House of Commons - Adapting to Climate Change - Environmental Audit Committee

Adapting to Climate Change - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

2 The Government's response to the adaptation challenge

The Climate Change Act 2008 and the policy framework

9. Adaptation to climate change has received much less attention than mitigation.[20] The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told us that:

Professor Robert Watson, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) Chief Scientific Adviser, said that it had only been in the last three to four years that adaptation had become a major political issue within the international community.[22]

10. In 1997, the Government established the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) to help organisations to generate the information they needed to plan their own response to climate change impacts.[23] Some organisations and sectors, such as the Environment Agency and the water industry, responded and reflected adaptation in their plans and procedures, but elsewhere progress on adaptation has been slow.[24] UKCIP told us that despite the UK being ahead of many developed countries, there was not yet sufficient understanding or appreciation of the need for adaptation.[25] Consumer Focus believed that the public remained unaware of some of the main ways climate change would affect their way of life and how they might have to adapt.[26]

11. The Climate Change Act 2008 established a statutory framework for adaptation. It requires the Government to undertake a Climate Change Risk Assessment by 2012 and then set out a statutory National Adaptation Programme.[27] The Act established the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change as a source of independent expertise and scrutiny on adaptation.[28] The Act also enables the Government to require public bodies and statutory undertakers, such as energy and water companies, to report on how they are adapting to climate change.[29] In 2009, the Government decided that departments should report publicly on how they were assessing and managing the risks from climate change to their policies, programmes, and estates. The first Departmental Adaptation Plans are due to be published shortly. They will inform the Climate Change Risk Assessment.[30]

12. The cross-government Adapting to Climate Change Programme was created in 2008, to drive forward work in government and the wider public sector on adaptation in England and the UK for reserved matters.[31] Within the Programme work is still at an early stage.[32] However, the Environment Agency told us that the "[…] profile of adaptation policy has progressed significantly over the last two years, due largely to the statutory provisions in the Climate Change Act and the work of the Government's Adapting to Climate Change Programme."[33] In 2009, the Partnership for European Environmental Research compared national adaptation strategies in Europe. They concluded, that "[…] the United Kingdom [is] a frontrunner country in many respects [with] a comprehensive approach, strong scientific and technical support, attention to legal framework, implementation and review."[34] The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said the Government's policy framework was "[…] encouraging on paper but […] it is early days and we will need to see how it will develop in practice".[35]

13. The Climate Change Act 2008 and the establishment of the Adapting to Climate Change Programme should bring about a step change in the level of attention adaptation receives. The Government should establish a coherent approach to adaptation across all levels of government and enable and encourage businesses and private individuals to adapt where necessary. The UK's adaptation policy framework compares well with arrangements put in place in other countries. The Climate Change Act 2008 has, however, introduced a complicated assessment and reporting regime. Its complexity has been increased by the introduction of Departmental Adaptation Plans. It remains to be seen if this regime will improve the current low levels of awareness and understanding of adaptation. The Government must act quickly to revise the regime if it does not lead to the urgent action that the public and private sectors need to take on adaptation.

14. The Adaptation Sub-Committee told us that "Many aspects of society today assume an unchanged climate".[36] If the UK is to adapt we need to first understand the main threats and opportunities that climate change could bring, and then decide what climate change risks to bear, and what risks to mitigate. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change concluded that more quantitative information was needed on the costs and benefits of taking adaptation action across the economy.[37] The Climate Change Risk Assessment aims to fill this gap by assessing the risks and opportunities from current and future climate change.[38] An Adaptation Economic Analysis, which aims to identify the overall costs and benefits of adaptation to the UK economy, is being undertaken alongside the first Climate Change Risk Assessment.[39] The Government says the Climate Change Risk Assessment and the Adaptation Economic Analysis will enable it to:

compare the risks of a changing climate with the other pressures it faces;
prioritise adaptation policy geographically and by sector; and
support the case for resources for adaptation.[40]

15. In addition to the direct impacts of climate change, the UK is also likely to experience knock-on effects from the impacts of climate change in other parts of the world.[41] The Government has commissioned some research on these impacts, including detailed research on the impacts of environmental change on migration.[42] In line with its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UK is also assisting developing countries to address the impacts of climate change.[43]

16. Responding to climate change impacts, such as threats to water quality and the increased risk of surface water flooding, requires cross-agency and cross-sector working. For example, in areas such as critical national infrastructure, flooding and planning there are multiple departmental and local responsibilities that interact.[44] Water UK argued that interdependencies between organisations, agencies and government bodies should be addressed by the Climate Change Risk Assessment.[45]

17. The Climate Change Risk Assessment and the Adaptation Economic Analysis can generate much of the information the Government needs to give a higher priority to adaptation. They need to be supplemented with good quality evidence on the knock-on effects on the UK from the impacts of climate change overseas. To maximise the value of the first and subsequent Climate Change Risk Assessments, the Government must:

ensure that departments address the high-level priority risks identified in the risk assessments and integrate action within and across sectors;
encourage and support other public sector bodies, the private sector and private individuals, to consider the threats and opportunities and act accordingly; and
establish an efficient and effective adaptation programme that balances investing proactively now to address some risks, with building capacity to deal with consequences of climate change as they arise.

The Government's adaptation objectives and assessing progress

18. The current climate change Public Service Agreement says that "As a complement to our mitigation efforts, the UK will develop a robust approach to domestic adaptation to climate change, shared across government, and encourage adaptation to climate change internationally." Of the Public Service Agreement's six indicators, the one that addresses adaptation focuses on sustainable abstraction of water in the UK.[46] Defra has said that both adaptation and mitigation "[…] are being addressed with the wider sustainable development agenda (i.e. social, economic, and environmental well-being) in mind".[47]Adaptation can either maintain the status quo, or be part of a wider process of development to enhance the well-being of society.[48]

19. Decision makers in government departments and the wider public sector cannot ignore the impacts of climate change. The climate change Public Service Agreement for 2008-09 to 2010-11 refers to adaptation but focuses on mitigation. Given the scale, urgency and cross-departmental nature of the challenge, adaptation must feature more strongly in the Government's next statement of its key priority outcomes.

20. The absence of a commonly agreed target or metric for adaptation hinders decision making.[49] The National Audit Office (NAO) reported that measuring progress on adaptation is difficult as outcomes may not be seen and measurable for 30 to 50 years, and most of the current effort is around building adaptive capacity which is hard to define and measure.[50] The Government aims to develop a suite of indicators for adaptation, but work is at an early stage and there is little established evaluation practice to draw on.[51] Work commissioned by the Government to identify the impacts and lessons from extreme weather events, such as the Pitt Review covering the 2007 floods, has provided some evidence.[52]

21. The absence of clear objectives for adaptation, and metrics for measuring progress, makes it difficult for the Government to articulate what successful adaptation would look like. The Government should draw on the Climate Change Risk Assessment and lessons learnt from extreme weather events to establish clear objectives and metrics for adaptation, and a baseline against which the UK's progress in adapting can be measured. The Government's objectives and metrics should make clear that adapting to climate change protects people, property and prosperity, and safeguards the natural environment.

22. The Adaptation Sub-Committee has a statutory duty to provide advice and scrutiny on the Climate Change Risk Assessment, report on progress with the National Adaptation Programme, and respond to requests from all national authorities.[53] Lord Krebs, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, told us that its top priority in the longer-term "[…] is to assess and advise on the state of preparedness of the UK to adapt to climate change."[54]

23. As an expert and independent body with a UK-wide remit, the Adaptation Sub-Committee has a key role to play in assisting the Government design and deliver an effective adaptation programme.[55] In advising the Government, the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change should assess whether the main risks identified in the Climate Change Risk Assessment are being addressed by departments, other public bodies and the private sector. We recommend that the Government ask the Sub-Committee's advice on:

priorities for future research on matters relating to adaptation;
approaches for measuring and assessing progress on adaptation; and
any lessons to be drawn from the different approaches to adaptation being taken in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

24. Central and all levels of sub-national government need to publicise better and more often the importance and benefits of acting on adaptation. Doing so, will frame the context for those taking decisions on adaptation. It will also build understanding and support for the action the country needs to take, and the significant resources the country needs to invest, to manage climate impacts that will occur regardless of how successful we are at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Limits to adaptation

25. There are economic, financial, technological and behavioural limits to adaptation.[56] The Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College noted that future greenhouse gas emissions could lead to climate change that may be beyond the capacity of natural and human systems to adapt to without major dislocations to society, the economy and the environment.[57] The Tyndall Centre warned that global warming of considerably more than 2°C would make adaptation much harder. They also pointed out that some adaptive actions are unsustainable (referred to as mal-adaptation) as they can increase greenhouse gas emissions or exacerbate impacts on another area, sector or social group.[58] One of the main costs arising from climate change may be the loss of land as sea levels rise. The Institution of Civil Engineers and a think tank of the Royal Institute of British Architects have said that the country needs to establish a long-term view of whether coastal and estuarine cities, such as Hull and Portsmouth, can be and should be defended and possibly helped to grow, or whether they, and some of their inhabitants, will need to retreat from rivers and the sea.[59]

26. Adaptation has significant financial and non-financial costs, and there are limits to what the country can adapt to. Adaptation requires the Government, and the country as a whole, to make hard choices about who and what to protect from the impacts of climate change. Given its limits and costs, adaptation is not an alternative to mitigation but a complementary partner. The Government must maintain its efforts to control emissions of greenhouse gases.

Providing evidence and advice on adaptation

27. Decision makers are faced by uncertainty about how much the climate will change, and the impacts of that change on society, the environment, business and the economy.[60]One of the four themes of the Adapting to Climate Change Programme is to develop a more robust and comprehensive evidence base on the impacts and consequences of climate change.[61] Defra told us that the Programme planned to spend a total of £7 million on research in 2009-10. The Adapting to Climate Change Programme's main investment to date has been £11 million spent over a number of years on the latest UK Climate Projections, released in summer 2009.[62] For the first time, the projections explicitly account for the uncertainties in future climate change by providing probabilities for different climate outcomes.The projections do not provide direct information on the impacts and consequences of changing weather.[63]

28. The Environment Agency, Water UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Local Government Association welcomed the new projections, and the Tyndall Centre told us they were looked on by other countries as best practice.[64] UKCIP, who have been promoting the projections, believed that they would in time aid sophisticated risk-based decision-making but currently they presented considerable complexity for many stakeholders.[65] UKCIP and others are developing ways to make the projections easier to use.[66] The Met Office faces a significant challenge in providing detailed climate projections at a local level.[67] The Grantham Institute thought that, because of the uncertainty in regional projections, it was best to focus on building resilience and to keep adaptation plans as flexible as possible.[68]

29. Defra and HM Treasury highlight the importance of taking a flexible approach to adaptation in the Accounting for the Effects of Climate Change supplement to the Green Book: Project Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. The supplement explains how the Environment Agency has built flexibility into its strategy to manage the flood risk to the Thames Estuary until 2100. The strategy identifies options to cope with different degrees of sea level rise, and the thresholds at which they will be required. Small incremental changes will be implemented first, leaving major irreversible decisions for the future when better information might be available.[69]

30. The Government has made good progress in developing climate projections for the UK. The projections are a powerful tool in managing climate risks. But uncertainty in the projections, adds to uncertainty over how society and the economy will develop and respond to climate change. The Government has been right to invest in improving the evidence base for adaptation, and should continue to do so to help organisations take informed decisions. Uncertainty over the impacts of climate change should not stop or delay action to address risks. A flexible approach to adaptation, which can be revised as knowledge about the nature and scale of climate change impacts develops, is essential.

31. UKCIP has been the main source of publicly funded advice on adaptation. It has 20 staff and an annual budget of £1 million.[70] UKCIP was involved in establishing regional climate change partnerships: stakeholder groups that aim to raise awareness, build capacity and stimulate action in the regions.[71] In 2009-10, Defra gave £405,000 to these Partnerships. It plans to provide the same funding in 2010-11, but beyond then funding is uncertain.[72] The main source of advice for businesses and public sector organisations on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is the Carbon Trust. During 2008-09, the Carbon Trust received grants totalling £81 million from Whitehall departments.[73]

32. Local authorities have made critical comparisons between the level of support they can access on adaptation and the level of support they are given on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust.[74] UKCIP's Director, Dr Chris West, acknowledged that "[…] there is a knowledge gap that could be addressed by funding something like ourselves magnified many times and we could engage with every local authority. At the moment we engage with […] those willing to learn about the process".[75] The Local Government Information Unit told us that local authorities needed "A new national source of information and support for adaptation".[76] This call has been echoed by a Planning and Climate Change Coalition of 30 organisations.[77] They proposed that support on adaptation should be part of a service which also covers climate change mitigation.[78]

33. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told us that the Government needed to think about the best way of meeting the increased demand for guidance, practical examples and manuals. He identified architects and builders as two groups the Government needed to engage.[79]

34. The resources of organisations advising on adaptation are limited, compared to organisations that advise on mitigation. Consequently, progress on adaptation is hampered by a shortage of advice, particularly for local authorities. We recommend that, as a matter of urgency, the Government improve the provision and use of specialist adaptation advice and target that advice on the sectors and organisations that most need it. The Government should reinforce action on both adaptation and mitigation by integrating the provision of advice on both aspects of climate change. Integration would help synergies rather than conflicts to develop. We therefore welcome the Department for Communities and Local Government announcement in March 2010 that it is providing £10 million to improve the skills and capacity of local authorities to deal with both aspects of climate change.[80]

Funding adaptation and assisting those worst affected by climate change

35. Some adaptation actions, such as investing in new infrastructure, are costly.[81] Some costs, like adapting offices, factories and homes and paying for insurance, fall to businesses and private individuals. The taxpayer will also have to meet higher costs. For example, the Environment Agency has predicted that, to maintain current levels of protection from river and sea flooding, real terms spending on flood defences in England will need to increase from its current level of around £600 million per annum to around £1 billion in 2035.[82] If the country does not invest adequately in flood protection there will be an increased risk of flooding. The insurance industry may also review its existing commitment to provide flood cover as a standard feature of household and small business policies where the risk of flooding is no greater than once in 75 years.[83] The Environment Agency also reports that from around 2035 to the end of the century in the region of £7 billion may need to be invested in the Thames estuary's tidal defences.[84]

36. The Greater London Authority (GLA) suggested that public sector organisations might be able to use related programmes, such as those to improve the attractiveness of the urban environment, to support activities that deliver both the programme's aims and action on adaptation.[85] They also said that the Government should help lever in private sector funding, for example to cover the upfront costs of ensuring homes are suited to future climates, but they noted that there was little creative thinking on the financing of adaptation.[86] The Government requires energy suppliers to assist customers on low incomes to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.[87] We reported in 2008 on how Kirklees Council had helped local people install renewable technology by making loans that homeowners repay if and when properties are sold.[88] Similar approaches could be taken to fund the cost of adapting homes.

37. Defra and the Environment Agency want to reduce the proportion of flood defence work funded by central government.[89] Options include contributions from: local authorities, who have a power to promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of their areas; businesses, who benefit from improved protection; developers, especially where improved protection enables new development to go ahead; and local people.[90] Contributions from local people are particularly important where a small number of homes need protection. In the last couple of years the Environment Agency has helped small groups of property owners to develop and jointly fund flood defence schemes.[91]

38. We address the overall role of the spatial planning system on adaptation in paragraphs 79 to 82 of this Report. In this section we focus on how the system can be used to increase the contributions that developers make.The Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 floods recommended that developers should make a full contribution to the costs of building and maintaining any necessary flood defences.[92] Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning authorities have been able to require developers to make contributions to new infrastructure related to a proposed development.[93]Research has shown that planning authorities make differing use of planning obligations to finance infrastructure, including environmental infrastructure.[94]The authorities best able to secure contributions had "[…] clear policies in place and better experience in the process".[95]The Department for Communities and Local Government reported in 2008 that local authorities tend to only negotiate planning obligations alongside consent for larger developments, partly because the time and costs involved do not always make it worthwhile negotiating obligations on smaller developments. Planning obligations were entered into on 14% of permissions for housing developments in 2005-06.[96] To reduce surface water flood risk, the Flood and Water Management Bill proposes that developers should no longer have an automatic right to connect to the sewerage system.[97] Instead, developers will need to provide sustainable urban drainage systems for most new developments.[98]

39. The low level of planning obligations on new housing developments was one of the reasons for the Government introducing the Community Infrastructure Levy.[99] From April 2010, local authorities can, if they wish, charge the Levy on most types of new developments.[100] The Government has said the proceeds of the Levy will be "[…] spent on local and sub-regional infrastructure to support development" including transport, schools, parks, health centres and flood defences.[101] The Town and Country Planning Association was concerned that the Levy will not be used to support adaptation measures.[102]

40. Adapting to climate change is costly. The Government risks delaying action or encouraging an inadequate response unless additional, predictable and sustainable sources of funding and support are found. New sources of funding and support must be available by the time the National Adaptation Plan is put in place in 2012.

41. Government and other public bodies must engage local communities on adaptation. Localising decision making ensures schemes address local priorities, and thus increases the contributions local people and businesses are willing to make to adaptation. Local communities should be helped and encouraged to design and undertake their own adaptation schemes where public funds are not available.

42. The Government should increase the contributions that developers make to adapting the built environment. New developments benefit from established infrastructure, such as flood defences, and can reduce the wider resilience of the built environment. The Government should encourage all local authorities to use income from the new Community Infrastructure Levy to fund adaptation work. It should also encourage all local authorities to use planning obligations to require developers to take adaptation measures that benefit their new developments and the wider community.

43. The Government should make use of public/private partnerships to fund large-scale programmes, such as the retrofitting of homes to improve their resilience to climate change and their energy and water efficiency. The Government and local authorities should develop other innovative options for helping homeowners meet the cost of retrofitting their properties.

44. Climate change will bring greater incidence of heat waves, increased flooding and, as we have recently reported,[103] is likely to reduce air quality.[104] These changes will harm peoples' homes, livelihoods and health. For the Tyndall Centre, deciding what the public liability is for the impacts of climate change is probably the most difficult question that the Government needs to tackle on adaptation.[105]

45. The risk of coastal erosion will increase as climate change causes sea levels to rise, and coastal storms to be more severe and frequent.[106] In June 2009, the Government consulted on how coastal communities can successfully adapt to the impact of coastal change. The Government's proposals included local authorities providing financial assistance of up to £6,000 for demolition and removal costs for householders who experience complete loss of a home as a result of coastal erosion.[107]The Government is seeking to strike a balance between individuals taking responsibility for their investment decisions, and ensuring that practical assistance is made available to homeowners. It intends the scheme to be a "[…] temporary measure […] whilst understanding of the risks associated with coastal erosion improves."[108] Defra estimates that over the next 20 years, 200 homes are likely to be made unsafe to live in due to coastal erosion and an additional 2,000 could become at risk during this period.[109] The Chairman of the Environment Agency told us that he would continue to press ministers to consider a sale and leaseback arrangement for people who were at risk of losing properties to coastal erosion.[110] The Tyndall Centre warned that the Government needed to get the mechanisms for consultation and compensation right for coastal change, otherwise:

111

46. The numbers of people suffering major loss from climate change will grow and there will be increasing calls for the public sector to provide financial compensation. It is right that the public sector should help people suffering major loss from a changing climate that the country as a whole has contributed to. But the Government should also limit a potentially huge liability for the taxpayer. The debate on financial compensation has focused on those who are losing their homes from coastal erosion. Rather than approaching each new group afresh, we recommend the Government should establish broad principles to underpin decisions on assistance for communities badly affected by climate change, including what compensation should be paid to individuals who suffer major loss. Clear principles, informed by a public consultation, would help cap taxpayer liability and reduce the uncertainty faced by those suffering major loss about what help they will receive. Clarifying the limits on public liability will make clear who bears what risk and should encourage action by those who are at risk from future climate change impacts.

20 Q 242 Back

21 Q 267 Back

22 Q 280 [Professor Watson] Back

23 Ev 27 Back

24 Ev 18, Ev 29 and Ev 93 Back

25 Ev 30 Back

26 Ev 147 Back

27 National Audit Office, Adapting to climate change, 2009, para 5 Back

28 National Audit Office, Adapting to climate change, 2009, para 12 Back

29 National Audit Office, Adapting to climate change, 2009, para 11 Back

30 Ev 121 Back

31 National Audit Office, Adapting to climate change, 2009, para 6 Back