change: A New Zealand/Netherlands decision experiment George Gibbs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fle lexible decis ision makin ing for uncertain inty and dyn ynamic clim limate change: A New Zealand/Netherlands decision ‘experiment’ George Gibbs Judy Lawrence Adjunct Research Fellow New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute Victoria University of Wellington 6 August, 2015

Outli line 1. Climate change risks and characteristics 2. The decision-makers challenge 3. The partnership with Deltares, the Netherlands 4. A decision experiment: research as a ‘change agent’ 5. Adaptive pathways spawned

1. . Clim limate change ris isk k and characteristic ics

Key climate change risks for New Zealand Source: IPCC 4 th Assessment Report Working Group II, Chapter 25, Sou Table 25-1 Detailed summary of observations and projections (2014) • Im Impa pacts am amen enable le to o ris risk red eductio ion by miti tigatio ion and and ada adaptatio ion (BUT less mitigation means more transformative adaptation required) • increased fr freq equency and and intensity ty of of fl floodin ing & wild fire • Im Impa pacts subj subject to o lar large cli climate unc uncert rtainty ty, with ith majo ajor risk risk at t upp upper r en end of of ch changes and and with ass associated ada adaptatio ion ch chall llenges • widespread damages from sea sea-le level rise rise

Changes in in extr xtremes as a result lt of changes in in mean clim limate hot days ↑ cold days/frosts ↓ heavy rain ↑ drought ↑ fire risk ↑ severe storms ± ( ↑ ) Source: Reisinger, A. (2009) Figure 3.5. Based on IPCC AR4 WGI Box TS.5

In Increase in in flo lood ris isk • Dr Driv iven by y warming (more than changing mean rainfall) • ‘Adaptation deficit’: events with much less than 100-year return periods cause significant damages • Expected wid idespread in incr crease in in flo flood risk risk but amount of possible change spans a wide range • Flood risk increases even where average rainfall decreases

Im Impli lications for ris isk k assessment Unc ncert rtain inty an and d dyn dynamic ic cha hange means risk risk ass assessment requires exploration of of man any alt alternative clim climate fu futures • by using results from one detailed climate model; scale extreme rainfall to reflect range of different climate models / scenarios and • using detailed hydrological model to translate rainfall into peak flood flow Si Simplifie ied model l stu tudy can an explore uncertain inties • high emissions, 440 yr event → 30 -100 yr • stringent emissions reductions, → 50 -300 yr Se Severe end of of pot otential l ch changes would require transformative adaptation

Lawrence et al, 2013, for lower Hutt river at Taita Gorge

Sea le level l ris ise Sea le level l will ill contin inue to ris ise and surprise

What is is at stake? Human settlements, access and mobility, Infrastructure and economic activity

2. 2. The decis ision makers chall llenge

Clim limate change characteristics create a decis ision challe llenge Typ ypology of of cap apacity to o ad address ss unce certain inty an and dyn ynamic ch change (Dovers and Hezri 2010) • Some climate changes similar to existing variability — existing institutional framework and practice adequate • Climate variability and consequences greater than the current climate range experienced but not outside historic and institutional experience • Climate changes and variability beyond living experience and institutional memory and outside current experience with regime shifts and political instability challenging institutions and ability to cope

Our in instit itutional l framework and practic ice New Zealand has regulatory ry consideration of “ the effects of climate change” National Regional Statutory Local Government Local Regional Plans Act 2002 direction Long term and measures Resource Building Act NZ Coastal Management Plans (3-10yrs) 2004 Coastal Plans Act 1991 Policy Infrastructure Statement Catchment St Statutory plans (30yrs) fr framework Plans Technical Land use Guidance Soil Flood risk Conservation planning Land Drainage management and Rivers Emergency Act 1908 Control Act Spatial Civil Defence and Management 1941 Emergency Emergency planning Management Act Strategy management 2002

Adequacy of the in instit itutional l framework Objective of fle flexib ibil ilit ity and rob obustness across a range of possible futures Con onceptual l app approaches tha that can add address unc uncert rtain inty and and dy dynamic ic ch change • Precautionary principle – reflected but little guidance on degree of precaution • Risk management – reflected but generally based on known quantifiable risks • Adaptive management – not reflected but not ruled out • Transformational change – not reflected State of of the the fr fram amework • Fragmented institutions across discrete special purpose statutes • Organisations are discrete autonomous governance units • Coordination lacking between governance scales and functions • Disciplinary ‘silos’ operating

Adequacy of the practice and barriers Practic ice Bar arrie iers • Reactive, ‘event - driven’ • Missing instruments at national and regional scales • Limited anticipation of risk • Legacy effects and existing land uses • Risk represented as static in time (short- • Quasi-legal practice demands ‘certainty’ medium), space (fixed) → expectations of continued protection which reduces flexibility • Difficulty adapting responses over time • Mitigation practice has physical and and space → lock-in of land use affordability limits • Lack of coordination across scales — • Organisational form, disciplinary practices separated governance and siloed functions • Practice reflects different and entrenched • Capacity and capability deficits disciplinary traditions • Options often closed off early

‘Fit— interplay —scale’ The decision making challenge requires fit fit, in interpla lay an and d sc scal ale to be addressed (Oran Young, 2002) Fit = understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate change Fit characteristics In Interpla lay= organisations and actors within them and interplay between scales Sc Scale = governance and regulations at multiple levels are AL ALL in place AND Adaptive governance from the values and preferences of the actors BUT……..

Uncertainty • People can’t imagine 2100 and beyond…but climate science asks us to • Difficult for people to accept incurring costs for a future they can’t even imagine • Communities prefer small, incremental change that doesn’t threaten our way of life and sense and value of place There is a way through this… the dynamic adaptive policy pathways approach (DAPP) Haasnoot et al 2013 …

Adaptive pathways pla lannin ing Reflection on the ADM/DAPP approach… • Adaptive plan lanning supports decision making under uncertain change “ in invest not too lit little le nor or too much, an and not ot too earl arly nor or too la late ” • Adaptation PATHWAYS provide insights into options, lock-in possibilities, and path dependencies to identify sh short-term act actions to mitigate adverse impacts and seize opportunities and keep op options op open to adaptations later • Adaptation TIPP IPPING POINTS (p (poli licy use se-by date) help in identifying if and when to take actions at earliest or at latest • MONITORING plan and CONTINGENCY actions help to o stay on on tr track. Autonomous adaptation of stakeholders can be important

Approach for generating pathways Ensemble transient scenarios Adaptation pathways Set of actions Action C Action A Model-based development Action B Action D Participatory/qualitative Workshop & storylines

Adaptation Tipping Point & Use by date of policy action A stress test: How much (climate) change can we cope with? When do we start to miss our objectives? Increase in flood frequency Flood flow Climate change Risk, Q, h 2050 2050 Time scenario A 2060 Time scenario B 2060 Decision moment = f (time A, time B, lead time action) Adapted from: Kwadijk, J.C.J. et al 2010 WIRES Climate Change DOI: 10.1002/wcc.64; Haasnoot et al 2012 Climatic Change

Adaptive pathways Ada daptiv ive pa pathways app approach • Assumes dynamic climate • Proactive • Decision-focussed • Considers lifetime of decisions • Considers lead-time for implementation • Flexible and robust over time

Determines CONTINGENCY actions to stay on track ! Land use planning rules Drought tolerant crops Mainstreaming

The essentials of DAPP • Preparation • Exploration of what could happen • Familiarity with different scenarios • Can switch between options depending on what evolves • Not prediction; it is preparation and knowing what to expect • Knowing what the next step could be gives decision makers confidence under conditions of uncertainty and change • Leads to flexible and adaptable implementation 23

3. 3. The partnership wit ith Delt ltares, , the Netherlands

The partnership Proje oject par partn tners • Deltares • Carthago Consultancy • NZ CCRI, Victoria University of Wellington • Greater Wellington Regional Council • Wellington City Council • Tasman District Council • Ministry for the Environment