Climate Change Adaptation and Local Governments

Abstract

Even today we stop greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and global warming will continue threatening the human and other living/non-living things. Despite technological progress, vulnerability of the human will become more apparent while we will have to cope with more severe extreme climatic events. Urban areas are specially under threat and their vulnerability will increase. Regardless of impact severity, adaptation provides means to mitigate impacts, lower urban vulnerability, and benefit positive aspects of climate change. Being the fundamental institutions in provision of urban services and protection of public and environmental health, local governments’ role in climate change adaptation is grave. This article emphasizes the key function of local governments and discusses climate change adaptation.

Keywords: Climate Change Adaptation, Local Governments

Adaptation to environmental and climatic changes and conditions is not a new concept. Historically, accumulated knowledge on adaptation through a range of practices that include crop diversification, irrigation, water management, disaster risk management and insurance, societies have a long list of adaptive measures to the weather and climate impacts. However, climate change is a novel risk often going beyond the range of experience related to e.g. drought, heatwaves and accelerated glacier retreat (Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. W., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit B., Takahashi, K., 2007, OECD, 2009). In climate change context adaptation means modifications in ecological, social or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to average potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change (IPCC, 2001). Adaptation consists of deliberate actions to limit negative outcomes as well as to benefit from any opportunities (OECD, 2009) and is critical as a required complement to mitigation actions because, first, it is likely that a lag time between emissions and consequent climate change exists. Therefore, adaptive actions against unavoidable adverse effects may be necessary irrespective of any mitigative action. Second, adaptation is necessary for natural climate variability. Hence, development of planned adaptation strategies to cope with these risks is required (IPCC, 1990, IPCC, 2001, pp. 881, OECD, 2009, Mukheibir, P., 2010).

Adaptations differ according to systems, people undertaking them, prompting climatic stimuli, and their timing, functions, forms, and effects. In natural systems, adaptation is reactive, autonomous, whereas in human systems, private decision-makers and public agencies or governments undertake adaptation (IPCC, 2001, pp. 879, OECD, 2009). Governments and public agencies play a crucial role in adaptation issue because, first, they are the custodians for public assets and provide services and, second, they establish the rules and regulations which may improve or limit the ability of other actors to adapt to the impacts of climate change (OECD, 2009). Local governments are the key in mitigating impacts of climate change since vulnerabilities of individuals and groups are not only a function of their livelihoods but also determined by the degree they receive municipal services, efficiency of local governments, and coping capacity of individuals and groups (Laukkonen et al., 2009).

Planned anticipatory adaptation may reduce vulnerability and realise opportunities associated with climate change. As well as future benefits, implementing adaptation policies, programs, and measures are to bring immediate benefits, only if they are consistent or integrated with decisions or programs addressing non-climatic stresses (IPCC, 2001). In other words, adaptation aims to reduce vulnerability of societies to hazards by enhancing the capability to better predict, resist, and recover from their consequences (OECD, 2009).

Before moving further, the definitions of terms relevant to the following discussion of adaptation as given by IPCC (2001) should be viewed:

Sensitivity: Degree to which a system is affected by or responsive to climate stimuli (sensitivity includes responsiveness to both problematic and beneficial stimuli)

Susceptibility: Degree to which a system is open, liable, or sensitive to climate stimuli (similar to sensitivity, with some connotations toward damage)

Vulnerability: Degree to which a system is susceptible to injury, damage, or harm (problematic or detrimental part of sensitivity)

Impact Potential: Degree to which a system is sensitive or susceptible to climate stimuli (essentially synonymous with sensitivity)

Stability: Degree to which a system is not easily moved or modified

Robustness: Degree to which a system is not given to influence; strength

Resilience: Degree to which a system rebounds, recoups, or recovers from a stimulus

Flexibility: Degree to which a system is pliable or compliant (similar to adaptability, but more absolute than relative)

Coping Ability: Degree to which a system can successfully grapple with a stimulus (similar to adaptability but includes more than adaptive means of grappling)

Responsiveness: Degree to which a system reacts to stimuli (broader than coping ability and adaptability because responses need not be successful)

Adaptive Capacity: The potential or capability of a system to adapt to (to alter to better suit) climatic stimuli or their effects or impacts

Adaptability: The ability, competency, or capacity of a system to adapt to (to alter to better suit) climatic stimuli (essentially synonymous with adaptive capacity).

Regions, countries, socio-economic groups have considerably varying capacity to adapt. Modifying the adaptive capacity of communities and regions, development decisions, activities, and programs have important roles but they generally do not consider risks related with climate variability and change, inclusion of which in the design and implementation of development initiatives is required to decrease vulnerability to improve sustainability (IPCC, 2001). Similarly, local governments should issue coping with climate change related impacts in their strategy plans and implementation schedules.

Under the light of above statements, the below may be considered as the main reasons for adaptation:

1. Climate change cannot be totally avoided.
2. Forced, last-minute, emergency adaptation or retrofitting are more costly and less effective than anticipatory and precautionary adaptation.
3. Climate change may be faster or more noticeable than the available estimates suggest, i.e. unexpected events may take place.
4. Immediate benefits are possible from better adaptation to climate variability and extreme atmospheric events.
5. Immediate benefits are also possible through removing maladaptive policies and practices.
6. Future benefits might result from climate change (IPCC, 1990, IPCC, 2001).

Planned anticipatory adaptation aims reducing a system’s vulnerability by diminishing risk or strengthening adaptive capacity. The below objectives are generated from this aim (IPCC, 2001).

1. Modifying robustness of infrastructural designs and long-term investments, e.g. extending the range of temperature or precipitation a system can resist without failure and altering the tolerance of loss or failure (for instance by increasing economic reserves or by insurance)
2. Strengthening the flexibility of vulnerable managed systems, e.g. allowing mid-term adjustments, and decreasing economic lifetimes
3. Enhancing the adaptability of vulnerable natural systems, e.g. reducing non-climatic stresses and removing barriers to migration (including eco-corridors).
4. Reversing trends which increase vulnerability, e.g. defining setbacks for development in vulnerable areas such as floodplains.
5. Improving societal awareness and preparedness, e.g. informing the public about the risks and likely consequences of climate change.

Even if there is an urgent need to begin implementing adaptation options, it is suitable to start planning to avoid actions that could increase vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. It could take at least a decade for necessary analyses, training people, developing plans and mobilising public and political awareness and support. Therefore, the process should begin immediately. There are two main priorities of adaptation: information exchange, and education and community participation. The exchange of data and information among related institutions is necessary in this highly interdisciplinary set of problems. Moreover, models and assessment techniques should be developed to support decision-makers’ perception on the complicated interactions and conflicting interests. Educating public and decision-makers on impacts of climate change is essential to let everybody understand the risks. Inclusion of local communities and members in deciding and implementing response options is also substantial to realise adaptive responses (IPCC, 1990).

According to the above classification, vulnerability of the system of interest and risks associated with climate change should be identified first in addressing adaptation to climate change. Socio-economic and environmental conditions, biophysical and socio-economic impacts, and the ability of systems to respond to climate change through autonomous adaptation could be the baseline for vulnerability assessment (OECD, 2009, pp. 55–60). Available knowledge of adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability is not enough for reliable estimations of adaptation and for stringent assessment of governments’ planned adaptation, options, measures, and policies (IPCC, 2001, pp. 880) due to absence of measurable outcomes or indicators to assess adaptation (Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., Paterson, J., 2011). Improved knowledge about processes shaping adaptation decisions is required to predict autonomous adaptations and provide input to adaptation policies. This knowledge consists of information on steps in the processes, decision rationales, handling of uncertainties, choices of adaptation types and timing, conditions stimulating or inhibiting adaptation, and the consequences or performance of adaptation strategies or measures (IPCC, 2001, pp. 884–885).

Decision tools to evaluate adaptation options include risk-benefit and multi-criteria analyses. Such evaluations are more complicated by the existence of secondary impacts related to adaptation itself. For instance, water development projects may have important impacts on local transmission of parasitic diseases. Nevertheless, it is broadly accepted that planned adaptations to climate risks are generally to be implemented as components of (or as modifications to) existing resource management programs or as part of national or regional strategies for sustainable development (IPCC, 2001).

Cities in developing countries have to cope with the severe impacts of climate change. These impacts sometimes cost billions of dollars (Bigio, 2003). Figure 1 shows damage costs by fossil-related carbon emissions for 21 countries. As seen costs are increasing for each of the countries. In Turkey, between 2002 and 2017 cost almost quadrupled. With such increasing costs, difficulties in development are reinforced. Rapid urbanization and increasing population augment vulnerabilities of cities against disasters. Urban sprawl is another reinforcing factor of vulnerability in developing countries (Bigio, 2003).

Figure 1 Cost of Damage due to Carbon dioxide Emissions

Mediterranean Basin is among the regions that will be under severe impact. During the century, urban vulnerability will increase with hydrometeorological disasters caused by intensified extreme heat events. Megacities will especially become more vulnerable due to urban poverty, lack of coping capacities and problems in urban planning. Climate change, desertification and anomalies in hydrologic cycle accelerate environmental degradation in the Mediterranean, anthropogenic impacts such as population growth, urbanization, and alimentary needs bolster environmental stress (Brauch, 2003).

Methods for local government in coping with impacts of climate change might be categorised (IPPC, 1990):

Category A: responses that improve our knowledge base to let reasoned judgement on response strategies concerning climate change and that should be realised in advance of accurate regional predictions.

To deal with climate uncertainty and variety in the most efficient way, the knowledge base has to be improved for better evaluation of resources. In other words, research to identify key vulnerabilities to climate uncertainty and variability will serve for design and implementation of response options (Ziervogel, G., Johnston, P., Matthew M., Mukheibir, P., 2010). Principally, creating data bases, monitoring systems, and catalogues, and providing information concerning meteorological and hydrologic events and their assessments are the responsibility of the central government and these are implemented by the local representatives. However, local governments need to improve their resources to benefit these. Also, they need to conduct sensitivity, resilience, and vulnerability analyses to provide input for long-term planning. Finally, increasing public awareness is a must.

Category B: comprised of responses that are economically feasible under present-day conditions and, thus, could be implemented in short-term.

After strengthening human resources and data/information systems, local governments need to concentrate on development of complex models on climate variability and uncertainty. Such activities may be supported by universities, NGOs or international finance corporations.

Category C: More costly responses that should be considered in the long-term. Because of high cost, considering those responses under reduced uncertainties regarding climate change would be wise.

Governments face some constraints in implementing adaptation actions. Constraints are factors or conditions that may render adaptation inefficient and are generally challenging to overcome. Thus, they are specific based on the values of different groups and in close relation with vulnerabilities as a result of climate change. There are tough financial, cultural or political constraints, which bring central issues to the agenda. Those constraints can be listed as a) relevance of climate information for development-related decisions, b) uncertainty regarding climate information, c) compartmentalisation with governments, d) segmentation and other barriers within development-cooperation agencies, e) trade-offs between climate and development objectives. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provides guidance to overcome these obstacles and barriers in mainstreaming. In short, as part of government planning, the opportunities for implementing adaptation depend on effective, equitable and legitimate actions to overcome barriers and limits. Initial signals of impacts created the so-called “policy windows hypothesis” as a demand and political area for implementing adaptation, yet, it is not certain whether weather-related catastrophic events can facilitate adaptation or be a barrier (Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. W., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit B., Takahashi, K., 2007, pp. 732, 733). Nevertheless, local governments should prepare long-term plans to act against irreversible impacts of climate change, protect public and environmental health, and improve public well-being. Social democratic local governments additionally need to favour social justice and implement means reinforcing resilience and solidarity.

Dr. Miraç Gül

References

Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. W., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit B., Takahashi, K., 2007, Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J.P. Plutikof, P.J. Van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 717–743

Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., Paterson, J., 2011, Are We Adapting to Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, vol. 21, p. 25–33, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.012

Bigio, A. G. (2003). Cities and Climate Change. In A. Kreimer, M. Arnold, A. Carlin, & the (WB) World Bank (Eds.), Building safer cities, the future of disaster risk Disaster Risk Management Series (pp. 91–99). Washington: The World Bank.

Brauch, H. G. (2003). Urbanization and Natural Disasters in the Mediterranean: Population Growth and Climate Change in the 21st Century. In A. Kreimer, M. Arnold, A. Carlin, & the (WB) World Bank (Eds.), Building safer cities, the future of disaster risk Disaster Risk Management Series (pp. 149–164). Washington: The World Bank.

IPCC, 1990: Bernthal, F., Dowdeswell, E., Luo, J., Attard, D., Vcllinga, P., Karimanzira, R., 1990, Climate Change the IPCC Response Strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia

IPCC, 1995: Watson, Robert T.Zinyowera, Marufu C.Moss, Richard H.Dokken, David J., 1996, Climate change 1995 — impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change : scientific-technical analyses, Cambridge University Press

IPCC, 2001: Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R. J. T., et al. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In J. J. McCarthy, O. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S. White (Eds.), Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P. K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B., & Kinuthia-Njenga, C. (2009). Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat International, 33(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.003

Mukheibir, P., 2010, Water Access, Water Scarcity, and Climate Change, Environmental Management, 2010, vol. 45, p. 1027–1039, doi:10.1007/s00267–010–9474–6

OECD, 2009, Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance — ISBN-978–92–64–05476–9