Supplementary materials Contents Documentation of the list of literature sources analysed for the construction of the Analytical Framework. Table S1. List of literature sources analysed…………………………………………….. 1 Documentation of the complete Analytical Framework to assess the incorporation of climate change adaptation in water management………………………………………………………… 4 Table S2. Complete Analytical Framework……………………………………………... 4 Documentation of the results of the Analytical Framework application to the TRBAP……... 9 Table S3. Results of the Analytical Framework application to the Tordera River Basin Adaptation Plan……………………………………………………………………………………... 9 Documentation of the list of literature sources analysed for the construction of the analytical framework. Table S1. List of literature sources analysed. 1. Coral, C. and Bokelmann, W. The Role of Analytical Frameworks for Systemic Research Design, Explained in the Analysis of Drivers and Dynamics of Historic Land-Use Changes. Systems. 2017, 5 (20). 2. Djalante, R. Adaptive governance and resilience: the role of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 12: 2923–2942. 3. EEA Report No 3/2013 Adaptation in Europe Addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in the context of socio-economic developments. Publications Office of the European Union, 2013. Copenhagen, 2013. ISSN 1725-9177. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/adaptation-in-europe 4. EEA Report No 1/2017. Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. An indicator-based report, Luxembourg, 419 p. doi: 10.2800/534806. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-impacts-and-vulnerability-2016. 5. European Climate Change Adaptation Platform. Uncertainty guidance topic 2. http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/uncertainty-guidance/topic2. 6. European Commission. Guidance document Nº 24. River Basin Management in a Changing Climate. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/E). 2009. Available online: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/agua/publicaciones/guia_24_tcm7-28991.pdf. 7. European Commission. Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures. 2015. Available online: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c- 306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20- %20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf. 1 8. Esteve, P.; Varela-Ortega, C.; Downing, T.E. A stakeholder-based assessment of barriers to climate change adaptation in a water-scarce basin in Spain, Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1366-y 9. Faysse, N.: Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms, Nat. Resour. Forum. 2006, 30, 219–229, doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00112.x. 10. Foley, J.A.; De Fries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpente, S.R.; Chapin, F. S.; Coe, M. T.; Daily, G. C.; Gibbs, H. K.; Helkowski, J. H.; Holloway, T.; Howard, E. A.; Kucharik, C. J.; Monfreda, C.; Patz, J. A.; Prentice, I. C.; Ramankutty, N; Snyder, P. K. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 2005, Vol. 309, Issue 5734, pp. 570-574 DOI: 10.1126/science.1111772. 11. Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30: 441-473. 12. Huitema, D.; Mostert, E.; Egas, W.; Moellenkamp, S.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Yalcin, R. Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and Society. 2009, 14(1): 26. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/. 13. Huntjens, P.; Lebel, L.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Camkin, J.; Schulze, R.; Kranz, N. Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate change in the water sector. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22: 67–81. 14. IPCC, 2014a: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32. 15. IPCC, 2014b: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. 16. Ireland- 2008. Adapting the Plans Adapting the Plans to Climate Change. Final Report. http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/Adapting%20the%20Plan%20to%20Climate%20Change.pdf. 17. Kirchhoff, C.J.; Lemos, M.C.; Engle, N.L. What influences climate information use in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance regimes in Brazil and the U.S. Environ. Sci. Policy, 2013, 26: 6-18. 18. Knieper C. and Pahl-Wostl C. A Comparative Analysis of Water Governance, Water Management, and Environmental Performance in River Basins. Water Resour. Manage. 2016, 30:2161–2177 DOI 10.1007/s11269-016-1276-z. 19. Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Publication type: Book. 20. Lee, K.N. Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 1999, 3(2): 3. Available online: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/. 21. Lemos, M.C. Usable climate knowledge for adaptive and co-managed water governance, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability. 2015, 12: 48-52. 22. McGinnis, M.D. and Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19: 30. 23. Mostert, E. (1998): «River basin management in the European Union: how it is done and how it should be done», European Water Management, 1 (3): 26-35. 24. NeWater - New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty (Contract no. 511179 (GOCE)). 2 25. Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, 1991, 69(6): 96- 104. 26. Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4): 2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/. 27. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science. 2009, 325: 419–422. 28. Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19(3): 354– 365 29. Pahl-Wostl, C. and Kranz, N., Editors. Water governance in times of change. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13(7): 567-660. 30. Pahl-Wostl, C.; Jeffrey, P.; Isendahl, N.; Brugnach, M. Maturing the new water management paradigm: progressing from aspiration to practice. Water Resources Management. 2011, 25(3):837-856. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-010- 9729-2. 31. Pahl-Wostl, C.; Lebel, L.; Knieper, C.; Nikitina, E. From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2012, 23: 32. Polansky, S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Keeler, B. Decision-Making under Great Uncertainty: Environmental Management in an Era of Global Change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007. 33. Pierre, J. Peters B.G. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Political Science- 231 pages. 34. Quevauviller P., 2014 Science and Policy Interfacing, in Hydrometeorological Hazards: Interfacing Science and Policy (ed P. Quevauviller), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118629567.ch1d. 35. Rist, L.; Felton, A.; Samuelsson, L.; Sandström, C.; Rosvall, O. A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18(4): 63. 36. Skelcher, C. 2005. Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance 18(1):89–110. 37. Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2004. Making governance networks democratic. Centre for Democratic Network Governance, Roskilde, Denmark. 38. Steins, N.A. and Edwards, V.M.: Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common- pool resources, Agr. Hum. Values. 1999, 16: 241–255, doi:10.1023/a:1007591401621. 39. Sterling, S.M.; Ducharne, A.; Polcher, J. The impact of global land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3: 385–390 doi:10.1038/nclimate1690. 40. Swyngedouw, E. (1999): «Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionisme, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890-1930», en Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89 (3): 443-465. 41. Twin2Go (Coordinating Twinning partnerships towards more adaptive Governance in river basins). 2009-2011. http://www.twin2go.uos.de/ 42. Warner, J. F.: More Sustainable Participation? Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management, International J. Water Resour. Development, 22, 15–35, doi:10.1080/07900620500404992, 2006. 43. White, D.D.; Wutich, A.; Larson, K.L.; Lant, T. Water management decision makers’ evaluations of uncertainty in a decision support system: The case of WaterSim in the Decision Theater. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58: 616–630. 44. Williams, B.K. Adaptive management of natural resources framework and issues. J. Environ. Manage. 2011, 92: 1346-1353. 3 45. Wise, R. M., Fazey I., Stafford Smith, S.E. Park, H.C. Eakin, E.R.M. Archer Van Garderen, B. Campbell 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 325-336. 46. Wyborn, C. Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 30: 56-67. 47. Young, O. R. 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change. Fit interplay and scale. M. I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Documentation of the complete Analytical Framework to assess the incorporation of climate change adaptation in water management. Table S2. Complete Analytical Framework containing all areas of analysis and all key evaluation questions. For answers use ‘+’ if the question is properly considered in the plan, ‘±’ if it is partially covered and ‘–‘ if the question is not considered in the plan. Analytical framework and key evaluation questions 1. Basic information 1.1 Title 1.2 Promoter 1.3 Authors and type of entity they belong to 1.4 Year of publication 1.5 Temporal horizon 1.6 Geographical scale 1.7 General objective 1.8 Annexed or complementary documents to the plan included in the analysis. 2. Incidence area characterisation Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 2.1 Is a diagnosis made of the current status of the plan’s incidence area? 2.2 Does the diagnosis include a pressure and impact analysis? 2.3 Does the diagnosis integrate biophysical studies? 2.4 Does the diagnosis integrate socio- economic studies? 2.5 Does the diagnosis describe the political context? 2.6 Does the diagnosis describe the legal context? 2.7 Does the plan describe the methodologies used to carry out the diagnosis? 4 2.8 Are uncertainties related to the ecosystems and their functioning considered? 2.9 Are the information sources clearly indicated and are they accessible? 2.10 Does the diagnosis use information contained in other studies (scientific)? 3. Incorporation of Climate change Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 3.1 Does the plan include climate change projections? 3.2 Is the time horizon of the projections used indicated? 3.3 Do climate projections come from recognised organisms, as for example the IPCC? 3.4 Is the scale of the climate projections adequate for the scale of study? (Climate downscaling). 3.5 Does the plan evaluate the vulnerability of the ecosystems found in its incidence area? 3.6 Does the plan evaluate the social vulnerability of its incidence area? 3.7 Does the plan explain how ecosystems and social vulnerabilities have been evaluated? 3.8 Does the plan include a climate change impacts on the ecosystems present? 3.9 Does the plan include a climate change impacts on the socio-economic sectors present? 3.10 Does the plan indicate the methodologies used to evaluate climate change impacts? 3.11 Does the plan indicate which type of impact and vulnerability information has been used? a. Is it quantitative information coming from modelling? b. Is it qualitative information? c. Is it semi-quantitative information? d. Is it information based on expert judgement? 3.12 Are scientific uncertainties related to climate change projections and impacts on ecosystems considered? 5 3.13 Does the plan clearly indicate its sources of information and are they accessible? 3.14 Does the climate change section of the plan use information contained in other studies (scientific)? 4. Structure and general content Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 4.1 Does the plan contain specific objectives? 4.2 Does the plan contain the challenges it aims at tackling? 4.3 Does the plan include a clear abstract? 4.4 Does the plan include a glossary of concepts and terminology used? 4.5 Does the plan indicate its target audiences? 4.6 Is information included about the limitations of the plan? 4.7 Does the plan mention the complexity associated with the issues included in it? 4.8 Does the plan address in one way or another this complexity? 4.9 Is there a plan of measures? 4.10 Does the plan include an implementation strategy? 4.11 Does the plan include a specific section on the measures’ follow up? 4.12 Does the follow-up section consider indicators? 4.13 Does the follow-up section consider an associated budget? 5. Management measures Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 5.1 Does the plan contain an in depth description of the measures? 5.2 Does the plan relate specific challenges to the measures that intend to tackle them? 5.3 Does the plan analyse the adaptive character of the measures included? 5.4 Are management measures categorised using adaptive criteria? Flexibility, robustness, no-regret, win-win… 5.5 Does the plan consider characteristics for the measures such as: 6 a. feasibility b. acceptability c. preconditions 5.6 Does the plan include an economic valuation of the measures? 5.7 Does the plan include an impact assessment for the measures? 5.8 Does the plan consider an evaluation of the synergies, co-benefits and conflicts between measures? 5.9 Does the plan specify the measures’ identification and selection mechanisms? 5.10 Does the plan consider uncertainties related to the process of identification and selection of measures? 5.11 Are roles and responsibilities for measure implementation defined? 5.12 Does the plan define the implementation time for the measures? 5.13 Does the plan consider prioritisation of measures for its implementation? 5.14 Are funding opportunities for measure implementation considered? 6. Participation Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 6.1 Has participation been included in the preparation of the plan? How? a. In the form of information b. In the form of consultation c. In the form of active participation d. In the form of active participation at all stages of its development 6.2 Are the reasons and objectives for including participation in the plan explicit? 6.3 Is social learning considered? 6.4 Does the development of the plan consider stakeholder mapping? 6.5 Have all the identified stakeholders been involved? 6.6 Has the diversity of sectors and interests involved been sufficiently represented to 7 ensure the intersectoriality necessary for adaptation? 6.7 Has specific material been developed to facilitate interaction with participants? 6.8 Does the plan clearly indicates which information has been collected and how has the knowledge of participants been integrated in the plan? 6.9 Have participants been given the opportunity to make an evaluation on the plan development process? 6.10 Does the plan consider the revision of current governance structures and practices? 7. Implementation Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 7.1 Are barriers and opportunities for plan implementation indicated? 7.2 Is there a commitment to implement the plan by the competent authorities? 7.3 Is there an assessment of the level of synergy existing between the plan and the administrative and management context? 7.4 Does the plan consider uncertainties related to possible inconsistencies between the definition of measures and their actual implementation? 7.5 Has an impact assessment of the plan been considered? 7.6 Does the plan foresee future revisions? 7.7 Does the plan foresee the inclusion of lessons learned from its implementation in future management cycles? 7.8 Does the plan clearly indicate the organisms responsible for the plan’s evaluation? 7.9 Does the plan include a complete budget and entities that could contribute co-finance its implementation? 7.10 Has the plan and supporting documents been structured with an approach that promotes transferability? 7.11 Does the plan consider developing public dissemination and awareness activities associated with its implementation? 8 Documentation of the results of the Analytical Framework application to the TRBAP. Table S3. Results of the Analytical Framework application to the Tordera River Basin Adaptation Plan. Categorisation of answers ‘+’ if the question is properly considered in the plan, ‘±’ if it is partially covered and ‘–‘ if the question is not considered in the plan. Analytical framework and key evaluation questions 1. Basic information 1.1 Title Tordera River Basin Adaptation Plani 1.2 Promoter European Commission 1.3 Authors and type of entity they belong to CREAF- public research center 1.4 Year of publication September 2016 1.5 Temporal horizon 2018-2030 1.6 Geographical scale Tordera River Basin, Catalonia, Spain. 1.7 General objective Develop an Adaptation to Global Change Plan for the Tordera River Basin. 1.8 Annexed or complementary documents to Methodological documentation the plan included in the analysis. Results documentation Guidance Document 2. Incidence area characterisation Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 2.1 Is a diagnosis made of the current status of + All available information has the plan’s incidence area? been collected and complemented with local knowledge. 2.2 Does the diagnosis include a pressure and + All available information has impact analysis? been collected and complemented with local knowledge. 2.3 Does the diagnosis integrate biophysical + Data from the Adaptations to studies? Climate Change in Water Use project (ACCUAii) complemented with local knowledge. 2.4 Does the diagnosis integrate socio- + Data from the ACCUA project economic studies? complemented with local knowledge. 2.5 Does the diagnosis describe the political + Basic research conducted context? together with specific interviews. Participants validated results. 9 2.6 Does the diagnosis describe the legal + Basic research conducted context? together with specific interviews. Participants validated results. 2.7 Does the plan describe the methodologies + Methodology described in the used to carry out the diagnosis? plan. A specific participatory session with stakeholders dedicated to the diagnosis. 2.8 Are uncertainties related to the ecosystems ± The studies carried out in the and their functioning considered? ACCUA project include uncertainties; these were complemented with local knowledge. 2.9 Are the information sources clearly + All documents accompanying indicated and are they accessible? the plan include exhaustive bibliographic references. 2.10 Does the diagnosis use information + Mainly: contained in other studies (scientific)? • ACCUA project, CREAF • Analysis of Pressures and Impacts (IMPRESSiii), Catalan Water Agency • Land Cover and Land Use Map, CREAFiv • IDESCAT, Generalitat de Catalunyav. • Information from the Plan for the Conservation of the Montseny Natural Park and Biosphere Reserve, Diputació de Barcelonavi. 3. Incorporation of Climate change Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 3.1 Does the plan include climate change ± Downscaling to the study area projections? of ECHAM5 for IPCC A2 and B1 scenarios (ACCUA). 3.2 Is the time horizon of the projections used + 2030 indicated? 3.3 Do climate projections come from + Yes recognised organisms, as for example the IPCC? 3.4 Is the scale of the climate projections + Yes adequate for the scale of study? (Climate downscaling). 10 3.5 Does the plan evaluate the vulnerability of + Information from ACCUA the ecosystems found in its incidence area? project, and cognitive mapvii. 3.6 Does the plan evaluate the social + Information from ACCUA vulnerability of its incidence area? project, and cognitive map. 3.7 Does the plan explain how ecosystems and + Yes social vulnerabilities have been evaluated? 3.8 Does the plan include a climate change + Information from ACCUA impacts on the ecosystems present? project, and cognitive map. 3.9 Does the plan include a climate change + Information from ACCUA impacts on the socio-economic sectors project, and cognitive map. present? 3.10 Does the plan indicate the methodologies + Yes used to evaluate climate change impacts? 3.11 Does the plan indicate which type of + Yes impact and vulnerability information has been used? a. Is it quantitative information coming + Information from ACCUA from modelling? project. b. Is it qualitative information? + Workshops and interviews with local stakeholders. c. Is it semi-quantitative information? + Using the cognitive map d. Is it information based on expert + Workshops and interviews judgement? with local stakeholders. 3.12 Are scientific uncertainties related to ± Information from ACCUA climate change projections and impacts on project. ecosystems considered? 3.13 Does the plan clearly indicate its sources + All documents accompanying of information and are they accessible? the plan include exhaustive bibliographic references. 3.14 Does the climate change section of the + Information from ACCUA plan use information contained in other project. studies (scientific)? 4. Structure and general content Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 4.1 Does the plan contain specific objectives? + Yes 4.2 Does the plan contain the challenges it + - Quantity and Quality of aims at tackling? water. - Health of forest and water ecosystems. - Integrated water management. 4.3 Does the plan include a clear abstract? + In English and Catalan 11 4.4 Does the plan include a glossary of + Yes concepts and terminology used? 4.5 Does the plan indicate its target audiences? + Managers and responsible for the design and development of policies. 4.6 Is information included about the + The promoter and the authors limitations of the plan? do not have competencies for plan implementation. 4.7 Does the plan mention the complexity + Yes associated with the issues included in it? 4.8 Does the plan address in one way or ± Through mutual learning, another this complexity? knowledge transfer and active participation. 4.9 Is there a plan of measures? + Yes 4.10 Does the plan include an implementation - It does not fit into the strategy? objectives of the project. 4.11 Does the plan include a specific section on + Yes the measures’ follow up? 4. 12 Does the follow-up section consider - No, although the plan indicators? indicates the importance of an adequate development of indicators. 4. 13 Does the follow-up section consider an - It does not fit into the associated budget? objectives of the plan 5. Management measures Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 5.1 Does the plan contain an in depth + The plan has a dedicated description of the measures? section for in depth measure description. 5.2 Does the plan relate specific challenges to + Yes the measures that intend to tackle them? 5.3 Does the plan analyse the adaptive + The results document, character of the measures included? explains all characterization criteria used. 5.4 Are management measures categorised + The detailed description of the using adaptive criteria? Flexibility, robustness, measures indicates flexibility no-regret, win-win… and robustness among other characteristics. 5.5 Does the plan consider characteristics for + Yes the measures such as: a. feasibility + b. acceptability + c. preconditions + 12 5.6 Does the plan include an economic ± Simplified economic valuation of the measures? valuation. 5.7 Does the plan include an impact + Indicated in the assessment for the measures? methodological and results documentation. Use of cognitive map and a sensitivity analysis. 5.8 Does the plan consider an evaluation of the + Indicated in the synergies, co-benefits and conflicts between methodological and results measures? documentation. Specific analysis validated by local stakeholders. 5.9 Does the plan specify the measures’ + Methodology explained in the identification and selection mechanisms? documentation. Dedicated workshop and multi-criteria analysis. 5.10 Does the plan consider uncertainties ± Specific workshop session to related to the process of identification and validate measure identification selection of measures? and selection. 5.11 Are roles and responsibilities for + For each measure, key actors measure implementation defined? and their possible contribution to the realisation of the measures were identified. 5.12 Does the plan define the implementation + Implementation time defined time for the measures? for each measure and validated by stakeholders. 5.13 Does the plan consider prioritisation of ± Done within a workshop measures for its implementation? session. 5.14 Are funding opportunities for measure + Indicated in the detailed implementation considered? description of measures. 6. Participation Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 6.1 Has participation been included in the + Yes preparation of the plan? How? a. In the form of information + Scientific information on climate change impacts and vulnerabilities available for stakeholders. b. In the form of consultation + Specific interviews and surveys. c. In the form of active participation + Local stakeholders involved in identifying and solving the challenges tackled in the plan. 13 d. In the form of active participation at all + Iterative process of interaction stages of its development at all stages of plan development. 6.2 Are the reasons and objectives for + Functional to adaptive water including participation in the plan explicit? management. 6.3 Is social learning considered? + Stakeholder workshop have a central role in the plan developement. 6.4 Does the development of the plan consider + Yes stakeholder mapping? 6.5 Have all the identified stakeholders been - Most identified stakeholders involved? were involved but not all of them. 6.6 Has the diversity of sectors and interests ± The most relevant sectors and involved been sufficiently represented to interest were represented. ensure the intersectoriality necessary for adaptation? 6.7 Has specific material been developed to + Specific materials developed facilitate interaction with participants? for sessions, workshops dissemination and awareness raising activities. 6.8 Does the plan clearly indicates which + The result document gives information has been collected and how has clear details. the knowledge of participants been integrated in the plan? 6.9 Have participants been given the - Stakeholder evaluation of the opportunity to make an evaluation on the plan process was collected at all development process? participatory events. 6.10 Does the plan consider the revision of + Through concrete measures current governance structures and practices? and recommendations to policy makers. 7. Implementation Key evaluation questions +/±/- Comments 7.1 Are barriers and opportunities for plan + Through related information implementation indicated? research and a session in a participatory workshop. 7.2 Is there a commitment to implement the - It is a limitation of the plan, plan by the competent authorities? although there is a strong interest of the stakeholders to promote its implementation. 7.3 Is there an assessment of the level of + Details in the description of synergy existing between the plan and the measures. administrative and management context? 7.4 Does the plan consider uncertainties - It is a limitation of the plan related to possible inconsistencies between the 14 definition of measures and their actual implementation? 7.5 Has an impact assessment of the plan been - It is a limitation of the plan considered? 7.6 Does the plan foresee future revisions? - It is a limitation of the plan 7.7 Does the plan foresee the inclusion of - It is a limitation of the plan lessons learned from its implementation in future management cycles? 7.8 Does the plan clearly indicate the - It is a limitation of the plan organisms responsible for the plan’s evaluation? 7.9 Does the plan include a complete budget - It is a limitation of the plan and entities that could contribute co-finance its implementation? 7.10 Has the plan and supporting documents + Through the release and been structured with an approach that dissemination of the guidance promotes transferability? document. 7.11 Does the plan consider developing public + A specific awareness and dissemination and awareness activities dissemination campaign. associated with its implementation? i Broekman, A; Sanchez, A.; Libbrecht, S.; Robert, N.; Verkerk, H. Results of the identification and evaluation of water management options for the Tordera River. 2016. Available online: http://bewaterproject.eu/images/results/adaptations-plans/Results_Tordera_final.pdf. ii ACCUA. Adaptations to Climate Change in Water Use project. Memoria final. 2011. Available online: http://www.creaf.uab.cat/accua/ACCUA_divulgativa_internet.pdf (in Catalan). iii ACA, 2009. Aigua i canvi climátic. Diagnosi dels impactes previstos a Catalunya. Available online: http://www.gencat.cat/mediamb/publicacions/monografies/aigua_canvi_climatic.pdf (in Catalan) iv CREAF, Land Cover and Land Use Map, LCMC (2005). http://www.creaf.uab.es/mcsc/esp/index.htm (in Spanish) v Idescat, Catalan Statistical Institute, (2012). http://www.idescat.cat/en/ vi Conservation plan for the Montseny Natural Park and Biosphere Reserve (2014). http://parcs.diba.cat/documents/155678/21045014/PlaConservacioMontseny.pdf/1f9cb5e7-50d7- 4da2-8735-89ad4b52cfc3 (in Catalan) vii Verkerk, P.J.; Sanchez, A.; Libbrecht, S.; Broekman, A.; Bruggeman, A.; Daly-Hassen, H.; Giannakis, E.; Jebari, S.; Kok, K.; Krivograd Klemenčič, A.; Magjar, M.; Martinez de Arano, I.; Robert, N.; Smolar Žvanut, N.a; Varela, E.; Zoumides, C.. A Participatory Approach for Adapting River Basins to Climate Change. Water 2017, 9(12): 958. 15