18.4. Planned Adaptations and Evaluation of Policy Options
This section considers planned, mainly (but not exclusively) anticipatory adaptations,
undertaken or directly influenced by governments or collectives as a public
policy initiative. These adaptations represent conscious policy options or response
strategies to concerns about climate change (Benioff et al., 1996; Fankhauser,
1996; Smith, 1997; Pielke, 1998; UNEP, 1998). Public adaptation initiatives
may be direct or indirect, such as when they encourage or facilitate private
actions (Leary, 1999). Planned adaptation by public agencies represents an alternative
or complementary response strategy to mitigation (of net GHG emissions). Analyses
of such planned adaptations are essentially normative exercises involving identification
of possible policy strategies and evaluation of the relative merit of alternatives,
as an aid to policy development.
18.4.1. Rationale and Objectives for Planned Adaptations
Numerous reasons have been given for pursuing planned adaptations at this time
(see Table 18-4). Public adaptation initiatives are regarded
not as a substitute for reducing GHG emissions but as a necessary strategy to
manage the impacts of climate change (Burton, 1996; Pielke, 1998). Adaptation
can yield benefits regardless of the uncertainty and nature of climate change
(Ali, 1999). Fankhauser et al. (1998) and Leary (1999) outline rationales
for public adaptation policies or projects relative to relying on private actions.
Leary concludes that "we cannot rely solely or heavily on autonomous adjustments
of private agents to protect public goods and should examine public policy responses
to do so." Planned anticipatory adaptation, as recognized in the UNFCCC
(Article 3.3), is aimed at reducing a system's vulnerability by diminishing
risk or improving adaptive capacity.
| Table 18-4: Six reasons to adapt to climate change
now (Burton, 1996). |
 |
| 1) |
Climate change cannot be totally avoided.
|
| 2) |
Anticipatory and precautionary adaptation is more effective
and less costly than forced, last-minute, emergency adaptation or retrofitting.
|
| 3) |
Climate change may be more rapid and more pronounced than
current estimates suggest. Unexpected events are possible.
|
| 4) |
Immediate benefits can be gained from better adaptation
to climate variability and extreme atmospheric events.
|
| 5) |
Immediate benefits also can be gained by removing maladaptive
policies and practices.
|
| 6) |
Climate change brings opportunities as well as threats.
Future benefits can result from climate change.
|
|
There has been work on the process by which public agencies might or should
undertake planned adaptation strategies, particularly noting the steps to be
followed, relationships with other policy and management objectives, and the
criteria with which options might be evaluated (Louisse and Van der Meulen,
1991; Carter et al., 1994; Smith and Lenhart, 1996; Stakhiv, 1996; Major
and Frederick, 1997; Smith, 1997). Klein and Tol (1997) identify five generic
objectives of adaptation:
- Increasing robustness of infrastructural designs and long-term investments—for
example, by extending the range of temperature or precipitation a system can
withstand without failure and changing the tolerance of loss or failure (e.g.,
by increasing economic reserves or by insurance)
- Increasing the flexibility of vulnerable managed systems—for example,
by allowing mid-term adjustments (including change of activities or location)
and reducing economic lifetimes (including increasing depreciation)
- Enhancing the adaptability of vulnerable natural systems—for example,
by reducing other (nonclimatic) stresses and removing barriers to migration
(including establishing eco-corridors)
- Reversing trends that increase vulnerability (also termed "maladaptation")—for
example, by introducing setbacks for development in vulnerable areas such
as floodplains and coastal zones
- Improving societal awareness and preparedness—for example, by informing
the public of the risks and possible consequences of climate change and setting
up early-warning systems.
18.4.2. Identification of Adaptation Policy Options
Research addressing future adaptations to climate change tends to be normative,
suggesting anticipatory adaptive strategies to be implemented through public
policy. Generally, such adaptation recommendations are based on forecasts of
expected (though still largely unpredictable) climate change. Recommended adaptations:
- Tend to be in response to changes in long-term mean climate, though more
specific elements of climate change (e.g., sea-level change) gain focus when
sector-specific adaptations are proposed (e.g., integrated coastal zone management)
(Al-Farouq and Huq, 1996; Smith et al., 1996), and some studies specifically
examine potential adaptations to variability and extreme events (e.g., Appendi
and Liverman, 1996; Yang, 1996; Yim, 1996).
- Range in scope from very broad strategies for adaptation (e.g., enhancing
decisionmakers' awareness of climatic change and variability) to recommendations
of sector-specific policy. Sectors receiving particular attention include
water resources, coastal resources, agriculture, and forest resources (Smith
and Lenhart, 1996; Smith et al., 1996; Hartig et al., 1997;
Mendelsohn and Bennett, 1997).
- Tend to be regionally focused (Smith and Lenhart, 1996), in recognition
of the fact that vulnerability to the impacts of climate change is highly
spatially variable. There is interest in developing countries and nations
with economies in transition, given their greater reliance on natural systems-based
economic activity (such as agriculture) (e.g., Magalhães, 1996; Smith
et al., 1996; Kelly and Adger, 1999).
Because no single set of adaptive policy recommendations can be universally
appropriate, several studies suggest means by which proposed adaptations may
be selected and evaluated. At a very basic level, the success of potential adaptations
is seen to depend on the flexibility or effectiveness of the measures, such
as their ability to meet stated objectives given a range of future climate scenarios
(through either robustness or resilience), and their potential to produce benefits
that outweigh costs (financial, physical, human, or otherwise) (Smith and Lenhart,
1996). Clearly, these are difficult criteria to assess, given the complexity
of adaptation measures, the variable sensitivities and capacities of regions,
and uncertainties associated with climate change and variability. Some research
(e.g., Carter, 1996; Smith and Lenhart, 1996; Smith et al., 1996; de
Loë and Kreutzwiser, 2000) offers supplementary characteristics of, or
criteria for, the identification of adaptations:
- The measure generates benefits to the economy, environment, or society under
current conditions (i.e., independent of climate change).
- The measure addresses high-priority adaptation issues such as irreversible
or catastrophic impacts of climate change (e.g., species extinction), long-term
planning for adaptation (e.g., infrastructure), and unfavorable trends (e.g.,
deforestation, which may inhibit future adaptive flexibility).
- The measure targets current areas of opportunity (e.g., land purchases,
revision of national environmental action or development plans, research and
development).
- The measure is feasible—that is, its adoption is not significantly
constrained by institutional, social/cultural, financial, or technological
barriers.
- The measure is consistent with, or even complementary to, adaptation or
mitigation efforts in other sectors.
