Uncorrected Evidence m25

Memorandum submitted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (ACC25)

Introduction and summary

1. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry on the Government's emerging policy for adaptation to climate change. The Tyndall Centre has an on-going programme of research which addresses many issues related to adaptation to climate change at a number of scales. From this, and other research, we have distilled a number of key messages and responded to a subset of the questions included in the Committee's call for evidence:

· Emerging evidence suggests that the climate impacts to which the UK and other countries will have to adapt may be more serious than hitherto thought.

· While focusing on impacts in the UK, the Government must not neglect how the country will be affected by impacts in other parts of the world.

· While the UK approach is comparatively advanced and adaptive capacity is being developed, it is not clear how far-reaching current adaptation efforts by both public and private sectors really are.

· Risks of 'mal-adaptation' must be carefully considered by policy makers.

· The Department of Health's heat wave planning is most likely effective at reducing mortality, but vulnerabilities persist among susceptible populations.

· Apart from identifying risks to their own objectives, Departments should consider the extent to which existing objectives remain appropriate, and how far their actions contribute to greater vulnerability in their own or in other sectors.

· The EU has an important role in adaptation policy, in which the UK Government have played, and should continue to play, a constructive role.

· More localised planning, based on novel and inclusive processes, will be needed to engage vulnerable populations such as the elderly.

· Key indicators of the effectiveness of an adaptation action should include robustness to uncertainty and changing circumstances.

· Given the uncertainty in future impacts, most investments in planning for climate change impacts at present are focused on building the capacity to adapt. They are made in response to a range of demands, and so it is not easy to isolate the motivation for adaptation to climate change. These multiple demands for action should be built on to promote sustainable actions which make the UK economy and environment more resilient to future impacts.

Background

2. Recent scientific evidence suggests that for any given level of mean temperature rise, the sensitivity of systems at risk from climate change is now greater, and the risk of large scale disruption higher, than previously thought (Smith et al. 2009). This assessment is backed by similar assessments of 'tipping elements' in earth systems (Lenton et al. 2008). While adaptation will stave off the worst impacts up to a point, we suggest several reasons for concern about the ability to adapt and the likelihood of that adaptation proving sustainable (see Adger and Barnett - forthcoming - for a fuller discussion). These can be summarised as being due to: the possibility that warming considerably higher than 2^oC narrows the 'window of opportunity' for adaptation; the difference between adaptive capacity and adaptive action; and the risk of 'mal-adaptation'.

3. The first reason for concern is that the scale of change and interconnectedness of impacts may be such that the 'window of opportunity' for adaptation is smaller than previously imagined. The significant likelihood of mean warming of 4^oC or more above pre-industrial levels brings serious implications in terms of impacts (Parry et al. 2009). As the impacts of climate change increase they are also likely to amplify one another. For example, coastal communities and regions will face sea level rise but also changing coastal ecosystems, changing regimes of coastal storms, and changing freshwater availability all at once. Moreover, the interconnectedness of markets across the globe now means that in many societies the proximate impacts of climate change are not the only stress to plan for. For example, the impacts of climate change on agriculture and fisheries will affect relative prices and availability everywhere, such that adaptation plans that address proximate impacts only may not prepare for some of the more powerful drivers of impacts on people and places.

4. The second reason is that having the institutional capacity and even the available financial resources does not necessarily translate into action. This is a primary lesson from the experience of the impacts of Hurricane Katrina in the US (Repetto 2009). Similarly in the UK, despite changes in weather extremes over the past decades (evidenced through major flooding events such as those of 2000 and 2007), adaptation is not well embedded in planning systems. So although the UK is a pioneer among EU member states in adaptation policy, there is little room for complacency.

5. In terms of implementation of adaptation, findings from the EU-funded ADAM project (led by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia) highlight the importance of, inter alia, wide-ranging policy appraisal and evaluation frameworks, adequate funding, identifying linkages across sectors and policy areas and the creation of space for learning among stakeholders (see e.g. Aaheim et al. 2008).

6. The third reason for concern focuses on the extent to which actions already in place or in the pipeline are sustainable. The concept of 'mal-adaptation' captures the sense in which adaptive actions may be counter-productive, either because they are energy intensive and produce increased emissions of greenhouse gases, or else shift impacts or exacerbate problems for another area, sector or social group. Globally, examples of 'mal-adaptation' are common in water resource management, flood plain development and the like. In the UK, the first large-scale desalination plant is due to open in 2010 at Beckton, East London. Although it uses more energy efficient technology than such plants have used in the past, its sustainability is questionable.

UK Government policy response

7. The UK Government's policy response, including the Climate Change Act and the cross-departmental Adapting to Climate Change (ACC) Programme, is comprehensive, especially when compared to other EU Member States. Comparative research across the EU reveals the relative strength of the UK policy framework in terms of the apparent level of political commitment behind it, its monitoring and mandatory review mechanisms, the reporting power, its recognition of the importance of EU leadership and commitment to global-level adaptation (Swart et al. 2009). However, as the NAO's report to the EAC notes, climate change risks are far from being managed strategically and consistently in any Department (NAO 2009).

8. Analysis of an inventory of 340 observed adaptations in the UK collected by the Tyndall Centre as part of a DEFRA-funded project produces similar findings (Tompkins et al. 2009). A range of adaptations have been taking place in recent years in the UK across sectors and institutions in a broad variety of ways, the majority of which were found in the public sector. It was noticeable that most of the identified 'adaptations' are classified as contributing to the creation of adaptive capacity, (i.e. potential for and the resources to implement adaptation) while actions that are considered implementing adaptation examples tend to be one-off projects or activities by certain institutions (e.g. the Environment Agency which has a mandate for flood protection) and private firms in the water sector (Tompkins et al. 2009). Whether the number of adaptations observed should be taken to be reassuring or cause for alarm is open to debate. An optimistic interpretation would be that diffusion of best practice will not be long in following, and that under-reporting and documenting of adaptation means that more action is occurring than is apparent. It should also be borne in mind that since the adaptations shown in the inventory reflect the situation from October 2004-May 2005, many that are recorded as building adaptive capacity may by now have become 'implementation actions'.

9. In what follows we respond to a number of specific questions raised in the call for evidence, which in some cases we group together.

Q: The extent to which the Adapting to Climate Change Programme will increase resilience by embedding adaptation and climate change risk assessment into the work of Government Departments

Q. Suitability of the processes and structures in and across Government Departments for identifying, mitigating and managing these risks and determining the future priorities of central Government's approach to adaptation (and the National Adaptation Programme)

10. The ACC Programme recognised at its launch that 'there was a long way to go until all Government programmes routinely consider climate change risks at policy and delivery stages, and are planned accordingly' (DEFRA 2008). Research by the PEER project (Swart et al. 2009) suggests a number of requirements for successful adaptation policy integration including, inter alia, high level political commitment, ability to deal with conflicts between sectoral objectives and clear allocation of responsibility for monitoring and learning. It is encouraging that the ACC Programme is overseen by a board with representatives (at senior civil service level) from most Departments to ensure it is driven across Whitehall. Although such co-ordinating mechanisms are in place, one obvious question is how DEFRA - whose objectives are the most exposed to climate risks but which has traditionally not been the strongest Whitehall Department - will fare in any inter-departmental disagreements.

11. Recent work by Tyndall Centre researchers sheds light on the challenges in the health sector. Following the 2003 heatwave, the Department of Health, in line with many European counterparts, invested significantly in heat wave planning to reduce mortality. Although there has been no equivalent heat wave in the UK since 2003, evidence from elsewhere in Europe suggests that such planning has been successful in reducing mortality. However, this planning has been limited to the specific risks from mortality from heat waves and research shows that vulnerabilities persist among susceptible populations.

12. The Department of Health-led effort on the Heat Wave Plan for England makes no explicit link to other efforts on climate change adaptation. The involvement of other agencies in the plan's implementation is limited to those who provide forecasts (Met Office) and deliver health services (NHS, Health Protection Agency). There is little evidence of other cross-departmental consultation and collaboration that could help engender more proactive and anticipatory adaptation strategies.

13. Evidence among independent-living elderly, aged 75 and above, in the UK suggests members of this group do not perceive themselves as at risk from extreme heat and only respond reactively once it is already hot (Abrahamson et al. 2009). Their key social contacts, such as family members and friends, encourage elderly independence and do not generally warn against the risks of heat (Wolf et al. 2009). As a result, members of this group, vulnerable due to their age alone, may be at even greater risk. In light of these results it seems that anticipatory adaptation measures are necessary to prevent morbidity and mortality rather than strategies simply to help to cope with heat.

14. There is an important EU dimension to adaptation, which the ACC Programme document does well to recognise. Policies in significant sectors, including agriculture, water and conservation are shaped at EU level and affect the ability of UK stakeholders to adapt to climate change. Apart from committing to lead on providing UK input into the EU White Paper (Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action, published in April), the ACC document promises that the Programme will work in tandem with other UK policy officials to help the EU embed adaptation in critical areas such as Common Agricultural Policy reform, the design of the next EU budget, as well as in environmental, health and other policies. Current EU budgetary negotiations offer an important opportunity to re-orient spending in favour of policies which reduce vulnerability to climate change which the UK should play its part in seizing.

15. Likewise, although the NAO briefing to EAC covers Government policy domestically, rather than action internationally to assist developing nations, policy- makers must be alert to impacts from outside the UK, especially if global temperatures are set to rise by considerably more than 2^oC.

Q: The extent to which Government Departments have identified the risks from a changing climate that will stop them from meeting their objectives

16. The NAO's research, outlined in its report for the Committee, offers the most up-to-date evidence on the response to climate change risks by individual Government Departments (NAO 2009). As an observation based on this report, it seems slightly worrying that the Department of Health is a relatively low scorer in fig 10 (p39), with the caveat that Departments' self-assessments may not be fully consistent or comparable.

17. More fundamentally, the focus of this question seems to be on whether Departments are taking into account risks to their own objectives. A more ambitious but also necessary task will be for Departments to examine the nature and current framing of those objectives themselves, and consider the extent to which they remain appropriate in new circumstances. Such reflection on fundamental sectoral objectives is envisaged in guidance on Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal, for example. In doing so, Departments will also need to take into account the extent to which their actions may compromise the attainment of other Departments' objectives.

18. Following this year's White Paper on adaptation, the European Commission currently envisages a process of 'mainstreaming' adaptation concerns into EU sectoral policies. According to the Commission, this 'should include an assessment of how policies affect Europe's vulnerability to climate change (vulnerability mapping), as well as how climate change might affect the success of policies' (European Commission 2009: 126).[1] We agree with the emphasis of the EU document that the process of 'mainstreaming' is not simply about identifying and responding to climate impacts within particular sectors, but also about investigating how particular sectoral policies may be contributing to vulnerability, either within their own areas of responsibility, or others. The Government will need to make sure that the mechanisms in place ensure that this broader view is being taken.

Q: How well the overall direction for work on adaptation has been set, the effectiveness of the statutory framework (including the use of the Reporting Power and its accompanying statutory guidance), the allocation of powers and duties and how well issues like social justice are addressed in adaptation policies

19. The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) and related efforts target relatively well-informed stakeholders in sensitive sectors. These stakeholders, from private and public sectors, have the resources and capacity to assess and deal with the pertinent risks. Other groups, however, such as elderly at risk from heat wave or residents at risk from coastal or inland flooding, are more difficult to reach. There is therefore a need for more localised planning for many such risks and inclusive and novel processes to engage vulnerable populations in discussions about risk and responsibility.

Q: The funding, support, training and other resources available, including at a local and regional level

20. The finding that '[s]ome [departments] noted that financial and resource pressures could act as barriers to dealing with climate change risks' (NAO 2009: 42) leads us to question whether sufficient funding is being granted.

Q: The monitoring and evaluation of work on adaptation, including thoughts on how progress on adaptation can be quantified and success measured

21. As the NAO's report observes, measuring progress on adaptation, particularly in outcome terms, is difficult: outcomes may not be seen and measurable for decades, and most of the current effort is around building adaptive capacity which is hard to define and measure. The ACC Programme aims to develop a suite of indicators for adaptation, but this work is at an early stage. It has incorporated an indicator for adaptation into the local government performance framework (NI 188); and it is developing a strategy for use of the new statutory Reporting Power, for requiring public bodies or 'statutory undertakers' (e.g. utility companies) to report on how they have assessed and are addressing the risks of climate change.

22. While in principle adaptation can be evaluated according to generic principles including effectiveness, equity, efficiency and legitimacy, evaluations need to take particular care over possible externalities and spill-overs, both over time and over space. What appears to be a successful policy in the short-term may turn out to be less successful over a longer timescale. Similarly, whilst effective at one spatial scale, an adaptation may increase impacts on others outside the boundary of the policy. Since ultimate effectiveness of an action may depend on the future uncertain state of the world, we suggest that two key indicators of the effectiveness of an adaptation action should be robustness to uncertainty and ability to change in response to altered circumstances.

Q: Should work on adaptation be embedded into existing sustainable development frameworks and, if so, how this might be achieved?

23. The inventory developed by Tyndall researchers 'shows that there exist a large number of drivers, and that these are not always directly related to climate change. Building adaptive capacity is often associated with indirect drivers such as sustainable development policies, regulations and corporate social responsibility and ISO standards. There also exist a large number that are directly driven by climate change related events, i.e. drought, flooding' (Tompkins et al. 2009: 111). These multiple drivers for action should be built on to promote sustainable actions which make the UK economy and environment more resilient to future impacts.

References

Aaheim et al. (2008) Adaptation to Climate Change: Why is it needed and how can it be implemented? CEPS Policy Brief No.161. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

Adger, N. and J. Barnett (forthcoming) 'Four reasons for concern about adaptation to climate change', Environment and Planning A.

Abrahamson, V., J. Wolf, I. Lorenzoni, B. Fenn, S. Kovats, P. Wilkinson, W.N. Adger, and R. Raine (2009) 'Perceptions of heatwave risks to health: interview-based study of older people in London and Norwich', Journal of Public Health 31(1): 119-126.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2008) Adapting to Climate Change in England: A framework for action.

European Commission (2009) Impact Assessment, Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the White Paper Adapting to Climate Change, SEC (2009) 387/2. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Lenton, T. M., H. Held, E. Kriegler, J. W. Hall, W. Lucht, S. Rahmstorf and H. J. Schellnhuber (2008) 'Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105(6): 1786-1793.

NAO (2009) Adapting to Climate Change: A Report for the Environmental Audit Committee. London: National Audit Office.

Parry M, J. Lowe and C. Hanson (2009) 'Overshoot, adapt and recover', Nature 458: 1102-1103.

Repetto, R. (2009) The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth. Working Paper 13, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. New Haven: Yale University.

Smith, J B, S.H. Schneider, M. Oppenheimer, G.W. Yohe, W. Hare, M.D. Mastrandrea, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, J. Corfee-Morlot, C.H.D. Magadza, H-M. Füssel, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, A. Suarez and J-P van Ypersele (2009) 'Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reasons for concern', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 4133-37.

Swart et al. (2009) Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Peer Report No. 1. Partnership for European Environmental Research.

E.L. Tompkins, E. Boyd, S.A. Nicholson-Cole, K.Weatherhead, N.W Arnell, W.N. Adger (2009) An Inventory of Adaptation to climate change in the UK: challenges and findings. Tyndall Working Paper No 135. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Wolf, J., W.N Adger, I. Lorenzoni, V. Abrahamson and R. Raine (2010 in press) 'Social capital, individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: An empirical study of two UK cities', Global Environmental Change 20(1).

19 October 2009

[1] The UK's approach to developing adaptation policy is broadly matched by that of the EU: both envisage the period up to 2011 being used to investigate the implications of adaptation for a range of sectoral activities. After 2012, there is expected to be a more concrete programme of action in place for both the EU and UK.