From Climate Science to Adaptation Decision-Making

Transcription

1 From Climate Science to Adaptation Decision-Making Mark Stafford Smith Science Director, CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship CLIMATE ADAPTATION FLAGSHIP Canberra Study Tour, 17 th September 2013

2 Where I am going Brief introduction, & about the Climate Adaptation Flagship 2. General issues in thinking about adaptation to climate change 3. Linking modelling to user (policy and management) needs in adaptation 4. Some examples of modelling impacts in different sectors 5. Modelling adaptation benefits 6. Who should care about adapting?

3 Who we are Darwin People 6500 Cairns Atherton Townsville 2 sites Divisions 13 Alice Springs Rockhampton Locations Flagships Budget $1B+ Perth 3 sites Murchison Geraldton 2 sites Adelaide Toowoomba Myall Vale Narrabri Mopra Parkes Gatton Newcastle Bribie Island Armidale 2 sites Brisbane 6 sites Irymple Griffith 2 sites Sydney 5 sites Wodonga Werribee 2 sites Belmont Geelong Canberra 7 sites Melbourne 5 sites Top 1%of global research institutions in 14 of 22 research fields Top 0.1%in 4 research fields 62%of our people hold university degrees 2000 doctorates 500 masters Hobart Sandy Bay With our university partners, we develop 650 postgraduate research students 3 CSIRO: positive impact

4 Global connections: publications We work with partners in over 80 countries Foreign governments Small to large companies Multi-nationals International foundations Leading scientific institutions Over 700 research activities No. joint publications Nil 4 CSIRO: positive impact

5 What we do: our distinct role Large scale Multidisciplinary Mission directed We provide scientific responses to major national and global challenges Our research Flagships promote radical innovation to reshape industries We take a collaborative approach to scientific research and delivery 5 CSIRO: positive impact

6 National Research Flagships BIOSECURITY CLIMATE ADAPTATION DIGITAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SERVICES ENERGY TRANSFORMED FOOD FUTURES FUTURE MANUFACTURING MINERALS DOWN UNDER PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE WATER FOR A HEALTHY COUNTRY WEALTH FROM OCEANS 6 CSIRO: positive impact

7 National Research Flagships BIOSECURITY CLIMATE ADAPTATION DIGITAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SERVICES ENERGY TRANSFORMED FOOD FUTURES FUTURE MANUFACTURING MINERALS DOWN UNDER PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE WATER FOR A HEALTHY COUNTRY WEALTH FROM OCEANS 7 CSIRO: positive impact

8 Climate Adaptation Flagship Goal To equip policy makers, industries and communities with practical and effective adaptation options to climate change and variability and, in doing so, create in the national interest $3 billion per annum in net benefits by 2030.

9 Research strategy delivers to sectoral clients Xiaoming Wang Craig James Mark Howden ~150 full time equivalents across ~300 staff members Operating since 2008, now ~$40m/y budget, ~35% external (Water issues in Water for Healthy Country Flagship) Kevin Hennessy

10 Adaptation science: three perspectives, all needed Adaptation information and decision-making Evaluation, adaptation pathways, future scenarios, risk management modes, etc Adaptive behaviours and institutions Behaviours, incentives, barriers, adaptive capacity, vulnerabilities, etc Adaptation options and technologies Cultivars, materials, farming systems, urban planning, etc

11 International activities ~20% of our activities, in partnership with other countries and AusAID, ACIAR CLIMATE ADAPTATION

12 Where I am going Brief introduction, & about the Climate Adaptation Flagship 2. General issues in thinking about adaptation to climate change 3. Linking modelling to user (policy and management) needs in adaptation 4. Some examples of modelling impacts in different sectors 5. Modelling adaptation benefits 6. Who should care about adapting?

13 IPCC2007: C? probably not any more Observed changes in Australia Mean temps C since 1950 Heatwaves #days >90 th percentile: up40% since 1980 Mean rainfall Up in N, down in W and S / E since 1950 Heavy rainfall # days >30mm: down in S & E, up in N since 1950 Fire weather FFDI up at 16 of 38 sites Sea level Rising mm/y since C: 2065±10y IPCC (2007) Summary for Policy Makers (Fig.SPM.5)

14 Australia: vulnerable among OECD nations < C global warming > (a) Qualitatively different levels of impact, vulnerabilities and adaptation needs at 4 C compared to 2 C (b) Proactive adaptation needed to plan for stabilising at 2 C are very different to those needed for 2 C heading for 4 C+ Could be disempowering IPCC (2007) (Fig.11.4: Australia)

15 Managing the risk from diverging possible futures ( C)6 Me ean Global Warming Three scenarios for the future Runaway Stabilisation Recovery Incremental adaptation to changes of reasonable certainty possible Year Adaptation must increasingly manage the risk of divergent possible futures, and need for transformation MEP2030 A1FI-GaR MEP2010 (Overshoot) Stafford Smith et al 2011, Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc. 369

16 Working towards adaptation planning It all seems disempoweringly complex... Getting past impacts, vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessments, to adaptation decision pathways Not all decisions are the same Not all aspects of the future are equally uncertain There are systematic approaches!

17 Problem or solution-centred?? NB Problems with indices AGO 2006

18 Two indices for Pacific Islands Top-down: EVI - Environmental Vulnerability Index Participatory: SLA - Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis Park et al. (2012). Environmental Science and Policy 15,

19 Problem or solution-centred?? Willows & Connell 2003 UKCIP AGO 2006

20 Adaptation timing and priorities Today s decisions must account for how long their effects will be felt Stafford Smith et al, PhilTransRoySoc 2011 (after Jones & McInnes 2004)

21 Sea level rise: 1m within Uncertainty? Direction and magnitude ~sure, timing uncertain Temperature to at least 2 C, sea level rise to >1m, non-polar ice sheet loss Direction sure, magnitude uncertain Atmospheric CO2, ocean acidification, temperature extremes, total rainfall in some regions, bushfire weather, rainfall extremes Even direction uncertain Regional rainfall in some regions, cyclones, etc

22 Managing risk Hallegatte(2009) Global Environmental Change 29: (i) selecting no-regret strategies that yield benefits even in absence of climate change (e.g. better disaster preparedness, CAR principles)) (ii) favouring reversible and flexible options (e.g. real options, delaying development) (iii) buying safety margins in new investments (e.g. heavier dam foundations) (iv) promoting soft adaptation strategies, including [a] long-term [perspective] (e.g. social networks, insurance, water demand reduction) (v) reducing decision time horizons (e.g. shorter lifetime buildings) Dessai & van de Sluijs(2007) 11 frameworks for decision-making; 12 tools for assessing uncertainty Ranger et al. (2010) Adaptation in the UK: a decision making process Classify in terms of decision types and future change risks faced

23 Systematising responses 1. Short lifetime decisions Mainly adapt incrementally, watch out for thresholds 2. Long lifetime decisions (where most risk falls to government) 1. Monotonic, ~certain to occur, timing unsure E.g. 2 C, 1m sea level rise, more hot periods, more extremes, more CO2 Plan for these, look for no regrets actions, use precautionary principle 2. Direction sure but extent unsure E.g. drying SW Australia and reduced water flows, fire risk in many areas Use risk management, soft adaptations to delay expensive decisions (but prepare for these), real options analysis 3. Even direction of response unsure Robust decision-making, risk hedging against alternative futures, etc 3. And plan adaptation pathways, with critical decision-points May include no action options, but deliberatively! Stafford Smith et al, PhilTransRoySoc 2010

24 The classic adaptation pathway concept Adaptive & maladaptive spaces Maladaptive space Decision points and alternative pathways 3 a b 1 c 1 2 f Adaptive space g h 1 3 d 1 2 e 3 1 Adaptive landscape, boundaries less certain further into the future Maladaptive space Current decision point Dead-ends that can be re-assessed over time (or other indicators, e.g. SLR) Wise et al., GEC forthcoming

25 Flexible decision pathways: Thames Estuary Lowe et al, UK Met Office 2009

26 Recent formalisations of pathways Haasnoot et al., GEC 2013

27 Resilience and vulnerability responses in remote settlements More a/c Now Frequency of heatwaves Future ~1-2x per yr 5-6x per yr?? No changes Better buildings +a/c Better health Better health+ buildings Better health+ buildings+a/c Eventually overwhelmed by increasing frequency of morbidity events due to continuing rise in temperature with declining health Not enough in the interim Not enough in the interim Mainly vulnerability responses Mainly resilience responses Mixed responses [ buildings = better building standards + retrofitting] Thresholds where health (+/- in conjunction with better building standards, etc) is sufficiently good that full dependence on a/c as primary response can end Maru et al., GEC forthcoming

28 Transformational adaptation Benefit from adapta ation Transformation from landuse or distribution change New products such as ecosystem services Climate change-ready crops Climate-sensitive precision-agric Diversification and risk management Varieties, planting times, spacing Stubble, water, nutrient and canopy management etc Climate change Howden et al, Greenhouse 2010, 2010

29 Cyclesof incremental and transformative adaptation Park et al., GEC 2012

30 Systematising a decision-centred approach 1. Not all decisions (& lifetimes) are equal 2. Not all threats are equal, nor equally uncertain 3. There are many approaches to managing risk 4. Adaptation will not be a once-off action >> adaptation pathways 5. Cycles of incremental and more transformative responses How to put all this together for planning? Evaluating whether adaptation is worthwhile...

31 Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways Simple I.V. Assessment, against future trends More detailed I.V. Assessment, for specific decision/ climate variables Haasnoot et al., GEC 2013

32 Gorddard et al. (under review) Values values (individuals and groups) responses responses Knowledge knowledge (understanding of the biophysical world) Rules rules (society, government, markets) Adaptation Services R Wise et al.

33 Assessing options, and related processes 1. Clear values and future risk profiles Simple cost:benefits analyses, can be top-down study 2. Clear values but risk profiles uncertain Real options with possible value of delay; can be fairly top-down 3. Values and risk profiles uncertain Economic analysis flawed, need adaptive management/governance approaches, possibly MCAs; engagement processes essential 4. Values and risks uncertain, and institutions in contention KVR KVR KVR KVR Analysis not yet possible, engagement and conflict resolution needed first Russ Wise, Russell Gorddard, Tim Capon

34 Complex social-ecological systems Values and even legitimacy of institutions profoundly contested e.g. Coastal retreat Gorddard, Wise et al. 2011

35 The latest adaptation pathway concept C. Path dependency A. Classic adaptation pathways Maladaptive space B. Transformative cycles D. Institutional preparedness 3 Adaptive space 1 a c d f 2 g 6 b 2 h 8 i 1 e 7 2 j 8 1 Adaptive landscape, affected by changing climate but also other drivers and other actors responses Maladaptive space Change in biophysical variables over time Wise et al., GEC forthcoming

36 Systematising a decision-centred approach 1. Not all decisions (& lifetimes) are equal 2. Not all threats are equal, nor equally uncertain 3. There are many approaches to managing risk 4. Adaptation will not be a once-off action >> adaptation pathways 5. Cycles of incremental and more transformative responses 6. Approaches to adaptation planning 7. Knowledge, Values, Rules choosing techniques for evaluation of adaptation decisions in different contexts Emerging typologies of what to do, where/when etc Typologies of adaptation actors, actions, etc

37 Approaches in practice Diversity (cf. GCMs!), but some consistent characteristics Willows & Connell 2003 UKCIP Haasnoot et al 2012 GEC Meinke et al 2009 COSUST Adaptation risk management standard AS/NZS ISO31000:2009

38 Approaches in practice Diversity (cf. GCMs!), but some consistent characteristics Decision/solutions-oriented Iterative Attentive to near-term decisions avoiding maladaptation/ closing options in face of uncertainty With engagement level required determined by Knowledge-Values-Rules limitations Different levels of decision making National/regional adaptation planning Prioritising within a specific sector, business, local government Analysing options for a specific decision etc

39 Eyre Peninsula Integrated Climate Change Agreement Plan, implement, monitor, review cycle Adaptation plan with preferred pathways Implement, monitor, reassess until next decision point Objectives General climate etc drivers What decisions matter today? Which adaptation options are preferred? What adaptation options are there? Which may be affected by climate change?

40 Today s decisions and their lifetimes for the Eyre Peninsula regional planning process

41 Today s decisions and their lifetimes for the Eyre Peninsula regional planning process Today s decisions must account for how long their effects will be felt Stafford Smith et al, PhilTransRoySoc 2011 (after Jones & McInnes 2004) (For EPICCA)

42 Where I am going Brief introduction, & about the Climate Adaptation Flagship 2. General issues in thinking about adaptation to climate change 3. Linking modelling to user (policy and management) needs in adaptation 4. Some examples of modelling impacts in different sectors 5. Modelling adaptation benefits 6. Who should care about adapting?

43 Questions that decision-makers should ask 1. Is there an impact worth worrying about? 2. Are there adaptation options available? 3. Is it worth implementing an adaptation option? If so, when? 4. Who should worry about adapting? Is it the role of government?

44 Systemic impacts of extreme events Heatwaves Heatwaves in our southern cities are becoming more common and more intense events, with both chronic and acute impacts. Eg. SE Australia heatwave, 28-30th Jan premature deaths in SE Australia + morbidity Power blackouts to >500kbuildings one outage caused $70M load shed in 5h; Basslink overheated Transport disruptions (24% of Melbourne trains cancelled; $5M in fines) Damage to transport infrastructure Damage to fruit and vegetable growers; est. $10M s Loss of economic activity: >$800M The frequency of such events is likely to at least triple in southern Australia by 2070

45 Queensland floods and cyclones

46 Extreme events and productivity Unexpected high-intensity rain and other weather affects transport, energy and mining infrastructure Intensities expected to increase in many areas Ensham Mine, Queensland, 2008 Production stopped for over a year $millions in damage and costs Yallourn, Victoria, 2007: Excessive rainfall caused a massive landslip and flooding Caused serious power supply issues for Victoria Pilbara, WA, 2006, 2009: Cyclones in 2006 and excessive rain in 2009 closed the iron ore mines

47 Adaptation: cyclone building standards Cyclone Tracy, Darwin, 1974 Cyclone Yasi, 2011 JCU s report shows that less than 3% of all post-1980s houses in the worst affected areas experienced significant roof damage, although more than 12% of the pre-1980s housing inspected had significant roof damage.

48 Where I am going Brief introduction, & about the Climate Adaptation Flagship 2. General issues in thinking about adaptation to climate change 3. Linking modelling to user (policy and management) needs in adaptation 4. Some examples of modelling impacts in different sectors 5. Modelling adaptation benefits 6. Who should care about adapting?

49 National environmental change datasets (e.g. GDMs of novel environment projections for 2070) Ferrier et al. 2012

50 Taking a national, all-hazards view Extreme Wind Kilometres Extreme Rainfall NA Kilometres NT Heat NA NT NT FFDI ARI 2000 Wind [m/s] ARI Fire Danger QLD QLD WA SA NSW ACT VIC Rainfall (mm) ARI ,200 1,201-1,500 1,501-1,800 1,801-2,100 2,101-2,400 2,401-2,700 2,701-3,000 3,001-3,300 3,301-3,600 3,601-3,900 3,901-4,200 4,201-4,500 QLD WA WA SA TAS SA NSW NSW ACT VIC VIC TAS TAS Baynes et al, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2012 ACT

51 Total infrastructure value exposed and damage costs for inundation, flooding and bushfires, base case Total Structural Value Exposed ($billion) $18 $16 $14 Total cost of damage at 2006 $bn, Net Present Value $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Current Coastal Inundation Inland Flood Bushfire $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $- Bushfire Flood Inundation Population and Infrastructure Exposure to Climate Change Impacts Tim Baynes

52 Specific decisions: Areas Prone Key attributes to Extreme Wind Events in Queensland Adaptation Timing and Benefit No regrets (value even if no climate change) Robust (value for all scenarios) Act early (rapid decline in value over time) Proactive collective action (else delay) Average NPV of Benef fit by 2100 (m$) No change in winds "Moderate Change" "Significant Change" "Southward Shift" Change Brisbane s wind loading standards today? 1000 NPV = $0.7 bn (if no changes in wind extremes eventuate) 0 up to $8.3 bn (if cyclones shift southwards by 2100) Delaying change in standards rapidly reduces NPV Calendar Year to Implement Adaptation Vulnerable to extreme wind hazard, especially if cyclones move south Stewart & Wang, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2011

53 React or anticipate? Adapting our infrastructure Net national impacts of coastal inundation on residential buildings Direct impact costs of adaptation, Present Value (2.5% DR, 2010$) No response $3bn(±1bn) $9bn(±2bn) React to current $2bn $4-6bn hazard Anticipate future $1-2bn $2-4bn hazard Payoffs: Accommodate: ~$20 NPV benefit for every $1 spent + Other hazards, other buildings/infrastructure, indirect costs? Protect: $6-$42 NPV benefit for every $1 spent Wang et al, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2013 preliminary results

54 Where I am going Brief introduction, & about the Climate Adaptation Flagship 2. General issues in thinking about adaptation to climate change 3. Linking modelling to user (policy and management) needs in adaptation 4. Some examples of modelling impacts in different sectors 5. Modelling adaptation benefits 6. Who should care about adapting?

55 Adaptation options at different institutional scales Global International National/ sector National Sub-national/ State sub-sector Local Govt Local Household/ Household/ business Organisati ional scale Refugee agreements/nationality standards Diversity Water sharing/alternatives of policy / Non-maladaptive major contextsetting infrastructure National research coordination actions Framework of legal certainty Infrastructure for increased disaster response Specific local planning amendments Specific local infrastructure Diversity Proactive individual preparations for change of adaptation Transformative considerations actions

56 Is anyone managing the integrated risks? 1. Supply chains ~13% primary energy used in water supply system [US figures] major concern for water utilities Mining despite major disruptions, evidence our industry is lagging behind climate adaptation action -40% (Canada) vs. 10% (Australia) vs. 45% LGAs(Australia) 2. Scheduling issues in mobilising capital investment Sydney Water s $30bn assets E.g. roads 3. Coincident events Same place, multiple times; same time, multiple places; same budget cycle Road length (km) exposed to coastal inundation Baynes et al, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2012

57 Conclusions 1. Adaptation modelling should be in the service of decision-making Needs a decision-centred rather than a problem-oriented framing, with appropriate engagement with stakeholders 2. Impacts and vulnerability modelling can then be focused on particular decisions Support the development of adaptation pathways that reduce the risks in decision-making under uncertainty 3. Initial studies for some sectors show significant net present benefits of acting early with respect to some risks Integrated/emergent risk issues (costs and benefits) may be a key driver for government action A useful focus for modelling as governments work out whether they should be acting

58 CLIMATE ADAPTATION FLAGSHIP Mark Stafford Smith Science Director

59 Systematising a decision-centred approach Not all decisions are equal Decision lifetimes really matter, for how decisions intersect with climate change Not all threats are equal, nor equally uncertain Some aspects of climate change are far more certain than others There are many approaches to managing risk Use what s appropriate to the form of climate and other uncertainty Adaptation will not be a once-off action Adaptation pathways, with review points, related to climate and other updates Don t just assess impacts and vulnerability more precisely!! But how to identify and select options?