833
14
Adaptation
Needs and Options
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Ian R. Noble (Australia), Saleemul Huq (Bangladesh/UK)
Lead Authors:
Yuri A. Anokhin (Russian Federation), JoAnn Carmin (USA), Dieudonne Goudou (Niger),
Felino P. Lansigan (Philippines), Balgis Osman-Elasha (Sudan), Alicia Villamizar (Venezuela)
Contributing Authors:
Jessica Ayers (UK), Frans Berkhout (Netherlands), Kirsten Dow (USA), Hans-Martin Füssel
(Germany), Joel Smith (USA), Kathleen Tierney (USA), Helena Wright (UK)
Review Editors:
Anthony Patt (Austria), Kuniyoshi Takeuchi (Japan)
Volunteer Chapter Scientist:
Eric Chu (USA)
This chapter should be cited as:
Noble
, I.R., S. Huq, Y.A. Anokhin, J. Carmin, D. Goudou, F.P. Lansigan, B. Osman-Elasha, and A. Villamizar, 2014:
Adaptation needs and options. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken,
P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, pp. 833-868.
14
834
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 836
14.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 838
14.2. Adaptation Needs ................................................................................................................................................... 839
14.2.1. Biophysical and Environmental Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 840
14.2.2. Social Needs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 841
14.2.3. Institutional Needs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 842
14.2.4. Need for Engagement of the Private Sector ...................................................................................................................................... 843
14.2.5. Information, Capacity, and Resource Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 844
14.3. Adaptation Options ................................................................................................................................................ 844
14.3.1. Structural and Physical Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 845
14.3.1.1. Engineering and Built Environment ................................................................................................................................... 846
14.3.1.2. Technological Options ....................................................................................................................................................... 846
14.3.1.3. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation ............................................................................................................................................ 846
14.3.1.4. Service Options ................................................................................................................................................................. 847
14.3.2 Social Options ................................................................................................................................................................................... 847
14.3.3. Institutional Options ......................................................................................................................................................................... 848
14.3.4. Selecting Adaptation Options ........................................................................................................................................................... 849
14.4. Adaptation Assessments ......................................................................................................................................... 850
14.4.1. Purpose of Assessments .................................................................................................................................................................... 850
14.4.2. Trends in Assessments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 850
14.4.3. Issues and Tensions in the Use of Assessments ................................................................................................................................. 851
14.4.4. National Assessments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 852
14.5. Measuring Adaptation ............................................................................................................................................. 853
14.5.1. What Is to Be Measured? ................................................................................................................................................................. 854
14.5.2. Established Metrics ........................................................................................................................................................................... 855
14.5.2.1. Vulnerability Metrics ......................................................................................................................................................... 855
14.5.2.2. Metrics for Resource Allocation ......................................................................................................................................... 855
14.5.2.3. Metrics for Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 856
14.5.3. Validation of Metrics ........................................................................................................................................................................ 856
14.5.4. Assessment of Existing and Proposed Metrics for Adaptation .......................................................................................................... 857
Table of Contents
835
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
14.6. Addressing Maladaptation ...................................................................................................................................... 857
14.6.1. Causes of Maladaptation .................................................................................................................................................................. 858
14.6.2. Screening for Maladaptation ............................................................................................................................................................ 858
14.6.3. Experiences with Maladaptation ...................................................................................................................................................... 858
14.7. Research and Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................................... 859
References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 860
Frequently Asked Question
14.1: Why do the precise definitions about adaptation activities matter?.................................................................................................. 853
836
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
Executive Summary
Since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the framing of adaptation has moved further from a focus on biophysical vulnerability
to the wider social and economic drivers of vulnerability and people’s ability to respond (robust evidence, high agreement). These
drivers include the gender, age, health, social status, and ethnicity of individuals and groups, and the institutions in place locally, nationally,
regionally, and internationally. Adaptation goals are often expressed in a framework of increasing resilience, which encourages consideration
of broad development goals, multiple objectives, and scales of operation, and often better captures the complex interactions between human
societies and their environment. The convergence between adaptation and disaster risk management has been further strengthened since AR4,
building on the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).
{14.1-3}
Adaptation needs arise when the anticipated risks or experienced impacts of climate change require action to ensure the safety
of populations and the security of assets, including ecosystems and their services (medium evidence, medium agreement).
Adaptation needs are the gap between what might happen as the climate changes and what we would desire to happen. The use of the term
needs has also shifted with the framing of adaptation. In the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) “needs” were usually
discussed in terms of major vulnerabilities and priority adaptation activities, and, in both developing and developed countries, this hazard-
based approach with a focus on drivers of impacts and options to moderate them is still used often for urban or regional programs. But more
recently, the focus has been on tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability such as informational, capacity, financial, institutional, and
technological needs. {14.2}
Engineered and technological adaptation options are still the most common adaptive responses, although there is growing
experience of the value for ecosystem-based, institutional, and social measures, including the provision of climate-linked safety
nets for those who are most vulnerable (robust evidence, high agreement).
Adaptation measures are increasing and becoming more
integrated within wider policy frameworks. Integration, though it remains a challenge, streamlines the adaptation planning and decision-making
process and embeds climate-sensitive thinking in existing and new institutions and organizations. This can help avoid mismatches with the
objectives of development planning, facilitate the blending of multiple funding streams, and reduce the possibility of maladaptive actions. The
increasing complexity of adaptation practice means that institutional learning is an important component of effective adaptation. {14.3}
Approaches to selecting adaptation options continue to emphasize incremental change to reduce impacts while achieving co-
benefits, but there is increasing evidence that transformative changes may be necessary in order to prepare for climate impacts
(medium evidence, medium agreement).
While no-regret, low-regret, and win-win strategies have attracted the most attention in the past
and continue to be applied, there is increasing recognition that an adequate adaptive response will mean acting in the face of continuing
uncertainty about the extent of climate change and the nature of its impacts, and that in some cases there are limits to the effectiveness of
incremental approaches. While attention to flexibility and safety margins is becoming more common in selecting adaptation options, many
see the need for more transformative changes in our perception and paradigms about the nature of climate change, adaptation, and their
relationship to other natural and human systems. {14.1, 14.3.4}
Among the many actors and roles associated with successful adaptation, the evidence increasingly suggests two to be critical to
progress: those associated with local government and those with the private sector (medium evidence, high agreement).
These
two groups will bear increasing responsibility for translating the top-down flow of risk information and financing and in scaling up the bottom-
up efforts of communities and households in planning and implementing their selected adaptation actions. Local institutions, including local
governments, non-government organizations (NGOs), and civil society organizations, are among the key actors in adaptation but are often
limited by lack of resources and capacity and by continuing difficulties in gaining national government or international support, especially in
developing countries. {14.2.3} Private entities, from individual farmers and small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to large corporations, will seek
to protect and enhance their production systems, supply lines, and markets by pursuing adaptation-related opportunities. These goals will help
expand adaptation activities but they may not align with government or community objectives and priorities without coordination and incentives.
{14.2.4}
837
14
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
Adaptation assessments, which have evolved in substance and style since AR4, have demonstrably led to a general awareness
among decision makers and stakeholders of climate risks and adaptation needs and options. However, such awareness has often
not translated into adaptation action (medium evidence, high agreement).
Most of the assessments of adaptation done so far have
been restricted to impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation planning, with very few assessing the processes of implementation and evaluation of
actual adaptation actions. {14.4.1} Assessments that include both top-down assessments of biophysical climate changes and bottom-up
assessments of what makes people and natural systems vulnerable to those changes will help to deliver local solutions to globally derived
risks. Also, assessments that are linked more directly to particular decisions and that provide information tailored to facilitate the decision-
making process appear to have most consistently led to effective adaptation measures. {14.4.3}
The evidence to support the most valuable metrics of adaptation needs and effectiveness is limited, but increasing (medium
evidence, high agreement). {14.5.2-3} At present, there are conflicting views concerning the choice of metrics, as governments, institutions,
communities, and individuals value needs and outcomes differently and many of those values cannot be captured in a comparable way by
metrics. {14.5} The demand for metrics to measure adaptation needs and effectiveness is increasing as more resources are directed to adaptation.
These indicators that are proving most useful for policy learning are those that track not just process and implementation, but also the extent
to which targeted outcomes are occurring. {14.5.2.3}
Maladaptation is a cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners, where intervention in one location or sector could
increase the vulnerability of another location or sector, or increase the vulnerability of the target group to future climate change
(medium evidence, high agreement). {14.7.3}
The definition of maladaptation used in AR5 has changed subtly to recognize that
maladaptation arises not only from inadvertent badly planned adaptation actions, but also from deliberate decisions where wider considerations
place greater emphasis on short-term outcomes ahead of longer-term threats, or that discount, or fail to consider, the full range of interactions
arising from the planned actions. {14.6.1}
838
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
14.1. Introduction
This chapter establishes a foundation for understanding adaptation by
reviewing core concepts related to adaptation, with a focus on mapping
o
ut broad categories of needs and options. Here we use adaptation
needs to refer to circumstances requiring information, resources, and
action to ensure safety of populations and security of assets in response
to climate impacts. Adaptation options are the array of strategies and
measures available and appropriate to address needs. Because identifying
needs and selecting and implementing options require the engagement
of individuals, organizations, and governments at all levels, this chapter
also briefly considers the range of actors involved in these processes
and summarizes the risks of maladaptation.
Other chapters in this report, namely Chapter 4 and in particular Section
4.4, and supported by Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 7, deal with the threats of
climate change on ecosystems and other predominately natural systems
and their prospects and options for adaptation. For the sake of space
and clarity this chapter focuses on the socioeconomic systems that
support human livelihoods, although it also touches on the services
provided by ecosystems (including ecosystem-based adaptation).
This chapter also highlights some important tools for implementing
adaptation, namely approaches to assessing needs at national,
subnational, and sectoral levels, and the challenges of applying metrics
to determine adaptation needs and the effectiveness of adaptation
actions. In the course of these discussions, this chapter establishes a
foundation for the three adaptation chapters that follow. The existence
of adaptation options does not necessarily mean that these options can
be implemented when the need arises. Therefore, Chapter 15 examines
adaptation planning and implementation, including the challenges faced
and how these can be addressed. Chapter 16 focuses on adaptation
opportunities and constraints, while Chapter 17 assesses the economics
o
f adaptation to climate change, including the costs and benefits of
adaptation and of inaction. This chapter also draws on, and seeks not
to repeat, the detailed discussions of human health, well-being, security,
livelihoods, and poverty found in Chapters 11, 12, and 13 that are
so important to the wider discussion of adaptation. These and other
interactions among the adaptation chapters are illustrated in Figure
14-1.
Human and natural systems have a capacity to cope with adverse
circumstances but, with continuing climate change, adaptation will
be needed to maintain this capacity (IPCC, 2012; see also Section 1.4.1
and Box 2.1). The AR5 definition of adaptation (i.e., “The process of
adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human
systems, adaptation seeks to moderate harm or exploit beneficial
opportunities. In natural systems, human intervention may facilitate
adjustment to expected climate and its effects...”) follows the lead of
the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) in introducing
a degree of purposefulness by adding the phrase “which seeks to
moderate” rather than simply “which moderates” as in AR4.
1
Human
ability to cope with climate impacts can also be increased by actions
that are not anticipatory or purposefully undertaken in response to
observed or anticipated climate change, sometimes called unplanned
actions. For example, diversifying livelihoods in response to immediate
economic factors can increase long-term ability to cope with a changing
climate. Such actions were often referred to as autonomous adaptation.
However, the use of the term in the literature, including the IPCC reports,
has been inconsistent. The term is often used to refer to purposeful
adaptation actions carried out by agents without external inputs such
as policies, information, or resources (see Chapters 17, 22; Skoufias,
2012), and sometimes to refer to purposeful actions that are reactive to
experienced climate impacts, rather than being proactive or anticipatory
of them (see Glossary and WGII AR3 Section 18.2.3).
Sectors
Needs and
options
Regions
Climate-
resilient
pathways
Adaptation in
natural systems
Emerging
risks
Decision
making
Human
well-being
13
Needs and
options
14
15
16 17
11 12
19
20
4
2
Figure 14-1 | The relationship between the four adaptation chapters (14 to 17) and other closely related chapters. Chapter 14 (Adaptation Needs and Options) draws on and
cross-references many of the issues of human well-being, including health, security, and poverty; the treatment of adaptation of natural ecosystems is dealt with mainly in
Chapter 4 and is not repeated in Chapter 14. Similarly the needs and options synthesized in Chapter 14 are drawn largely from the sectoral (3 to 10) and regional chapters (21 to
30). Chapter 2 provides input to decision-making approaches relevant to Chapter 15 (Adaptation Planning and Implementation). All the adaptation chapters feed into the
synthesis of Chapters 19 (Emerging Risks and Key Vulnerabilities) and 20 (Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development).
839
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
T
he SREX and AR5 definitions of adaptation also clarify the distinction
between adaptation in human and natural systems. Natural systems
have the potential to adapt through multiple autonomous processes
(e.g., phenology changes, migration, compositional changes, phenotypic
acclimation, and/or genetic changes), and humans may intervene to
promote particular adjustments such as reducing non-climate stresses or
through managed migration (see Section 4.5). But successful adaptation
will depend on our ability to allow and facilitate natural systems to
adjust to a changing climate, thus maintaining the ecosystem services
on which all life depends.
Adaptation is becoming increasingly important in climate negotiations
and implementation, and integral to AR5 are the terms incremental and
transformational adaptation—sometimes referred to as a “paradigm
shift as in the Green Climate Fund Governing Instrument (Green Climate
Fund, 2013a). Incremental adaptation refers to actions where the central
aim is to maintain the essence and integrity of the existing technological,
institutional, governance, and value systems, such as through adjustments
to cropping systems via new varieties, changing planting times, or using
more efficient irrigation. In contrast, transformational adaptation seeks
to change the fundamental attributes of systems in response to actual
or expected climate and its effects, often at a scale and ambition greater
than incremental activities. It includes changes in activities, such as
changing livelihoods from cropping to livestock or by migrating to take
up a livelihood elsewhere, and also changes in our perceptions and
paradigms about the nature of climate change, adaptation, and their
relationship to other natural and human systems (Sections 3.3, 8.6.2.3,
20.5 and FAQ 8.2; IPCC, 2012; Kates et al., 2012; Park et al., 2012; Green
Climate Fund, 2013b). Transformational change may be driven by the
pursuit of better opportunities or by the realization of the imminent or
inevitable limits within existing paradigms (Dow et al., 2013; Section
16.4.2). Transformative change may threaten the status quo for many
and require leadership and sometimes triggering events to initiate it
(Kates et al., 2012). However, transformational change is not called for
in all responses to climate change (Pelling, 2010) and ill-prepared
transformative change may bring with it social inequities (O’Brien,
2012). The triggers for transformational change and its implementation
are dealt with in more detail in Sections 16.4 and 20.5. Differentiation
between incremental and transformative adaptation, although indistinct,
is important because it affects how we approach adaptation, how we
integrate it into planning and policy, and how we allocate adaptation
funding in both developed and developing countries (IPCC, 2012; see
also Chapter 17).
Another concept is the adaptation deficit, which is the gap between the
current state of a system and a state that would minimize adverse
impacts from existing climate conditions and variability (see Glossary);
that is, it is essentially inadequate adaptation to the current climate
conditions (Burton et al., 2002; Burton, 2004; Burton and May, 2004;
Parry et al., 2009; see also Sections 17.2.2.2, 17.6.1). Some have
suggested that it is often part of a larger “development deficit” (World
Bank, 2010). Delay in action in both mitigation and adaptation will
increase the adaptation deficit in many parts of the world (IPCC, 2012).
I
n the process of building future adaptive capacity it is important to
reduce the current adaptation deficit along with designing effective risk
management and climate change adaptation measures (Hallegatte,
2011). Failure to close the adaptation deficit, both current and in the
future, will result in residual damages from climate change. There have
been calls for such residual damages to be evaluated and reported
(Parry et al., 2009).
Summary of Key Findings from AR4
In the Working Group II (WGII) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the
main chapter on adaptation (Chapter 18) refined the basic terminology
of adaptation and concluded that adaptation to climate change was
already taking place, but on a limited basis. Societies have a long record
of adapting to the impacts of weather and climate through a range of
practices that include crop diversification, irrigation, water management,
disaster risk management, and insurance, but climate change, along
with other drivers of change, poses novel risks often outside the range
of experience.
WGII AR4 found that deliberate adaptation measures in response to
anticipated climate change were being implemented by a range of
public and private actors, on a limited basis, in both developed and
developing countries. These measures are undertaken through policies,
investments in infrastructure and technologies, and behavioral change,
and they are seldom undertaken in response to climate change alone.
Many actions that facilitate adaptation to climate change are undertaken
to deal with current extreme events, such as heat waves and cyclones,
and are often embedded within broader sectoral initiatives such as
water resource planning, coastal defense, and disaster management
planning.
WGII AR4 concluded that there are individuals and groups within all
societies that have insufficient capacity to adapt to climate change. The
capacity to adapt is dynamic and influenced by economic and natural
resources, social networks, entitlements, institutions and governance,
human resources, and technology. However, high adaptive capacity does
not necessarily translate into actions that reduce vulnerability. New
planning processes are being implemented to attempt to overcome
these barriers at local, regional, and national levels in both developing
and developed countries. WGII AR4 noted the establishment of the
National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and that some
developed countries had established national adaptation policy
frameworks. Other conclusions from the WGII AR4 relating to the
implementation of adaptation policies and measures, barriers to
adaptation, and the economic costs of adaptation are summarized in
Chapters 15, 16, and 17 of this report.
14.2. Adaptation Needs
Adaptation involves reducing risk and vulnerability; seeking opportunities;
and building the capacity of nations, regions, cities, the private sector,
communities, individuals, and natural systems to cope with climate
impacts, as well as mobilizing that capacity by implementing decisions
and actions (Tompkins et al., 2010). Vulnerability is the “propensity or
1
Purposefulness was introduced in the SREX definition, which introduced the phrase
“in order to moderate”.
840
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
p
redisposition [of a system] to be adversely affected” (see Glossary)
and, until AR4, was viewed as comprising three elements: exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2007a). However, in IPCC (2012)
and in this report, vulnerability focuses only on sensitivity and capacity,
with exposure more appropriately incorporated into the concept of risk
(see Glossary; IPCC, 2012, Section 2.2).
Adaptation requires adequate information on risks and vulnerabilities
in order to identify needs and appropriate adaptation options to reduce
risks and build capacity. In framing an approach to adaptation, it is
important to engage people with different knowledge, experience, and
backgrounds in tackling and reaching a shared approach to addressing
the challenges (Preston and Stafford Smith, 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010;
Fünfgeld and McEnvoy, 2011; Eakin et al., 2012) Initially, identifying
needs was most often based on impact assessments (or risk-hazard
approaches), but social vulnerability or resilience assessments are
increasingly being used (Fünfgeld and McEnvoy, 2011; Preston et al.,
2011b). The risk-hazard framework, drawn primarily from risk and
disaster management, focuses on the adverse effects that natural
hazards and other climate impacts can have on a given location (Füssel
and Klein, 2006). The emphasis in this approach is on the physical and
biological aspects of impacts and adaptation (Burton et al., 2002). The
social vulnerability framework focuses on the reasons and ways in
which individuals, groups, and communities are vulnerable to climate
impacts. Here, the focus is on how different factors, such as institutions,
shape the socioeconomic conditions that place human populations at
risk (Adger and Kelly, 1999; Preston et al., 2011b). There are overlaps
and complementarities between these frameworks. Approaches to
identifying needs and options are discussed further in the section on
assessments (Section 14.4).
Comprehensive assessments typically provide insight into the risks and
vulnerabilities that will result from climate change in communities,
cities, nations, and ecosystems and, in turn, offer a means to identify
the presence of adaptation needs and options for addressing those
needs. The term adaptation needs is often used but rarely defined in
the adaptation literature. In the wider literature, a need can be seen as a
problem that can be solved (McKillip, 1987) or as a gap between current
outcomes and desired outcomes (Kaufman and English, 1979). Thus, in
this context, adaptation needs are the gap between what might happen
as the climate changes and what we would desire to happen. Also, the
term adaptation needs is used in several ways in the adaptation literature.
A common use is in the sense of the “urgent and immediate needs”
relating to the adverse effects of climate change, as in the rationale for
the NAPAs, although in this case “needs were usually discussed in terms
of major vulnerabilities and priority adaptation activities (by UNFCCC).
2
The most effective descriptions of these needs combined discussions of
climate and non-climate drivers of impacts, and the resources, capacity,
information, finance, etc., needed to implement options to moderate
those impacts (e.g., GEF, 2002). Assessments of adaptation needs, both
in developing and developed countries, have often taken a hazard-
based approach with a focus on drivers of impacts and options to
moderate them (Moser, 2009; Finzi Hart et al., 2012). But more recently,
the focus has been on tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability
(
Füssel, 2007). One of the few categorizations of needs is that of Burton
et al. (2006), who recognized information, capacity, financial, institutional,
and technological needs. A similar structure is followed in this chapter.
We first discuss biophysical and environmental needs on which all lives
ultimately depend. Then we discuss social needs and capacities and
how they vary throughout society. Third, we discuss our response to
climate risks and impacts and how they are modified by the multitude
of institutions through which humans work, ranging from international
organizations to community-based efforts. Finally, we touch on resources,
including societal needs for information and knowledge and financial
resources.
Although needs are specific to particular groups and places, they fit into
a set of more general categories as summarized in the sections below.
For instance, vulnerability at the national and subnational levels is
affected by geographic location, biophysical conditions, institutional and
governance arrangements, and resource availability, including access
to technology and economic stability (Brooks et al., 2005). At the macro-
level, two broad classes of determinants of vulnerability are recognized:
biophysical determinants and socioeconomic determinants (Preston et
al., 2011a). However, adaptation needs are highly diverse and context
specific, for instance, varying between islands even within nations such
as the Solomon Islands (Section 29.6.1). Different stakeholder groups
and individuals have differential adaptation needs and vulnerabilities.
Adaptation needs are also dynamic, and future adaptation needs are
highly dependent on the mitigation pathway that is taken. Furthermore,
the constraints and limits to adaptation (see Chapter 16) are likely to
mean that not all needs will be met, thereby emphasizing the need for
monitoring to avoid crossing critical thresholds (Section 19.7.3).
14.2.1. Biophysical and Environmental Needs
Climate change is altering ecological systems, biodiversity, genetic
resources, and the benefits derived with ecosystem services (Convention
on Biological Diversity, 2009; Mooney et al., 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg,
2011). Climate change is inducing shifts in habitats that often cannot
be followed by species (Section 4.3.4.1), leading to changed ecosystems,
to local and global extinctions, and to the permanent loss of unique
combinations of genes. For instance, González et al. (2010) used observed
and modeled changes of global patterns of biome shifts under climate
change to conclude that up to half of the terrestrial ecosystems were
vulnerable as a result of changes from secondary stressors, such as
wildfire and disease, and suggested significant changes to natural resource
management plans. In addition to the responses of ecosystems to climatic
change, a number of studies have identified impacts on ecosystem services,
particularly the effects of climate change on agricultural productivity
(Coles and Scott, 2009), freshwater ecosystems (Ormerod et al., 2010),
and downstream industries and enterprises (Preston and Stafford Smith,
2009). Ecosystem services that are already under threat from the impacts
of climate change include pollination, pest, and disease regulation
(Section 4.3.4.4); climate regulation services; and potable water supply
(Section 4.3.4.5). Further stressors will limit our options to respond to
climate change (Section 14.3.2).
2
https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/napa_project_database/application/pdf/napa_index_by_country.pdf.
841
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
N
atural systems underpin human livelihoods, health, welfare, food
security, and prosperity. Vital ecosystem services that need to be
maintained include provisioning services such as food, fiber, and potable
water supply; regulating services such as climate regulation, pollination,
disease control, and flood control; and supporting services such as
primary production and nutrient cycling (Section 4.3.4). Much of the
water for human consumption originates on forested lands and the
quality of the water is heavily dependent on the conditions of the
ecosystems through which it flows. Ocean systems also provide climate
regulation services, while coral reefs act as ecological buffers (Section
6.4.1.4). For instance, healthy coastal wetlands and coral reefs can help
to protect against storm surges and rising sea levels (Hoegh-Guldberg,
2011), while the maintenance of wetlands and green spaces can control
runoff and flooding associated with increases in precipitation (Jentsch
and Beierkuhnlein, 2008; Mooney et al., 2009). Meanwhile, fisheries and
aquaculture contribute more than 20% to the dietary animal protein of
nearly 1.5 billion people (Section 5.4.3.3).
Consequently, there is a need to protect these systems and resources
within the changing climate. Goldman et al. (2008) found that research
projects focusing on delivering ecosystem services, rather than on
biodiversity goals, attracted a wider set of funders and better encompassed
the landscapes and the people within them. However, many practices
to intervene to improve and maintain ecosystem services are based on
limited experience and thus still untested assumptions and limited
information (Carpenter et al., 2009). Hence, there is a need to improve
understanding and valuation of ecosystem services provided by different
adaptation options. There is also an urgent need for appropriate ecosystem
monitoring to avoid crossing critical thresholds (see Section 19.7.4).
14.2.2. Social Needs
From a social perspective, vulnerability varies as a consequence of the
capacity of groups and individuals to reduce and manage the impacts
of climate change. Among the key factors determining vulnerability are
gender, age, health, social status, ethnicity, and class (Smit et al., 2001;
Adger et al., 2009a). For instance, the vulnerability to health-related
impacts of climate change varies as a consequence of geographical location
(Section 11.3.1), gender and age (Section 11.3.3), and socioeconomic
status (Section 11.3.4). Poverty and persistent inequality may be the
most salient of the conditions that shape climate-related vulnerability
(Section 13.1.4). Climate change is expected to have a relatively greater
impact on the poor as a consequence of their lack of financial resources,
poor quality of shelter, reliance on local ecosystem services, exposure
to the elements, and limited provision of basic services and their limited
resources to recover from an increasing frequency of losses through
climate events (Tol et al., 2004; Huq et al., 2007; Kovats and Akhtar,
2008; Patz et al., 2008; Revi, 2008; Allison et al., 2009; Shikanga et al.,
2009; Gething et al., 2010; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2010; Rosenzweig
et al., 2010; Skoufias et al., 2012). Owing to limited financial resources
and often compromised health and nutritional status, the poor, along
with the sick and elderly, are at increased risk from trauma, physical
and mental illness, and death from climate impacts such as increased
pollution, higher indoor temperatures, exposure to toxins and pathogens
from floods, and the emergence of new disease vectors (Kasperson and
Kasperson, 2001; Haines et al., 2006; Costello et al., 2009, 2011; O’Neill
a
nd Ebi, 2009; Tonnang et al., 2010; Ebi, 2011; Harlan and Ruddell, 2011;
Huang et al., 2011; McMichael and Lindgren, 2011; Semenza et al., 2012).
Climate change, climate variability, and extreme events can erode natural,
physical, financial, human, and social and cultural assets (Section
13.2.1.1), and poverty traps arise when climate change, variability, and
extreme events make the poor even poorer (Section 13.2.1.4).
Social needs under climate change include understanding emotional and
psychological needs. In Australia, it has been found that extreme events
such as floods, drought, and bushfire can lead to mental suffering,
including post-traumatic stress disorder, resulting in the need for
psychological support and counseling (The Climate Institute, 2011). For
example, drought can increase suicide rates by 8% (Nicholls et al.,
2006). Social psychological adaptation processes powerfully mediate
public risk perceptions and understanding, psychological and social
impacts, and coping responses, as well as behavioral adaptation (Reser
and Swim, 2011). Yet little collaborative work or research has so far
focused on the nature and dynamics of individual-level coping and
adaptation processes and how they influence responses (Reser et al.,
2012).
These individual factors also are often associated with and compounded
by community-level conditions. Women often have unequal access to
and control over resources, including land titles and water rights (UNDP,
2010; CGIAR, 2012; Verner 2012). Many poor and ethnic minorities live
in substandard housing; lack access to basic services, savings, and
insurance; have compromised health; and are at threat due to excessive
densities, poor access roads, and inadequate access to safe water,
sanitation, and drainage (Huq et al., 2007; Kovats and Akhtar, 2008; Revi,
2008; Shikanga et al., 2009; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2010). In rural
areas, adaptation needs also are linked to the viability of agricultural
activity (Bosello et al., 2009). Climate change will lead to higher prices
and increased volatility in agricultural markets, which might undermine
global food supply security (Section 9.3.3.3). Geographically, highly
vulnerable regions are those exposed to sea level rise and extreme
events, overlaid with high concentrations of multidimensional poverty
(Section 13.2.2.1). There will be disproportionate impacts on developing
countries that are dependent on climate-sensitive activities such as
agriculture (Cline, 2007). However, middle-income populations can also
be adversely impacted by climate change as a stressor adding to other
effects.
The causes and solutions of vulnerability take place at different social,
geographic, temporal, and political scales (Ribot, 2010). Therefore, to
identify critical needs of populations, and the underlying conditions
giving rise to these needs, some social assessments can benefit by
looking across institutional domains and by spanning from the local to
the national. Local assessments provide a means to identify existing
vulnerabilities; the policies, plans, and natural hazards contributing to
these vulnerabilities; as well as identifying adaptation actions. Social
needs include the range of needs for human security (see Section
12.1.2), which include the universal and culturally specific, material, and
non-material elements necessary to people to act on behalf of their
interests. More specifically, at this level, social needs can be evaluated
in terms of availability of natural, physical, human, political, and financial
assets; stability of livelihood; and livelihood strategies (Moser, 2006;
Heltberg et al., 2009). Alternatively, regional and national assessments
842
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
c
an provide a basis for ascertaining institutional conditions associated
with long-standing inequities and development paths that may need
to be addressed in order to generate robust options.
Although different stakeholder groups have specific needs, an overarching
adaptation need for communities, households, private sector, and
institutions is the need for shared learning on adaptation. Adaptation
has itself been referred to as a social learning process (Sections 15.6,
22.4.5.3). In particular, there is the need for human capacity and social
capital to implement adaptation actions, including education and access
to information (Brooks et al., 2005; Adger, 2006; Smit and Wandel,
2006). Improved information for adaptation can benefit from efforts to
combine indigenous and scientific knowledge (Section 12.3).
14.2.3. Institutional Needs
Institutions, informal and formal, are enduring regularities of human
action in situations structured by rules, norms, and shared strategies,
as well as by the physical world (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995) and as such
they provide the enabling environment for implementing adaptation
actions (Bryan et al., 2009; Chuku, 2009; Aakre and Rübbelke, 2010;
Compston, 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2011). These institutions provide
the guides, incentives, or constraints that shape the distribution of climate
risks, establish incentive structures that can promote adaptation, foster
the development of adaptive capacity, and establish protocols for both
making and acting on decisions (see Section 14.2.3.2; Chuku, 2009;
Agrawal, 2010; Compston, 2010). In many instances, international and
national-level policies and programs can facilitate localized strategies
through the creation of legal frameworks and the allocation of resources
(Adger, 2001; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011).
Overall, there is a need for effective institutions to identify, develop, and
pursue climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development (Sections
20.2, 20.4.2), including strengthening the ability to develop new options
through social, institutional, and technological innovation (Section 20.4.3).
Chapter 15 further considers the institutional needs to mainstream
adaptation into government planning.
Governments at all levels play important roles in advancing adaptation
and in enhancing the adaptive capacity and resilience of diverse
stakeholder groups. National governments are integral to advancing an
adaptation agenda as they decide many of the funding priorities and
tradeoffs, develop regulations, promote institutional structures, and
provide policy direction to district, state, and local governments. In
developing countries, national governments are usually the contact
point and initial recipient of international adaptation financing. In some
countries, both developed and developing, state governments lead the
national government in promoting and implementing adaptation (Mertz
et al., 2009). The engagement of national government actors can help
mobilize political will, support the creation and maintenance of climate
research institutions, establish horizontal networks that promote
information sharing (Westerhoff et al., 2011), and, in some cases,
facilitate the coordination of budgets and financing mechanisms (Alam
e
t al., 2011; Kalame et al., 2011). Governments have the potential to
directly reduce the risk and enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable
areas and populations by developing and implementing locally appropriate
regulations including those related to zoning, storm water management
and building codes, and attending to the needs of vulnerable populations
through measures such as basic service provision and the promotion of
equitable policies and plans (Adger et al., 2003b; Brooks et al., 2005;
Nelson et al., 2007; Agrawal and Perrin, 2008; Agrawal, 2010).
Among the important institutions in both developed and developing
countries are those associated with local governments
3
as they have a
major role in translating goals, policies, actions, and investments between
higher levels of international and national government to the many
institutions associated with local communities, civil society organizations,
and non-government organizations (NGOs). SREX Chapter 5 (IPCC,
2012) extensively assesses the role and importance of the local scale
institutions when adapting to extreme weather and climate events,
highlighting that extreme weather and climate events are acutely
experienced at local levels, and that local knowledge is important for
managing impacts (Cutter et al., 2009). As institutional actors, local
governments and community institutions influence the distribution of
climate risks, mediate between levels of government as well as between
social and political processes, and establish incentive structures that affect
both individual and collective action at all levels (Agrawal and Perrin,
2008). They are in a pivotal position to promote widespread support for
adaptation initiatives, foster intergovernmental coordination, and
facilitate implementation, both directly and through mainstreaming into
ongoing planning and work activities (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011;
Carmin et al., 2012).
There are a number of ongoing political issues that shape the relationships
national and local governments have in managing climate risks (Corfee-
Morlot et al., 2011). Governance failure has a significant influence on
institutional vulnerability (see Section 19.6.1.3.3). For instance, short-
term interests, when dealing with long-term issues, can limit incentives
to make investments. Similarly, the proximity that authorities have to
interest groups can sway their decisions toward other issues, while the
drive to engage the public in planning and other activities can orient
priorities in ways that do not support adaptation (Corfee-Morlot et al.,
2011). Local governments also may lack institutional capacity or have
difficulty gaining coordination among departments as conflicts emerge
to obtain scarce resources (Satterthwaite and Dodman, 2009; Hardoy
and Romero Lankao, 2011). In Bangladesh, the limited access of local
governments to resources has been cited as a barrier to local adaptation
(Christensen et al., 2012).
Tompkins et al. (2010) found from a survey of 300 projects identified as
adaptive at local government level in the UK that more than half were
driven by concerns not directly related to climate change. Nevertheless,
there are a number of indicators that demonstrate whether local
government has institutionalized and mainstreamed adaptation. These
include the presence of an identifiable champion from within government,
climate change being an explicit issue in municipal plans, resources
3
Here local government is used to refer to second or third tiers or lower of government, below national and state or provincial government levels; it includes county, district,
council, municipal, and similar levels of government.
843
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
d
edicated to adaptation, and adaptation incorporated into local political
and administrative decision making (Roberts, 2008, 2010).
Overall, it is important to match the appropriate institutional scale with
the scale of implementation. For example, the Murray-Darling Basin in
Australia includes significant water resources across four states requiring
management institutions involving federal, state, and local governments
to manage and allocate water use (Hussey and Dovers, 2006; see also
Box 25-2). While governments have the potential to influence adaptive
capacity, local governments often lack the human and technological
capacity or mandate to develop and enforce regulations. Local
governments, particularly those in developing countries, are faced with
numerous challenges that limit their ability to identify needs and pursue
adaptation options. Often, these governments must attend to backlogs
of basic and critical services such as housing and water supply or focus
their attention on addressing outmoded and outdated infrastructure.
They also may lack institutional capacity or have difficulty gaining
coordination among departments as conflicts emerge to obtain scarce
resources (Hardoy and Romero Lankao, 2011, Villamizar, 2011). Adaptation
will require an approach that devolves relevant decision making to the
levels where the knowledge and capacity for effective adaptations reside
(see Box 25-5). Sowers et al. (2011) maintain that, in the Middle East
and North Africa, the largely centralized systems of planning, taxation,
and revenue distribution lead to a focus on supply-side issues with little
consideration of changing climates and demand management, which
renders their populations vulnerable to climate-induced impacts on
water resources due to weak integration with local constituencies.
There are critical institutional design issues that can be evaluated in
order to understand institutional needs (Agrawal, 2010; Gupta et al.,
2010). The first is the extent to which institutions are flexible to handle
uncertainty. This includes flexibility across and within institutions to
evaluate and reorganize delivery where necessary. The uncertainty
associated with climate change, presence of rapidly changing information
and conditions, and emerging ideas on how best to foster adaptation
requires continual evaluation, learning, and refinement (Agrawal, 2010;
Gupta et al., 2010). Second is the extent to which adaptation is or has
the potential to be integrated into short- and long-term policy making,
planning, and program development (Conway and Schipper, 2011). Third
is the potential for effective coordination, communication, and cooperation
within and across levels of government and sectors (Schipper, 2009;
Agrawal, 2010; Conway and Schipper, 2011). Finally, to promote adaptive
capacity, it is important to identify the extent to which institutions are
robust enough to attend to the needs of diverse stakeholders and foster
their engagement in adaptation decisions and actions (Urwin and Jordan,
2008; Gupta et al., 2010).
14.2.4. Need for Engagement of the Private Sector
The role of the private sector is important in delivering adaptation. Often,
the focus falls on the role of the private financial sector in providing risk
management options including insurance and finance for large projects
(see Sections 15.4.4, 17.5.1). However, the delivery of adaptation actions
ranges more widely and spans different types of private enterprise, from
small farmers, to small to medium enterprises (SMEs), to multinational
companies. KPMG International (2008) used published reports and
i
nterviews to identify the sectors where businesses considered they face
the greatest climate-related risks. In order of perceived importance, the
core risks were regulatory, physical, reputational, and litigation risks.
The sectors identified as most at risk included an expected cluster
around oil and gas and aviation, and also a group less commonly
perceived to be at risk, including health care, the financial sector,
tourism, and transport.
Khattri et al. (2010) have described three general ways in which the
private sector can become involved in adaptation. The first, internal risk
management, is critical to firms and enterprises protecting their own
interests and ensuring continuity of supply and markets. The second form
of involvement recognizes that business is a stakeholder and therefore
needs to participate in public sector and civil society initiatives, such as
The New York City Panel on Climate Change, which consists of diverse
stakeholders, including representatives from the private sector (Rosenzweig
et al., 2011). Third, climate adaptation also provides a wide range of
new opportunities to the business community. Even in developing
countries, where regulations and markets are often underdeveloped and
business risks are high, Khattri et al., (2010) identified opportunities for
working in the health care, waste and water management, sanitation,
housing, energy, and information sectors through fostering cooperation
across government departments and NGOs and promoting public-private
partnerships.
Despite broad-scale recognition of the need to adapt, such as the World
Economic Forum’s (2012) ranking of the failure to adapt as one of the
highest global risks and on a par with terrorism, and despite some
examples of private sector engagement in adaptation, most assessments
conclude that action in each of the potential arenas has been slow to
emerge and that sharing of knowledge and experience has been limited
(Khattri et al., 2010; Agrawala et al., 2011). KPMG International (2008)
concluded that, while companies are well used to managing business
risk, they have yet to integrate the long-term risks of climate change
into these systems. Nor are they preparing to grasp the competitive
advantages that will accrue to those taking early action. Most of the
businesses interviewed appeared to be unsure of the scale of the threat
and opportunities for their businesses or are awaiting further guidance
and action by governments. They have trouble in accessing and applying
information on the extent of the threats and impacts from climate
change and have yet to engage in the detailed cost-benefit analysis of
adaptive actions or inaction. The European Commission (2009), using
case studies of both the public and private sectors, in eight countries,
came to similar conclusions. A survey by West and Brereton (2013) of
Australian businesses also concluded that most were only vaguely
aware of the breadth of adaptation actions that may be required and
concerned about information sharing and disclosure. The authors
suggest a framework for disclosures of relevant business activities to
both improve practice and cater for the needs of company boards,
investors, and stakeholders. A survey commissioned by the Carbon
Disclosure Project (Gardiner et al., 2007) found that among Standard
and Poor’s (S&P) 500 companies many more (about two-thirds of
respondents) were prepared to report and share information on managing
climate risks and adaptation plans than they were on mitigation.
Also, there are still questions of whether and how adaptation finance
should be made available to the private sector in developing countries
844
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
a
nd under what circumstances (Persson et al., 2009; IFC, 2010; Agrawala
et al., 2011), although this is being piloted through the Pilot Program
for Climate Resilience (World Bank, 2008; IFC, 2010). Private sector
engagement and investment in adaptation is expected to make a
substantial contribution to reducing climate risk, but the distribution of
its investments will be selective and will be unlikely to match government
and civil priorities (Atteridge, 2011).
14.2.5. Information, Capacity, and Resource Needs
Successful implementation of adaptation actions depends on the
availability of information, access to technology and funding (Yohe
and Tol, 2001; Adger, 2006; Eakin and Lemos, 2006; Smit and Wandel,
2006; World Bank, 2010). In some cases a supposed lack of relevant
and legitimate information has been used as a rationale for inaction
(Moser and Ekstrom, 2011). To address this concern, the Nairobi
Work Program—established at COP-12 in 2006, with a goal of helping
developing countries make better informed decisions based on sound
scientific, technical, and socioeconomic data—has included repeated
calls for better observation systems, information sharing, and modeling
capacity (UNFCCC/SBSTA/2008/3). Developed and developing countries
have acted on this priority by establishing institutions to provide
information services at national, regional, and global scales (CCCCC,
2011; UKCIP, 2011; NCCARF, 2012), and there is an ongoing need to
promote information acquisition and dissemination (OECD, 2009).
For example, information-related adaptation needs in Africa include
additional vulnerability and impact assessments with greater continuity,
country-specific socioeconomic scenarios, and greater knowledge on
costs and benefits of different adaptation measures (Section 22.4.2).
Research and development, knowledge, and technology transfer are
also important for promoting adaptive capacity. However, providing
information does not mean that users will be able to make effective
use of it, and this information will often have to be tailored or translated
to the individual context (Webb and Beh, 2013). Efficacy of scientific
knowledge can be improved by calibration with indigenous knowledge
(Section 20.4.2). There are also opportunities for technology transfer
and innovation to be enhanced through information technologies
(Section 20.4.3).
Financial resources for adaptation have been slower to become available
for adaptation than for mitigation in both developed and developing
countries (see Chapter 17). Adaptation finance made up probably only
a fifth of initial allocations of fast-start funding (Ciplet et al., 2012); and
much of this funding has been directed toward capacity-building,
standalone projects, or pilot programs. This not only has left financial
needs, but has also meant that there is less expertise in adaptation
assessment and implementation, which is further confounded by the
complex relationship between adaptation and more common sustainable
development and/or poverty reduction planning (McGray et al., 2007).
Adaptation cost estimates have been used to estimate the financial
needs for adaptation, and these may well have been underestimated
(see Section 17.4).
Overall, at both international and national levels there is a need to
develop financial instruments that are equitable in both their delivery
of resources and in sharing the burden of supporting the instruments
(
Levina, 2007; World Bank, 2010; see also Chapters 16, 17). In this
regard, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established in 2010, based
on the commitment by developed country parties to mobilize jointly
US$100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing
countries (UNFCCC, 2007). Deliberation over how adaptation finance
needs will be met has become central to the UNFCCC policy agenda
(Section 16.3.4). Also, financial mechanisms for disaster risk management
are also inextricably linked with those for adaptation (Mechler et al.,
2010). Lessons from recent recovery operations have emphasized the
need for disaster preparedness along with longer term goals directed
to building resilience, including maximizing the employment-creation
benefits of adaptation measures (Harsdorff et al., 2011.)
Finances required in the future for climate change are estimated to
approach levels on the order of current development expenditure, and
there is a large gap in funding available for climate change responses
in developing countries (Peskett et al., 2009). Therefore, there is a related
need to design delivery channels so that funding benefits the poor, as
they often are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and
climate-related disasters. As well as channeling adaptation finance to
governments, there is a need for finance to reach the most vulnerable
people and for approaches to enable stakeholder participation (Section
15.2.3). For example, for adaptation financing, working at the
subnational level will be important and mechanisms such as microfinance
may be effective (Agrawala and Carraro, 2010). Another important
concern is that, with new money being made available for climate
change research, policy development, and practice, people may place
too much emphasis on addressing climate change as an isolated priority
to the detriment of other equally pressing social, economic, and
environmental issues (Ziervogel and Taylor, 2008). For example, in small
islands, there are concerns that placing adaptation above the critical
development needs of the present could inadvertently reduce resilience
(see Section 29.6).
14.3. Adaptation Options
Identifying needs stemming from climate risks and vulnerabilities
provides a foundation for selecting adaptation options. Over the years,
a number of categories of options have been identified. These options
include a wide range of actions that, as summarized in Table 14-1, are
organized into three general categories: structural/physical, social, and
institutional.
There are many different ways that the range of adaptation options
available could be categorized (Burton, 1996), thus any categorization
is unlikely to be universally agreed on; but this aims to take into account
the diversity of adaptation options for different sectors and stakeholders.
Some options cut across several categories. National, sectoral, or local
adaptation plans are likely to include a number of measures that are
implemented jointly from across various categories including structural,
institutional, and social options. Furthermore, some adaptation options are
interrelated. For instance, institutions and information are prerequisites
for effective early warning systems.
Adaptation constraints and limits mean not all adaptation needs will
be met, and not all adaptation options will be possible (see Chapter 16,
845
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
particularly Section 16.7.1). Moreover, adaptation options are not
available to meet all adaptation needs. For instance, adaptation options
are poorly developed for the broader set of impacts on ocean systems
(see Section 30.6). There is also often going to be a gap between
adaptation needs and the effectiveness of the options to meet these
needs even when well resourced and well implemented. Some of this
gap may be met by procedures to deal with loss and damage (Section
19.7) and some adaptation deficit will remain with us. Many of the
adaptation options intersect with vulnerability reduction and development
options that build adaptive capacity and address the “adaptation deficit”
which may be seen as part of a wider “development deficit” (McGray et
al., 2007; see also Section 2.4.2).
14.3.1. Structural and Physical Options
This category highlights adaptation options that are discrete, with clear
outputs and outcomes that are well defined in scope, space, and time.
They include structural and engineering options; the application of
discrete technologies; the use of ecosystems and their services to serve
adaptation needs; and the delivery of specific services at the national,
regional, and local levels. This category includes much of the notion of
“concrete activities that reflect the priority of the Adaptation Fund,
where the focus is on “discrete activities with a collective objective(s)
and concrete outcomes and outputs that are more narrowly defined in
scope, space, and time” (Adaptation Fund Board, 2013).
Category Examples of options*
S t r u c t u r a l /
physical
E
ngineered
and built
e
nvironment
S
ea walls and coastal protection structures (5.5.2 and 24.4.3.5; Figure 5-5); fl ood levees and culverts (26.3.3); water storage and pump storage (Section
23.3.4); sewage works (3.5.2.3); improved drainage (24.4.5.5); beach nourishment (5.4.2.1); ood and cyclone shelters (11.7); building codes (Section 8.1.5);
s
torm and waste water management (8.2.4.1); transport and road infrastructure adaptation (8.3.3.6); oating houses (8.3.3.4); adjusting power plants and
electricity grids (10.2.2; Table 10-2)
T
echnological New crop and animal varieties (7.5.1.1.1, 7.5.1.1.3, 7.5.1.3; Box 9-3; Table 9-7); genetic techniques (27.3.4.2); traditional technologies and methods (7.5.2,
27.3.4.2, 28.2.6.1, and 29.6.2.1); effi cient irrigation (10.3.6 and 22.4.5.7; Box 20-4); water saving technologies (24.4.1.5 and 26.3.3) including rainwater
h
arvesting (8.3.3.4); conservation agriculture (9.4.3.1 and 22.4.5.7); food storage and preservation facilities (22.4.5.7); hazard mapping and monitoring
t
echnology (15.3.2.3 and 28.4.1); early warning systems (7.5.1.1, 8.1.4.2, 8.3.3.3, 11.7.3, 15.4.3.2, 18.6.4, 22.2.2.1, 22.3.5.3, and 22.4.5.2); building
insulation (8.3.3.3); mechanical and passive cooling (8.3.3.3); renewable energy technologies (29.7.2); second-generation biofuels (27.3.6.2)
E
cosystem-
based
a
C
ross Chapter Box CC-EA, Ecological restoration (5.5.2, 5.5.7, 9.4.3.3, and 27.3.2.2; Box 15-1) including wetland and fl oodplain conservation and
restoration; increasing biological diversity (26.4.3); afforestation and reforestation (Box 22-2); conservation and replanting mangrove forest (15.3.4 and
2
9.7.2); bushfi re reduction and prescribed fi re (Section 24.4.2.5; Box 26-2); green infrastructure (e.g., shade trees, green roofs) (8.2.4.5, 8.3.3, 11.7.4,
and 23.7.4); controlling overfi shing (28.2.5.1 and 30.6.1); sheries co-management (9.4.3.4 and 27.3.3.1); assisted migration or managed translocation
(4.4.2.4, 24.4.2.5, 24.4.3.5, and 25.6.2.3); ecological corridors (4.4.2.4); ex situ conservation and seed banks (4.4.2.5); community-based natural resource
m
anagement (CBNRM) (22.4.5.6); adaptive land use management (Section 23.6.2)
Services Social safety nets and social protection (Box 13-2; 8.3, 17.5.1, and 22.4.5.2); food banks and distribution of food surplus (29.6.2.1); municipal services
i
ncluding water and sanitation (3.5.2.3 and 8.3.3.4); vaccination programs (11.7.1), essential public health services (11.7.2) including reproductive health
services (11.9.2) and enhanced emergency medical services (8.3.3.8); international trade (9.3, 9.4, and 23.9.2)
Social
E
ducational Awareness raising and integrating into education (11.7, 15.2, and 22.4.5.5); gender equity in education (Box 9-2); extension services (9.4.4); sharing
local and traditional knowledge (12.3.4 and 28.4.1) including integrating into adaptation planning (29.6.2.1); participatory action research and social
learning (22.4.5.3); community surveys (Section 8.4.2.2); knowledge-sharing and learning platforms (8.3.2.2, 8.4.2.4, 15.2.4.2, and 22.4.5.4); international
c
onferences and research networks (8.4.2.5); communication through media (22.4.5.5)
Informational Hazard and vulnerability mapping (11.7.2, 8.4.1.5); early warning and response systems (15.4.2.3 and 22.4.5.2) including health early warning systems
(
11.7.3, 23.5.1, 24.4.6.5, and 26.6.3); systematic monitoring and remote sensing (15.4.2.1 and 28.6); climate services (2.3.3) including improved forecasts
(27.3.4.2); downscaling climate scenarios (8.4.1.5); longitudinal data sets (26.6.2); integrating indigenous climate observations (22.4.5.4, 25.8.2.1, and
2
8.2.6.1); community-based adaptation plans (5.5.1.4 and 24.4.6.5) including community-driven slum upgrading (8.3.2.2) and participatory scenario
development (22.4.4.5)
Behavioral Accommodation (5.5.2); household preparation and evacuation planning (23.7.3); retreat (5.5.2) and migration (29.6.2.4), which has its own implications
for human health (11.7.4) and human security (12.4.2); soil and water conservation (23.6.2 and 27.3.4.2); livelihood diversifi cation (7.5.1.1, 7.5.2, and
22.4.5.2); changing livestock and aquaculture practices (7.5.1.1); crop-switching (22.3.4.1); changing cropping practices, patterns, and planting dates
(7.5.1.1.1, 23.4.1, 26.5.4, and 27.3.4.2; Table 24-2); silvicultural options (25.7.1.2); reliance on social networks (Section 29.6.2.2)
Institutional
Economic Financial incentives including taxes and subsidies (Box 8-4; 8.4.3 and 17.5.6); insurance (8.4.2.3, 13.3.2.2, 15.2.4.6, 17.5.1, 26.7.4.3, and 29.6.2.2; Box 25-7)
including index-based weather insurance schemes (9.4.2 and 22.4.5.2); catastrophe bonds (8.4.2.3 and 10.7.5.1); revolving funds (8.4.3.1); payments for
ecosystem services (9.4.3.3 and 27.6.2; Table 27-7); water tariffs (8.3.3.4.1 and 17.5.3); savings groups (8.4.2.3 and 11.7.4; Box 9-4); microfi nance (Box 8-3;
22.4.5.2); disaster contingency funds (22.4.5.2 and 26.7.4.3); cash transfers (Box 13-2)
Laws and
regulations
Land zoning laws (22.4.4.2 and 23.7.4); building standards (8.3.2.2, 10.7.5, and 22.4.5.7); easements (27.3.3.2); water regulations and agreements (26.3.4
and 27.3.1.2); laws to support disaster risk reduction (8.3.2.2); laws to encourage insurance purchasing (10.7.6.2); defi ning property rights and land tenure
security (22.4.6 and 24.4.6.5); protected areas (4.4.2.2); marine protected areas (Box CC-CR Chapter 6; 23.6.5 and 27.3.3.2); fi shing quotas (23.9.2); patent
pools and technology transfer (15.4.3 and 17.5.5)
Government
policies and
programs
National and regional adaptation plans (15.2 and 22.4.4.2; Box 23-3) including mainstreaming climate change; sub-national and local adaptation plans
(15.2.1.3 and 22.4.4.4; Box 23-3); urban upgrading programs (8.3.2.2); municipal water management programs (8.3.3.4; Box 25-2); disaster planning and
preparedness (11.7); city-level plans (8.3.3.3 and 27.3.5.2; Boxes 26-3 and 27-1), district-level plans (26.3.3), sector plans (26.5.4), which may include
integrated water resource management (3.6.1 and 23.7.2), landscape and watershed management (4.4.2.3), integrated coastal zone management (2.4.3,
5.5.4.1, and 23.7.1), adaptive management (2.2.1.3 and 5.5.1.4; Box 5-2), ecosystem-based management (6.4.2.1), sustainable forest management (2.3.4),
sheries management (7.5.1.1.3 and 30.6.2.1), and community-based adaptation (5.5.4.1, 8.4, 15.2.2, 21.3.2, 22.4.4.5, 24.5.2, 29.6.2.2, and 29.6.2.3; Tables
5-4 and 8-4; FAQ 15.1)
Table 14-1 | Categories and examples of adaptation options.
Notes: These adaptation options should be considered overlapping rather than discrete, and are often pursued simultaneously as part of adaptation plans. Examples given can be
relevant to more than one category.
a
A number of these would fall under the term “green infrastructure” in some European Commission documents (European Commission, 2009).
*WGII AR5 sections containing representative sample of adaptation options.
846
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
14.3.1.1. Engineering and Built Environment
Engineering, and the multidisciplinary teams engineers work with
(architects, planners, legal experts, etc.), is often at the forefront of
delivering adaptation technologies and strategies (Dawson, 2007). Most
engineering options are expert driven, capital-intensive, large-scale, and
highly complex (McEvoy et al., 2006; Morecroft and Cowan, 2010;
Sovacool, 2011). While many of the engineering options—including
management of storm and waste water flow (both inland and coastal),
flood levees, seawalls, upgrading existing infrastructures to improve
wind and flooding resilience, beach nourishment, and retrofitting
buildings (Blanco et al., 2009; Koetse and Rietveld, 2012; Ranger and
Garbett-Shiels, 2012)—are extensions and improvements of existing
practices, plans, and structures; some newer projects are now integrating
changed climate risk into the initial design. For example, during the
engineering design of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, various measures were
proposed to ensure the stability of the railway embankment in
permafrost regions (Wu et al., 2008). Section 5.5.4.1 describes how new
coastal protection structures in Japan are being upgraded to take into
account future sea level rise.
Engineered adaptation options typically have two general limitations.
First, they often must cope with uncertainties associated with projecting
climate impacts arising from assumptions about future weather,
population growth, and human behavior (Dawson, 2007; Furlow et al.,
2011). Second, the longevity and cost of engineered infrastructure affect
the feasibility at the outset (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). They also are
subject to consequences that were not anticipated. For example, after
coastal eastern England was devastated by the North Sea storm surge
in 1953, hard-engineered sea walls were put in place to protect the
coast from erosion and inundation. However, the engineered alterations
resulted in a new array of coastal instabilities, including disturbances
in sediment supply and damages to coastal ecosystems (Adger et al.,
2009b; Turner et al., 2010). As a result, many have promoted a “phased
capacity expansion strategy, which allows engineered projects to
undertake design modification as conditions or knowledge change and
facilitate incremental project construction to ease the burden of upfront
financing (Colombo and Byer, 2012). An example is the Thames Estuary
2100 Plan (see Box 5-1) and, in the Netherlands, the Delta Works
(Arnold et al., 2011).
14.3.1.2. Technological Options
Recent advances in technology and information are being combined
with engineering structural adaptation measures in various applications.
In the food and agriculture sector, a suite of adaptation options have
been developed and applied to reduce the adverse impacts of climate
change on production (FAO, 2007; Stokes and Howden, 2010; see also
Chapters 7, 9). Technologies range from more efficient irrigation and
fertilization methods, plant breeding for greater drought tolerance, and
adjusting planting based on projected yields (Semenov, 2006, 2008;
Bannayan and Hoogenboom, 2008) to transfers of traditional technologies
such as floating gardens (Irfanullah et al., 2011a,b). Technology options
for climate change adaptation include both hard” and soft”
technologies, and not only new technologies but also indigenous and
locally made appropriate technology (Glatzel et al., 2012). For example,
t
raditional construction methods have been identified across the Pacific
as a means of adapting to tropical cyclones and floods, including
building low aerodynamic houses and the use of traditional roofing
material such as sago palm leaves to reduce the hazard of iron roofing
being blown away in high winds (see Section 29.6.2.1). Centralized
high-technology systems can increase efficiency under normal conditions,
but also risk cascading malfunctions in emergencies (Section 15.4.3).
With the rapid diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) such as mobile phones and the Internet, the unprecedented speed
at which information is produced and shared is posing a new set of
possibilities for communication. ICT provides opportunities for top-down
dissemination of relevant information such as weather forecasts, hazard
warnings, market information, information sharing, and advisory services.
It can also generate essential information through bottom-up processes
such as “crowd sourcing” of useful information such as local flood levels,
disease outbreaks, and the management of disaster responses. MacLean
(2008) identifies three kinds of effects of the rapid advances in ICT on
adaptation and development in general: direct use for monitoring and
measuring climate change as described earlier, as a medium for raising
awareness, and as an enabler for a “networked governance” based on
networked open organizations. Pant and Heeks (2011) emphasize the
difficulty in foreseeing additional applications arising from planned ICT
applications exploiting local creativity and entrepreneurship, but warn
that ICT itself is not a panacea and that the most effective applications
are embedded in other societal behaviors.
There are repeated calls for technology transfer to and sharing between
developing countries in adaptation to match the programs associated
with mitigation (UNFCCC, 2006). Unlike mitigation, where low-carbon
technologies are often new and protected by patents held in developed
countries, in adaptation the technologies are often familiar and applied
elsewhere. For example, agricultural practices that are well known in a
region some distance away may now be applicable but unfamiliar
within a region of interest (Irfanullah et al., 2011a). Thus, technology
transfer in adaptation may be easier than for mitigation. For example,
to address water scarcity issues in many places, water storage, use, and
water efficiency technologies will all need to be more widely available.
See also Section 15.3.4 on technology transfer and diffusion.
14.3.1.3. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation
Ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA)—which is the use of biodiversity
and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help
people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change (Convention
on Biological Diversity, 2009)—is becoming an integral approach to
adaptation (see Box CC-EA). Often, when faced with climate-related
threats, first consideration is given to engineered and technological
approaches to adaptation. However, working with nature’s capacity and
pursing ecological options, such as coastal and wetland maintenance
and restoration, to absorb or control the impact of climate change in
urban and rural areas can be efficient and effective means of adapting
(Huntjens et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2012). The use of mangroves and
salt marshes as a buffer against damage to coastal communities and
infrastructure has been well researched and found to be effective both
physically and financially in appropriate locations (Day et al., 2007;
847
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
M
orris, 2007). They can also provide biodiversity co-benefits, support
fish nurseries, and have carbon sequestration value (Adger et al., 2005;
Reid and Huq, 2005; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). Other
EBA activities include integrative adaptive forest management (Bolte
et al., 2009; Guariguata, 2009; Reyer et al., 2009), and the use of agro-
ecosystems in farming systems (Tengö and Belfrage, 2004), ecotourism
activities (Adler et al., 2013), land and water protection and management,
and direct species management (Mawdsley et al., 2009). An analysis of
the 44 submitted NAPAs showed that the value of ecosystem services
was acknowledged in 50% of the national proposals and, in 22% of
the proposals, included the use of ecosystem services mostly in support
of other adaptation activities including infrastructure, soil conservation,
and water regulation (Pramova et al., 2012).
Green infrastructure (including the use of green roofs, porous pavements,
and urban parks) can improve storm water management and reduce
flood risk in cities, and can moderate the heat-island effect, as well as
having co-benefits for mitigation (Section 8.3.3.7). For example, New
York City has a well-established program to enhance its water supply
through watershed protection that is cost-effective compared to
constructing a filtration plant (Section 8.3.3.7). However, there are
trade-offs relating to land use and the availability of space for people
and social, economic, and environmental activities. For example,
providing an effective wetland buffer for coastal protection may require
emphasis on silt accumulation possibly at the expense of wildlife values
and recreation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009; Dudley et al.,
2010). Similarly Goldstein et al. (2012) found that in land use decision
making in Hawaii trade-offs existed between carbon storage and water
quality, and between environmental improvement and financial returns.
A further consideration is that ecosystem-based approaches are often
more difficult to implement and assess as they usually require cooperation
across institutions, sectors, and communities, and their benefits are also
spread across a similarly wide set of stakeholders (Jones et al., 2012).
One of the major barriers to EBA is the lack of comparable standards and
methodologies applied to engineering approaches, thus demonstrating the
need for more dialog between engineering and ecological communities.
14.3.1.4. Service Options
Service provision consists of a diverse range of specific and measurable
activities. For instance, one measure to support the most vulnerable
populations is social safety nets. Efforts to address child malnutrition,
which often result from loss of livelihood due to extreme weather events,
particularly floods and droughts (Hoddinott et al., 2008; Alderman et
al., 2009), offer an example of how safety nets can serve as a climate
adaptation measure. While some studies have shown that food programs
can be counterproductive to promoting livelihoods over the longer term
or may not prevent malnutrition in non-emergency situations (e.g.,
Bhutta et al., 2008), programs designed to provide support via food
programs, micro-finance, or insurance at times of extreme events can
provide an important bridge for vulnerable populations (Hoeppe and
Gurenko, 2006; Hochrainer et al., 2007; Alderman et al., 2009; Meze-
Hausken et al., 2009).
Public health services also are important for tackling projected increases
of disease incidences spurred on by climate change (Ebi and Burton, 2008;
G
arg et al., 2009; Edwards et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011). For example,
in countries where malaria is endemic, frequent adaptation options for
addressing possible outbreaks include increasing use of mosquito nets,
insecticides sprays, and controlling mosquito breeding by reclaiming
land and filling drains (Garg et al., 2009). Governments at all levels are
often also responsible for maintaining adequate access to services that
are projected to be further stressed due to climate change (Laukkonen
et al., 2009). Frequently cited options in this domain include, among
others, clearing drainage systems to prevent floods, diversifying water
supply services to account for changing water supplies (Kiparsky et al.,
2012), and maintaining open public spaces dedicated for disaster recovery
and other emergency purposes (Hamin and Gurran, 2009).
At the local level, infrastructure associated with the provision of basic
services, such as water, sanitation, solid waste disposal, power, storm
water and roadway management, and public transportation are integral
to increasing adaptive capacity (Paavola, 2008; Bambrick et al., 2011;
Barron et al., 2012; see also Section 8.2.4.1). Transport links enable
households to take part in trade, for example, to access agricultural
markets (Section 9.3.3.3.2) although supply chains can be vulnerable
to climate disruption. Housing services are particularly critical because
new patterns in temperature and precipitation will alter the habitability
and stability of residences while increased frequency and intensity of
natural disasters will place settlements and homes on both stable and
unstable land at greater risk (Satterthwaite and Dodman, 2009; see also
Section 8.3.3.3). Although one option is to relocate people inhabiting
vulnerable areas, some argue that in situ upgrading may be more cost-
effective, especially for addressing informal settlements in developing
countries (Revi, 2008).
14.3.2. Social Options
There are various adaptation options that target the specific vulnerability
of disadvantaged groups, including targeting vulnerability reduction
and social inequities. Community-based adaptation (CBA) refers to the
generation and implementation of locally driven adaptation strategies,
operating on a learning-by-doing, bottom-up, empowerment paradigm
that cuts across sectors and technological, social, and institutional
processes. Social protection schemes (see also Section 14.3.1 on services)
include public and private initiatives that transfer income or assets to
the poor, protect against livelihood risks, and raise the social status and
rights of those who are marginalized (see Box 13-2). An example of a
social protection scheme aimed at moving beyond repeated relief
interventions is Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) (Section
22.4.5.2).
The complexity of climate adaptation means that adaptation options
are heavily influenced by forms of learning and knowledge sharing
(Collins and Ison, 2009). Many scholars have noted that education is a
key indicator for how people select adaptation options (Chinowsky et
al., 2011; Sovacool et al., 2012), while a lack of education is a constraint
that contributes to vulnerability (Paavola, 2008). For example, in a study
of how farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia select adaptation options,
the researchers found a positive relationship between the education level
of the household head and the adoption of improved technologies and
adaptation to climate change (Deressa et al., 2009a,b). In Bangladesh,
848
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
e
ducation about disaster responses was greatly assisted by rising literacy
rates, especially among women (Section 11.7).
Awareness raising, extension, outreach, community meetings, and other
educational programs are important for disseminating knowledge about
adaptation options (Aakre and Rübbelke, 2010; Birkmann and Teichman,
2010) as well as for helping to build social capital that is critical for
social resilience (Adger, 2003; Krasny et al., 2010; Wolf et al., 2010). In
this regard, education can be seen as a public good that promotes
dialog and networks (Boyd and Osbahr, 2010), and therefore allows the
development of resilience at both the level of the individual learner and
at the level of socio-ecological systems (Krasny et al., 2010). Research
partnerships and networks can facilitate knowledge-sharing and
awareness raising at all levels from small groups of individuals to large
institutions (Section 8.4.2.5). Communication and dialog on adaptation
can be a two-way flow of information. Adaptation has itself been
described as a social learning process (Section 15.3.1.2), and a number
of initiatives in Africa emphasized the importance of iterative and
experiential learning for flexible adaptation planning (Suarez et al.,
2009; see also Section 22.4.5.3). In Maryland a half-day role-playing
process has been designed to both help local people, working with key
local and state experts and planners, to plan and prepare for sea level
rise and other coastal impacts. It allows them to experience first hand
the diversity of stakeholders, the conflicting decisions to be made, and
the need to communicate throughout their community to adapt to new
risks (Anon, 2009). A similar role-playing game has been developed for
the Chesapeake Bay of the eastern United States (Learmonth et al.,
2011).
Informational strategies are integral to adaptation. Early warning
systems are critical to ensuring awareness of natural hazards and to
promoting timely response, including evacuation. A number of approaches
are being employed around the world, including tone alert radio,
emergency alert system, presentations, and briefings (Van Aalst et al.,
2008; Ferrara de Giner et al., 2012). Heat wave and health warning
systems (HHWS) can be designed to prevent negative health impacts,
by predicting possible health outcomes, identifying triggers, and
communicating prevention responses (Section 11.7.3).
Climate services initially emerged as an expansion of the tasks provided
by weather services, and can act as “knowledge brokers” that establish
a dialog between science and the public, to facilitate decision support
(Section 2.4.1.2). Linking indigenous and conventional climate
observations can add value, for example, in western Kenya, where
scientists have worked with local rainmakers to develop consensus
forecasts (Section 22.4.5.4). Awareness raising through scenario
development, computer modeling, and role playing is effective in
preparing both responsible authorities and the public. As previously
noted, ICT is facilitating rapid dissemination of information. However,
low-tech measures such as brochures, public service announcements,
and direct contact with local residents also are important to fostering
awareness and response especially where access to ICT is limited or
expensive (National Research Council, 2011).
Behavioral measures are among the suite of options that are integral
to advancing climate adaptation. Government incentives can spark
behavioral change. For example, to slow runoff into storm sewers and
r
educe flooding, a number of cities in the USA run “Disconnect your
Downspout programs to urge homeowners to redirect water from their
roof into a storage tank or small wetlands. These programs will provide
information to households and some offer rebates on supplies. Many
poor and vulnerable communities have taken steps to adapt to changes
in climate, particularly those in flood-prone areas. For instance, some
local communities in Manila are increasing the number of floors in homes
and building makeshift bridges (Porio, 2011). Behavioral adaptation can
include livelihood diversification, which has long been used by African
households to cope with climate shocks and spread risk (Section 22.4.5.2).
Labor migration can be an important strategy for reducing vulnerability
to different sources of stress as it helps households diversify their
livelihoods (Banerjee et al., 2013). However, migration and relocation
do have implications for family relations, health, and human security
(see Sections 11.7.4, 12.4.2).
14.3.3. Institutional Options
Numerous institutional measures can be used to foster adaptation.
These range from economic instruments such as taxes, subsidies, and
insurance arrangements to social policies and regulations (de Bruin et
al., 2009; Hallegatte, 2009; Heltberg et al., 2009). For instance, in the
USA, post-disaster funds for loss reduction are added to funds provided
for disaster recovery and can be used to buy out properties that have
experienced repetitive flood losses and to relocate residents to safer
locations, to elevate structures, and to assist communities with purchasing
property and altering land-use patterns in flood-prone areas, as well as
undertaking other activities designed to lessen the impacts of future
disasters not only on habitation but also on more effective food
production and other livelihoods (FEMA, 2010). Uptake of climate risk
insurance is hindered by expensive premiums. The Caribbean Catastrophe
Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) pools together country-level risks into a
more diversified portfolio to offer lower premiums for immediate post-
disaster responses (Section 29.6.2.2).
Laws, regulations, and planning measures such as protected areas,
building codes, and re-zoning are institutional measures that can improve
the safety of hazard-prone communities by designating land use to support
resilience (Biderman et al., 2008; Bartlett et al., 2009). For example,
marine protected areas (MPAs) have the potential to increase ecosystem
resilience and increase recovery of coral reefs after mass coral bleaching
(see Chapter 6, Box CC-CR). While zoning can be used to procure sites
for low-income populations (Biderman et al., 2008; Bartlett et al., 2009;
Satterthwaite and Dodman, 2009), if it increases property and housing
values it also has the potential to exclude the poor from these areas.
Legal rights can also determine adaptive capacity as well as access to
resources. Land tenure security in Africa is widely accepted as being
critical for enabling people to make longer-term decisions, such as
changing farming practices (Section 22.4.6).
A number of funding and financial issues are linked to institutions. At
the international level, agreements and donors have a critical role to
play in promoting and supporting the allocation and flow of financial
resources (OECD, 2011). For instance, the Adaptation Fund, which is set
up under the Kyoto Protocol and funded through a levy on most Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, is of particular importance to
849
Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14
14
d
eveloping countries as it is pioneering the direct access mechanism
which allows countries to access funds without having to work through
a multilateral development agency. The direct access mechanism
highlights the role of institutions in building and maintaining capacity,
not just in the technical aspects of adaptation assessment and project
design, but also in financial management and due diligence (Brown et
al., 2011).
Effective governance is important for efficient operations of institutions.
In general, governance rests on the promotion of democratic and
participatory principles as well as on ensuring access to information,
knowledge, and networks. Institutional strengthening and capacity
building has been highlighted as a priority need in developing countries
(Kumamoto and Mills, 2012). In assessment of river basin planning in
Brazil, Engle and Lemos (2010) found that improving governance
mechanisms appears to enhance adaptive capacity. Similarly water-
trading schemes facilitated by new government measures reduced the
impact of a major drought on the economy in Australia (Mallawaarachchi
and Foster, 2009). The effectiveness of such approaches depends on
both government will and capacity building among those affected.
In terms of national or local adaptation planning and policy making,
Chapter 15 emphasizes that it can be challenging for governments to
move beyond adaptation planning to implementation (Section 15.2.2).
In an evaluation of one of the earliest national adaptation strategies
for Finland, it was found that few measures had been implemented
except in the water sector (see Box 23-2). Adaptation planning can
occur at a number of spatial scales including at the national, regional,
city, district, or local community level. Action plans can include a range
of adaptation options including structural, social, and regulatory
measures. For example, the city of Quito has proposed developing dams,
encouraging a culture of rational water use, reducing water losses, and
developing mechanisms to reduce water conflicts (Section 8.3.3.4).
Table 25-5 lists various urban climate change adaptation options and
their barriers to adoption. See also Section 15.3 on local adaptation
plans.
Institutional adaptation options include the use of various decision-
making and adaptation planning tools (Chapter 15) including iterative
risk management (Chapter 2). There are various decision-making
paradigms that can guide adaptation actions. For example, prominent
institutional frameworks used for management of coastal areas include
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Adaptive Management
(see Section 5.5.1.4). At the local scale, community-based adaptation
refers to the generation and implementation of locally driven adaptation
strategies through a learning-by-doing, bottom-up approach (Section
5.5.1.4). Community-based approaches to adaptation can also be
mainstreamed into local or regional plans. Refer to Table 5-4 for a
description of community-based adaptation options for coastal areas.
14.3.4. Selecting Adaptation Options
Selecting specific adaptation options can be challenging partly due to
the rate, uncertainty, and cumulative impacts of climate change. How
adaptation is framed will have an impact on how adaptation options
are selected (Fünfgeld and McEvoy, 2011). Policy and market conditions
m
ay be a stronger driver of behavior than the observed climate itself
(Berkhout et al., 2006). Also, rarely will adaptation options be designed
to address climate risks or opportunities alone (IPCC, 2007b); instead
actions will often be undertaken with other goals (such as profit or
poverty reduction) in mind, while also achieving climate-related co-
benefits. Gains in reduced vulnerability, enhanced resilience, or greater
welfare will often be co-benefits generated as a result of changes and
innovations driven by other factors (Khan et al., 2013). Rather than
focusing on adaptation options addressing specific dimensions of climate
change, more attention is being paid to mainstreaming climate change
into wider government policy and private sector activities (see Sections
15.2.1, 15.5.1; Sietz et al., 2011a).
Selection and prioritization of adaptation options is important because
not all adaptation options will be possible owing to constraints such as
insufficient local resources, capacities, and authority (see Section 16.7).
Furthermore, some adaptation options can be maladaptive if they foreclose
other options (see Section 14.7). The viability of adaptation options is
dependent on the time scale and climate scenario, emphasizing that
selecting adaptation options is an iterative process.
A variety of systematic techniques have been developed for selecting
options (e.g., see Section 15.4; De Bruin et al., 2009;ssel, 2009; Ogden
and Innes, 2009). Quantification and other systematic approaches to
selecting options have many virtues. However, they also have limitations.
For instance, most of these methodologies do not account for a range
of critical factors such as leadership, institutions, resources, and barriers
(Smith et al., 2009). For example, cost-benefit analysis of adaptation
options requires valuation of non-market costs and benefits, which
can be impractical (Section 17.3.2). Strategies dominating the early
adaptation literature emphasized maintaining the current system and
minimizing costs while achieving some form of benefit. For instance,
no-regrets measures both reduce climate risk and provide other social,
economic, or environmental benefits (Hallegatte, 2009). Risk management
approaches often lead to no-regrets, low-regrets, or win-win options,
while multi-criteria analysis (MCA) allows assessment of options against
different criteria, as was used in the preparation of NAPAs (UNFCCC,
2011).
As ideas about adaptation have evolved, there has been a shift in
ambition from traditional approaches that emphasize maintaining the
status quo to more dynamic and integrative strategies (see also Sections
2.4.3, 14.1, 16.4.2, 20.5). Adaptive management places an emphasis on
taking action and then using the lessons learned to inform future actions
in order to make better informed, and often incremental, decisions in
the face of uncertainty (Sections 2.2.1.3, 14.4). Lempert and Schlesinger
(2000) have proposed that adaptation options should be robust
against a wide range of plausible climate and societal change futures.
Emerging trends in adaptation place an emphasis on the need for more
transformational changes, which has a distinct logic that differs from
traditional strategies (see Section 14.1).
As research and experience in the practice of adaptation grows, an ever
increasing number of considerations have been advanced as being
important in guiding the selection and sequencing of adaptation options.
It is unlikely that every adaptation program can ever fully meet each of
these considerations, especially as they are increasingly integrated with
850
Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options
14
wider social or development goals, but Table 14-2 seeks to outline the
most common considerations and point to sources in this volume and
the literature for a discussion of some of the core issues.
14.4. Adaptation Assessments
14.4.1. Purpose of Assessments
Identifying adaptation needs requires an assessment of the factors that
determine the nature of, and vulnerability to, climate risks (climate change
assessments, climate impacts and risk assessments, and vulnerability
assessments) and an assessment of adaptation options to reduce risks
(adaptation assessment). The various types of climate change assessments
differ in that they pursue different goals, are underpinned by different
theoretical frameworks, and rely on different forms of data and ultimately
may lead to different adaptation responses (Fünfgeld and McEvoy, 2011).
Assessments help decision makers understand the impacts, vulnerability,
and adaptation options in a region, country, community, or sector. They
are often characterized