of the relationship between European legal order and (Belgian) climate federalism. Second, we assess how and to what extent European policies can frame, block and/or foster Belgian adaptation policies.
Hucq et al. (Wed,) studied this question.