From Climate Science to Adaptation Decision-Making Mark Stafford Smith

From Climate Science to Adaptation
Decision-Making
Mark Stafford Smith
Science Director, CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship
CLIMATE ADAPTATION FLAGSHIP
Canberra Study Tour, 17th September 2013
Where I am going...
1. 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?
Who we are
People
Darwin
Cairns
Atherton
6500
Townsville
2 sites
Alice Springs
Divisions
Locations
13
Rockhampton
Bribie
Island
58
Murchison
Toowoomba
Gatton
Myall Vale Armidale
2 sites
Narrabri
Geraldton
2 sites
Flagships
11
6 sites
Mopra
Newcastle
Parkes
Perth
Adelaide
3 sites
Budget
Brisbane
2 sites
Irymple
Griffith
Sydney 5 sites
Canberra 7 sites
Wodonga
Werribee 2 sites
$1B+
Belmont
Geelong
Melbourne 5 sites
Hobart
Sandy Bay
Top 1% of global research
62% of our people hold
institutions in 14 of 22 research
university degrees
fields
2000 doctorates
500 masters
Top 0.1% in 4 research fields
3 | CSIRO: positive impact |
With our university
partners, we develop
650 postgraduate
research students
Global connections: publications
No. joint publications
100+
50-99
2-49
Nil
We work with
partners in over
80 countries
4 | CSIRO: positive impact |
• Foreign governments
• International foundations
• Small to large companies
• Leading scientific institutions
• Multi-nationals
• Over 700 research activities
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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
Research strategy delivers to sectoral clients
Xiaoming Wang
Craig James
Mark Howden
Kevin Hennessy
~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)
Adaptation science: three perspectives, all
Adaptation information
needed
and decision-making
Evaluation, adaptation
pathways, future scenarios,
risk management modes, etc
Adaptive
behaviours
and institutions
Adaptation
options and
technologies
Behaviours, incentives,
barriers, adaptive capacity,
vulnerabilities, etc
Cultivars, materials,
farming systems, urban
planning, etc
International activities
~20% of our activities,
in partnership with other
countries and AusAID, ACIAR
CLIMATE ADAPTATION
Where I am going...
1. 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?
IPCC 2007: 1.1-6.4°C? – probably not any more
Observed changes in Australia
Mean temps.
Heatwaves
+0.9°C since 1950
#days >90th percentile: up 40% 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 1973-2010
Sea level
Rising 2.8-3.2mm/y since 1993
2°C: 2065±10y
IPCC (2007) Summary for Policy Makers (Fig.SPM.5)
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)
Mean Global Warming ((°C)
Managing the risk from diverging possible futures
6
Three scenarios for the future
Runaway
5
4
Stabilisation
3
2
Recovery
1
0
1990
2010
2030
2050
Year
Incremental
adaptation
to changes
of reasonable
certainty possible
Stafford Smith et al 2011, Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc. 369
2070
2090
Adaptation must
increasingly manage
the risk of divergent
possible futures, and
need for transformation
MEP2030
A1FI-GaR
MEP2010 (Overshoot)
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!
Problem or solution-centred??
NB Problems with indices
AGO 2006
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, 23-37.
Problem or solution-centred??
Willows & Connell 2003 UKCIP
AGO 2006
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)
Sea level rise: 1m within 2080-2170
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
2150
2200
2250
2300
Managing risk
Hallegatte (2009) Global Environmental Change 29: 240-7
(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
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
The ‘classic’ adaptation pathway concept
Adaptive & maladaptive spaces
Maladaptive space
3
Adaptive space
1 d
1 c
1 b
a
3
3
2
1
2
2
f
2 g
2
2 h
Decision points and
alternative pathways
3
3
Maladaptive space
Current
decision
point
Wise et al., GEC forthcoming
Dead-ends that can be
re-assessed over time (or
other indicators, e.g. SLR)
e
1
Adaptive
landscape,
boundaries
less certain
further into
the future
Flexible decision pathways: Thames Estuary
Lowe et al, UK Met Office 2009
Recent formalisations of pathways
Haasnoot et al., GEC 2013
Resilience and vulnerability responses in
remote settlements
Now
Frequency of heatwaves
~1-2x per yr
Future
5-6x per yr??
More a/c
Eventually overwhelmed by increasing frequency
of morbidity events due to continuing rise in
temperature with declining health
No changes
Mainly
vulnerability
responses
Better buildings
+a/c
Better health
Not enough in the interim
Better health+
buildings
Not enough in the interim
Better health+
buildings+a/c
[‘buildings’ = better building standards + retrofitting]
Maru et al., GEC forthcoming
Mainly
resilience
responses
Mixed
responses
Thresholds where health (+/- in conjunction
with better building standards, etc) is
sufficiently good that full dependence
on a/c as primary response can end
Transformational adaptation
Transformation from landuse
or distribution change
Benefit from
adaptation
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
Cycles of incremental and transformative
adaptation
Park et al., GEC 2012
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...
“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
Gorddard et al. (under review)
Values
values
(individuals and
groups)
responses
responses
Knowledge
knowledge
(understanding of the
biophysical world)
Adaptation Services | R Wise et al.
Rules
rules
(society,
government,
markets)
Assessing options, and related processes
1. Clear values and future risk profiles
KVR
• Simple cost:benefits analyses, can be top-down study
2. Clear values but risk profiles uncertain
KVR
• Real options with possible value of delay; can be fairly top-down
3. Values and risk profiles uncertain
KVR
• Economic analysis flawed, need adaptive management/governance
approaches, possibly MCAs; engagement processes essential
4. Values and risks uncertain, and institutions in contention
KVR
• Analysis not yet possible, engagement and conflict resolution needed first
Russ Wise, Russell Gorddard, Tim Capon
Complex social-ecological systems
Values and even
legitimacy of institutions
profoundly contested
e.g. Coastal retreat
Gorddard, Wise et al. 2011
The latest adaptation pathway concept
A. ‘Classic’ adaptation pathways
C. Path
dependency
B. Transformative
cycles
Maladaptive space
3
1
Adaptive space
1
3
5
1 e
1 d
1 c
a
2
f
2 g
2 h
6
7
2 j
8
8
i
b
D. Institutional
preparedness
Maladaptive space
Change in biophysical variables over time
Wise et al., GEC forthcoming
Adaptive
landscape,
affected by
changing
climate but
also other
drivers and
other actors’
responses
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
Approaches in practice
• Diversity (cf. GCMs!), but some consistent characteristics
Willows & Connell 2003 UKCIP
Haasnoot et al 2012 GEC
Adaptation risk management
standard AS/NZS ISO31000:2009
Meinke et al 2009 COSUST
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
Eyre Peninsula Integrated Climate Change Agreement
General climate
etc drivers
Plan,
implement,
monitor,
review
cycle
Implement,
monitor, reassess
until next decision
point
Objectives
What
decisions
matter
today?
Adaptation plan
with preferred
pathways
Which
adaptation
options are
preferred?
Which may
be affected
by climate
change?
What
adaptation
options are
there?
Today’s decisions and their lifetimes
for the Eyre Peninsula regional planning process
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)
Where I am going...
1. 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?
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?
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 2009
– 374 premature deaths in SE Australia + morbidity
– Power blackouts to >500k buildings – 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
Queensland floods and cyclones 2010-11
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
• $millions in damage and costs
Yallourn, Victoria, 2007:
• Excessive rainfall caused a
massive landslip and
flooding
• Caused serious power
supply issues for Victoria
Pilbara, WA, 2006, 2009:
• Cyclones in 2006 and
excessive rain in 2009 closed
the iron ore mines
Adaptation: cyclone building standards
Cyclone Yasi, 2011
“JCU’s report shows that less than 3%
of all post-1980s houses in the worst
affected areas experienced significant
roof damage, although more than 12%
of the pre-1980s housing inspected
had significant roof damage.”
Cyclone Tracy, Darwin, 1974
Where I am going...
1. Brief introduction, & about the Climate
Adaptation Flagship
2. General issues in thinking about
adaptation to climate change
3. Linking modelling to user (policy and
management) needs in adaptation
4. Some examples of modelling impacts in
different sectors
5. Modelling adaptation benefits
6. Who should care about adapting?
National environmental change datasets
(e.g. GDMs of novel environment projections for 2070)
Ferrier et al. 2012
Taking a national, all-hazards view
Extreme
Wind
200
0
200 400 600
Kilometres
Extreme
Rainfall
NA
200
0
200 400 600
Kilometres
NT
Heat
NA
NT
NT
FFDI
ARI 2000
Wind [m/s]
ARI 1000
12 - 30
30.1 - 35
35.1 - 40
40.1 - 45
45.1 - 50
50.1 - 55
55.1 - 60
60.1 - 65
65.1 - 70
70.1 - 75
75.1 - 80
80.1 - 85
85.1 - 90
90.1 - 95
95.1 - 100
Fire
Danger
QLD
QLD
WA
SA
NSW
ACT
VIC
Rainfall (mm) ARI 2000
0 - 300
301 - 600
601 - 900
901 - 1,200
1,201 - 1,500
1,501 - 1,800
1,801 - 2,100
2,101 - 2,400
2,401 - 2,700
2,701 - 3,000
3,001 - 3,300
3,301 - 3,600
3,601 - 3,900
3,901 - 4,200
4,201 - 4,500
QLD
WA
WA
SA
TAS
SA
NSW
NSW
ACT
VIC
VIC
TAS
TAS
Baynes et al, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2012
ACT
Total Structural Value Exposed ($billion)
Billions
Total infrastructure value exposed and damage costs for
inundation, flooding and bushfires, base case
$18
Total cost of damage at 2006 $bn, Net
Present Value
2050
$16
2100
$14
$800
$12
$700
$600
$500
Coastal Inundation
$400
Inland Flood
$300
$10
$8
Bushfire
$200
$6
$100
$0
Current
2050
2100
$4
$2
$Bushfire
Population and Infrastructure Exposure to Climate Change Impacts | Tim Baynes
Flood
Inundation
Key attributes
Specific decisions: Areas Prone
to Extreme Wind Events in
• No regrets (value even if no climate change)
Queensland
• Robust (value for all scenarios)
• Act early (rapid decline in value over time)
• Proactive collective action (else delay)
Adaptation Timing and Benefit
Average NPV of Benefit by 2100 (m$)
9000
No change in winds
"Moderate Change"
"Significant Change"
"Southward Shift"
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
Change
Brisbane’s wind loading standards today?
1000
• NPV = $0.7 bn (if no changes in wind extremes eventuate)
0
up to $8.3 bn (if cyclones shift southwards by 2100).
-1000
• Delaying change in standards rapidly reduces NPV
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Calendar Year to Implement Adaptation
Stewart & Wang, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2011
2070
Vulnerable to extreme
wind hazard, especially
if cyclones move south
React or anticipate? Adapting our
infrastructure
Net national impacts of coastal inundation on residential buildings
Direct impact costs of adaptation, Present Value (2.5% DR, 2010$)
2050
2099
$3bn (±1bn)
$9bn (±2bn)
React to current
hazard
$2bn
$4-6bn
Anticipate future
hazard
$1-2bn
$2-4bn
No response
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
Where I am going...
1. 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?
Adaptation options at different institutional scales
National/
National
sector
Sub-national/
State
sub-sector
Local
Local Govt
Household/
Household/
business
business
Organisational scale
Global
International
• Refugee agreements/nationality standards
Diversity
• Water sharing/alternatives
of policy /
…
• Non-maladaptive majorcontextinfrastructure
• National research coordination
setting
…
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
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
Baynes et al, Climate Adaptation Flagship, 2012
Road length (km)
exposed to coastal
inundation
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
CLIMATE ADAPTATION FLAGSHIP
Mark Stafford Smith
Science Director
[email protected] – +61 408 852 082
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?