869
15
Adaptation Planning
and Implementation
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Nobuo Mimura (Japan), Roger S. Pulwarty (USA)
Lead Authors:
Do Minh Duc (Vietnam), Ibrahim Elshinnawy (Egypt), Margaret Hiza Redsteer (USA),
He-Qing Huang (China), Johnson Ndi Nkem (Cameroon), Roberto A. Sanchez Rodriguez
(Mexico)
Contributing Authors:
Maarten van Aalst (Netherlands), Joseph Donahue (USA), Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm
(Venezuela), Sofie Storbjörk (Sweden), Swenja Surminski (UK)
Review Editors:
Richard Moss (USA), Walter Vergara (Inter-American Development Bank)
Volunteer Chapter Scientists:
Lisa S. Darby (USA), Sadahisa Kato (Japan)
This chapter should be cited as:
Mimura
, N., R.S. Pulwarty, D.M. Duc, I. Elshinnawy, M.H. Redsteer, H.Q. Huang, J.N. Nkem, and R.A. Sanchez
Rodriguez, 2014: Adaptation planning and implementation. 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. 869-898.
15
870
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 871
15.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 873
15.2. Status of Adaptation Planning and Implementation .............................................................................................. 873
15.2.1. Adaptation Planning at Different Levels ........................................................................................................................................... 873
15.2.1.1. Common Recognition and International Mechanisms ....................................................................................................... 873
15.2.1.2. National Initiatives ............................................................................................................................................................ 874
15.2.1.3. Subnational and Local Activities ........................................................................................................................................ 875
15.2.2. Adaptation Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................. 877
15.2.3. Financing for Adaptation .................................................................................................................................................................. 878
15.3. Strategies and Approaches ..................................................................................................................................... 881
15.3.1. Diverse Strategies and Mixed-Portfolio Approaches ......................................................................................................................... 881
15.3.2. Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management ..................................................................................................................................... 881
15.3.3. Adaptation and Development ........................................................................................................................................................... 882
15.4. Tools Used for Decision Making, Planning, and Implementation ........................................................................... 883
15.4.1. Decision Support Tools ...................................................................................................................................................................... 883
15.4.2. Tools for Planning ............................................................................................................................................................................. 883
15.4.2.1. Monitoring, Modeling, and Spatially Integrated Tools ....................................................................................................... 883
15.4.2.2. Communication Tools ........................................................................................................................................................ 883
15.4.2.3. Early Warning and Information Systems ............................................................................................................................ 883
15.4.3. Technology Development, Transfer, and Diffusion ............................................................................................................................. 885
15.4.4. Insurance and Social Protection ........................................................................................................................................................ 885
15.5. Governance for Adaptation Planning and Implementation .................................................................................... 886
15.5.1. Institutional Dimensions for Planning and Implementing Adaptation ............................................................................................... 886
15.5.1.1. Importance of Institutional Dimensions ............................................................................................................................. 886
15.5.1.2. Institutional Barriers .......................................................................................................................................................... 886
15.5.1.3. Facilitating More Effective Climate Adaptation Planning and Implementation ................................................................. 888
15.5.2. Increasing Capabilities ...................................................................................................................................................................... 888
15.6. Research Needs for Maximizing Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 889
References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 890
Frequently Asked Questions
15.1: What is the present status of climate change adaptation planning and implementation across the globe? .................................... 876
15.2: What types of approaches are being used in adaptation planning and implementation? ................................................................ 878
Table of Contents
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
871
Executive Summary
Adaptation to climate change is transitioning from a phase of awareness to the construction of actual strategies and plans in
societies (robust evidence, high agreement). The combined efforts of a broad range of international organizations, scientific reports, and
media coverage have raised awareness of the importance of adaptation to climate change, fostering a growing number of adaptation responses
in developed and developing countries. This represents major progress since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The literature illustrates
h
eterogeneity in adaptation planning related to the context specific nature of adaptation, but also to the differences in resources, values,
needs, and perceptions among and within societies. However, it is not yet clear how effective these responses currently are and will be in the
future. Few adaptation plans have been monitored and evaluated. There is a tendency in the literature to consider adaptation planning a problem-
free process capable of delivering positive outcomes, underestimating the complexity of adaptation as a social process, creating unrealistic
expectations in societies, and perhaps overestimating the capacity of planning to deliver the intended outcome of adaptation. {15.2.1-2}
The national level plays a key role in adaptation planning and implementation, while adaptation responses have diverse
processes and outcomes at the subnational and local levels (robust evidence, high agreement).
National governments assume a
coordinating role of adaptation actions in subnational and local levels of government, including the provision of information and policy
frameworks, creating legal frameworks, actions to protect vulnerable groups, and, in some cases, providing financial support to other levels of
government. In the increasing number of adaptation responses at the local level in developed and developing countries, local agencies and
planners are often confronted by the complexity of adaptation without adequate access to guiding information or data on local vulnerabilities
and potential impacts. Even when information is available, they are left with a portfolio of options to prepare for future climatic changes and
the potential unanticipated consequences of their decisions. Therefore, linkages with national and subnational levels of government, as well as
the collaboration and participation of a broad range of stakeholders, are important. Steps for mainstreaming adaptation have been identified
but challenges remain in their operationalization within the current structures or operational cultures of national, subnational, and local agencies.
{15.2.1, 15.5.1}
Institutional dimensions in adaptation governance play a key role in promoting the transition from planning to implementation
of adaptation (robust evidence, high agreement). While institutional dimensions may both enable and limit adaptation planning and
implementation, the literature has so far mostly reported on how current institutional arrangements restrict the mainstreaming of climate
adaptation. The most commonly emphasized barriers or enablers of institutional change in planning and implementation identified for both
developing and developed countries are: (1) multilevel institutional coordination between different political and administrative levels in society;
(2) key actors, advocates, and champions initiating, mainstreaming, and sustaining momentum for climate adaptation; (3) horizontal interplay
between sectors, actors, and policies operating at similar administrative levels; (4) political dimensions in planning and implementation; and (5)
coordination between formal governmental, administrative agencies, and private sectors and stakeholders to increase efficiency, representation,
and support for climate adaptation measures. {15.2.2, 15.5.1}
Adaptation planning and implementation are dynamic iterative learning processes recognizing the complementary role of
adaptation strategies, plans, and actions at different levels (national, subnational, and local) (robust evidence, high agreement).
Climate change adaptation (CCA) takes place as a response to multiple stresses, which highlights the need of connecting CCA with development
strategies and plans, and disaster risk management (DRM). The importance of CCA is influenced by how the issue is framed in particular contexts,
and, to the extent that it is viewed as a public safety issue or a development issue, it has greater resonance within national and local policies.
In many cases, the most attractive adaptation actions are those that offer development benefits in the relatively near term, as well as reductions
of vulnerabilities in the longer term. There is a growing recognition in the literature that the linkages between adaptation, development, and
DRM need to be more explicit targeting co-benefits among the societal goals. Considering adaptation planning and implementation learning
processes can help carrying out periodic adjustments to accommodate changes in climate and socioeconomic conditions that can strengthen
the role of planning as a societal tool for CCA and DRM. {15.2.1, 15.3.2-3, 15.5.1}
There is no single approach to adaptation planning because of the complex, diverse, and context-dependent nature of adaptation
to climate change. Although top-down and bottom-up approaches are widely recognized, the actions in practice are combinations
of these approaches (medium evidence, high agreement).
The literature illustrates that the debate of climate change is dominated at
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
872
present by impacts-led approaches that focus on climate risks through the construction of defensive infrastructure rather than on human
vulnerability. It is unclear at this point if these adaptation plans consider impact-led approaches just the start of an adaptation process rather
than its culmination. Knowledge of impacts and vulnerabilities does not necessarily lead to the most cost-effective and efficient adaptation
policy decisions. This is partly due to the uncertainty associated with future climate and socioeconomic conditions but also to the context
specificity of adaptation. The literature suggests that coupling adaptive improvements in infrastructure with efforts to improve ecosystem
r
esilience, governance, community welfare, and development improve community resilience. It also suggests combining top-down and bottom-
up approaches strengthens adaptation planning and implementation. {15.2.1, 15.3.1, 15.3.3, 15.5.1.2, Box 15-1}
A variety of tools are being employed in adaptation planning and implementation depending on social and management context
(robust evidence, high agreement).
Uncertainties in climate change, coupled with the complexities of social-ecological systems, emphasize
the need for a variety of tools in adaptation planning and implementation. Information and knowledge on climate change risks from various
stakeholders and organizations are essential resources for making adaptation planning. Multidisciplinary efforts have been engaged to develop,
assess, and communicate climate information and risk assessments across time scales. These efforts employ a mixed portfolio of measures,
from simple agroclimate calendars to computerized decision-support tools. Although a wide range of adaptations are possible with current
technologies and management practices, development and diffusion of technologies can expand the range of adaptation possibilities by
expanding opportunities or reducing costs. Monitoring and early warning systems play an important role in helping to adjust and revise
adaptation implementation, especially on the local scale. Innovative tools have also been developed, such as ecosytem-based adaptation and a
range of insurance tools. {15.4}
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
873
15.1. Introduction
As impacts of climate change have become apparent around the world,
adaptation has attracted increasing attention. The impacts are expected
to be particularly severe in the developing world and among marginalized
communities because of limited adaptive capacity. Adaptation is an
important pillar for the response to climate change, and the IPCC
Assessment Reports highlight the complementary roles of mitigation
and adaptation in climate policy. Particularly, IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4) (IPCC, 2007) provided an evaluation of adaptation that is
the departure point for the present report. The AR4 emphasized that
adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from climate
change that is already unavoidable due to past emissions. A wide array
of adaptation options were noted, but also that the level of adaptation
was inadequate for a reduction in vulnerability to future climate change.
Moreover, the report showed there are barriers, limits, and costs that
are not fully understood.
Since the publication of IPCC AR4, significant progress has been made on
the adaptation activities both quantitatively and qualitatively. In particular,
there is substantial progress in development of national adaptation
strategies and plans. These include climate change adaptation (CCA)
legislation and formal national strategies. As of 2012, 26 of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries have developed or are currently developing strategic frameworks
for national adaptation (Mullan et al., 2013). Forty-nine least developed
countries produced and submitted National Adaptation Programmes of
Action (NAPAs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) as of 2013. At the same time, the academic literature
and reports from multilateral development agencies, international
organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) document
numerous cases of community-based activities for CCA in developing
countries. Through these activities, a range of lessons are being learned,
while barriers and limits are also emerging. The wider social dimensions
of adaptation have also attracted more attention since AR4. As the
diverse, complex, and context-specific nature of adaptation becomes
apparent (differences in resources, values, needs, and perceptions among
and within societies), the related areas expand in the wider social-
ecological system, and the number of stakeholders increases. Based
on this recognition, the importance of mainstreaming adaptation and
the integration of adaptation policies within those of development
increases.
Current research has expanded its focus to reflect these advances
(Biesbroek et al., 2010). Until the mid-1990s, research on climate change
focused almost exclusively on understanding of climate system dynamics
and modeling of future climate. Several programs developed recently
give prominence to studies of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, and
associated adaptation options, measures, and strategies, including local,
regional, and sectoral studies. As adaptation activities progress, many
challenges have emerged, such as how to manage the decision-making
process, how to develop strategies and plans, and how to implement
them. In this regard, the roles within multilevel governance become an
issue, such as horizontal coordination among different agencies and
departments, and vertical coordination of various stakeholders from
regional, national, to local actors. Furthermore, many countries face
challenges in moving from the development of adaptation strategies
and plans to implementation. These provide challenges for the research
community as well.
There are many definitions and characteristics of adaptation strategies
(Carter et al., 1994; Burton et al., 2005). For the purpose of this chapter,
adaptation strategies are defined as a general plan of action for addressing
the impacts of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Such strategies include a mix of policies and measures that have the
overarching objective of reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts.
T
his chapter examines and evaluates the literature on CCA, in order to
assess the progress made toward CCA and explore difficulties encountered
in the implementation of adaptation plans. The IPCC Working Group II
(WGII) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) has four interrelated chapters
about adaptation that discuss complementary aspects of the process
(see Figure 14-1). This chapter focuses on the actions taken from
international to local levels, in various sectors in order to assess (1) the
recent status of CCA planning and implementation across the globe;
(2) the characteristics of adaptation in different settings; (3) the strategies,
approaches, and tools used in the adaptation practices; and (4) the
governance of adaptation including building adaptive capacities. This
chapter also draws attention to factors that motivate and facilitate the
development of adaptation strategies, as well as how scientific and
technical information, support, and collaborative mechanisms are utilized
in the process.
15.2. Status of Adaptation Planning
and Implementation
15.2.1. Adaptation Planning at Different Levels
15.2.1.1. Common Recognition and International Mechanisms
The combined efforts of a broad range of international organizations,
scientific reports, and media coverage have raised awareness of the
importance of adaptation to climate change since the publication of AR4.
Adaptation is transitioning from a phase of awareness and promotion
to the construction and implementation of plans, strategies, legislation,
and projects at national, subnational, and local levels (Biesbroek et al.,
2009; Preston et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010; Berrang-Ford et al.,
2011; Romero-Lankao and Dodman, 2011; Dodman, 2012). The review
of the literature identifies a high heterogeneity of adaptation planning.
There is significant heterogeneity in adaptation planning that is related to
the context-specific nature of adaptation (differences in resources, values,
needs, and perceptions among and within societies). This heterogeneity
also results from different approaches among countries, multilateral
development agencies, and international organizations that promote
and fund adaptation, and from differences in knowledge, information,
and awareness on adaptation alternatives across societies.
Although attention to climate change impacts and disaster risk
management are key elements of adaptation, they appear to have a
more prominent role in the early stages of planning and implementation
(Few et al., 2007a; Hofstede, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010; Garrelts and
Lange, 2011; Harries and Penning-Rowsell, 2011; Rosenzweig et al.,
2011; Rumbach and Kudva, 2011; Etkin et al., 2012; IPCC, 2012). Several
authors express concern that a strong focus on impacts can overshadow
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
874
the analysis of the underlying stressors of hazards, neglecting the drivers
of vulnerability, and thus limiting the effectiveness for interventions
(Sabates-Wheeler et al., 2008; Boyd and Juhola, 2009; Orlove, 2009;
Ribot, 2010; Rumbach and Kudva, 2011). This approach could obscure
opportunities for connecting development pressures, poverty, social
inequality, and climate change, particularly for the reduction of social
vulnerability (Lemos et al., 2007; Hardee and Mutunga, 2010; Sietz et
al., 2011). Furthermore, other scholars suggest that knowledge of
impacts and vulnerabilities does not necessarily lead to the most cost-
e
ffective and efficient adaptation policy decisions (Hulme et al., 2009;
Barnett and Campbell, 2010).
The importance of climate adaptation is also influenced by how the
issue is framed. For example, to the extent that adaptation is viewed
as a development issue (current development stressors and challenges;
existing policy and existing agendas; and knowledge, risks, and issues
communities already face), it may have greater resonance within local
government (Ewing et al., 2008; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Dovers,
2009; Hodson and Marvin, 2009; Stringer et al., 2009; Measham et al.,
2010; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012). Multilateral development agencies
encourage efforts in this direction through a number of guidelines,
publication, and development assistance (UNDP, 2004; USAID, 2007;
OECD, 2009; World Bank, 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2011a). Central to these
efforts is the role of planning that connects adaptation to development
needs and challenges (Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Dovers, 2009; Juhola and
Westerhoff, 2011; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012). A critical issue commonly
emphasized in the literature is the consideration of adaptation planning
as a problem-free process capable of delivering positive outcomes. There
is the risk of underestimating the complexity of adaptation planning as
a social process, and it can lead to creating unrealistic expectations in
societies, and overestimating the capacity of planning to deliver the
intended outcome of preparing societies to adapt to the negative
impacts of climate change. This highlights the importance of monitoring,
evaluating, and reviewing adaptation planning and implementation
(Adger et al., 2009b; Preston et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010; Wolf et
al., 2010).
The fast growth of international mechanisms for supporting adaptation
planning has assisted in the creation of adaptation strategies, plans,
and actions at the national, subnational, and local level. The directives
and initiatives of the European Commission (EC) have fostered the
creation of a large number of national adaptation strategies and plans
in EU member countries since the last IPCC report (Biesbroek et al.,
2009, 2010; Ford et al., 2011). Other relevant regional initiatives are the
South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) supported
by a number of international agencies, and in the Caribbean through the
Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (Pulwarty et al., 2010).
The literature reports a growing number of mechanisms developed by
multilateral development organizations, development cooperation
agencies from developed countries, United Nations programs (UNDP,
2004, 2010a; UN-HABITAT, 2010, 2011a), multilateral development
agencies (USAID, 2007; OECD, 2009; World Bank, 2010, 2011a; Abbas
et al., 2012), and NGOs (ICLEI, 2008; IFRC et al., 2009; Pew Centre on
Global Climate Change, 2009; Braman et al., 2010; ActionAid et al.,
2012; Crane, 2013). These organizations focus on their particular
geographic and thematic areas of interest in their support for adaptation
planning. Particularly relevant are the activities of UNFCCC for least
developed countries (LDCs) through the National Adaptation Programmes
of Action (NAPAs) and for LDCs and other developing countries through
the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).
Key funding mechanisms are associated with the Global Environmental
Facility (GEF) adaptation funds (Least Developed Countries Climate
Adaptation Fund and Special Climate Change Fund), support for the
Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), and special purpose
adaptation funds for UN agencies. The Adaptation Fund (AF) set up
u
nder the Kyoto Protocol has pioneered direct access mechanisms to
developing countries, allowing countries to access essential funds without
having to work through a multilateral development agency.
15.2.1.2. National Initiatives
The movement to introduce adaptation into national policies has
accelerated in both developed and developing countries. These diverse
national adaptation initiatives reflect the characteristics of the domestic
political structures, socioeconomic conditions, values, and perceptions,
as well as development stresses and opportunities. National governments
are assuming a coordinating role in adaptation actions in subnational
and local levels of government. National-level coordination includes the
provision of information about potential risks, in order to strengthen
actions of state and local governments. These activities provide policy
frameworks that guide decisions at subnational levels, to spur and
coordinate the creation of legal frameworks, to direct action in sectors
and resources for national development (agriculture, fisheries, health,
ecosystem protection, among others), to protect vulnerable groups, and
to provide financial support to other levels of government (Hulme et
al., 2009; Biesbrock et al., 2010; Birkmann and Teichman, 2010; Berrang-
Ford et al., 2011; Westerhoff et al., 2011). National governments also
facilitate the coordination of budgets and financing mechanisms (Alam
et al., 2011; Kalame et al., 2011).
In recent years, Europe’s creation of national adaptation strategies and
plans has been particularly dynamic. Twelve European countries have
created National Adaptation Strategies: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, and UK (only two of them were created before the AR4—Finland
and Spain) (Biesbroek et al., 2010). Moreover, some countries have
programmed the evaluation of their national adaptation strategies
because they recognize the need to learn from the adaptation process
(UK, Germany, Australia, the USA, and Mexico, among others) (Bierbaum
et al., 2013). Most strategies are regarded as the start of a policy process
rather than its culmination, providing the important perspective of
considering iterative evaluation as part of planning and implementation
(Hulme et al., 2009; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Pulwarty et al., 2012).
The LDCs national adaptation responses—implemented through
UNFCCC’s NAPAs—provide data on efforts to link local level adaptation
and development (Agrawal, 2008; Agrawal and Perrin, 2008; Stringer
et al., 2009). More than 50% of the projects under this program are
concentrated in three key sectors for development and livelihoods: food
security, terrestrial ecosystems, and water resources. They attract the
support of a greater range of actors, but some suggest that linkages
between development and adaptation need to be made more explicit
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
875
(Stringer et al., 2009). Sustained monitoring, evaluation, and feedback
that is needed to learn from the NAPAs process would help these countries
transcend from a project-by-project effort to a more complete union of
adaptation and domestic and local development. Assessment on NAPAs
is also given in Section 14.4.4.
15.2.1.3. Subnational and Local Activities
Adaptation planning and implementation initiatives illustrate differences
on the role of subnational governments in the governance structure of
countries, from those with strong concentration of political and
economic power to a very minor role in governance and decision making.
Subnational governments often have a complementary role to national
governments in adaptation planning that is reflective of the governance
structure (Moser, 2005; West and Gawith, 2005; Lemmen et al., 2008;
Karl et al., 2009; Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, 2009). Although
guiding frameworks have not created for subnational governments in
many countries, the states and provinces in some countries have an
active role in CCA (Brekke et al., 2009; Dinse et al., 2009; Staples, 2011;
Barsugli et al., 2012; Bierbaum et al., 2013; Mukheibir et al., 2013).
There is a significant increase in the number of planned adaptation
responses at the local level in rural and urban communities of developed
and developing countries since AR4. Climate adaptation is context
d
ependent and it is uniquely linked to location, making it predominantly
a local government and community level of action (Corfee-Morlot et
al., 2009; Glaas et al., 2010; Mukheibir et al., 2013). Among these efforts
are adaptation plans that utilize local knowledge. Local knowledge-
based adaptation is focused primarily on the use of traditional knowledge
to increase adaptive capacity at the community level, examples of which
are shown in Table 15-1. In addition to raising adaptive capacity, local
Location Sector Approach and strategy
Adaptive action
implemented
Institutions References
Southern Kimberley,
A
ustralia
Water supplies
Defi ne vulnerabilities
I
ncrease adaptive capacity
Compile observed changes
I
ncrease monitoring
M
anage water resources
Review TEK
a
Universities; NGOs;
b
United
N
ations University
Green et al. (2010); Prober
e
t al. (2011); Leonard et al.
(2013)
Trinidad, Bolivia and
northern central Bolivia
Ecosystems, agriculture Reduce vulnerability
Revivecamellones
(earthen platforms) TEK
Reduce erosion
Document local
observations
Oxfam International; NGOs;
Bolivian government; Food
and Agriculture Organization
Oxfam International (2009)
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
(California, USA)
Infrastructure
Mitigation: solar power
Increase adaptive capacity
Co-design infrastructure
Address insuffi cient capital
Address water shortages
and energy needs
Universities; NGOs; Housing
and Urban Development
Shelby et al. (2012);
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Housing fl yer (2013);
Redsteer et al. (2013)
Fiji Ecosystems and water supply
Defi ne vulnerabilities
Increase adaptive capacity
Recognize TEK
Enable adaptive decision
making
Enhance community
awareness
Participate in development
Australian Agency for
International Development;
Fiji Department of
Environment; University of
the South Pacifi c
Dumaru (2010)
Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi,
Zimbabwe, southern Zambia
Agriculture
Defi ne vulnerabilities
Increase technical capacity
Increase adaptive capacity
Use drought early warning
Apply TEK
Develop novel reporting
Compile observed changes
Harvest rainwater
Change tilling practices
Use appropriate crop
varieties
University of Capetown;
University of Nairobi;
the United Kingdom’s
Department for International
Development; Canada’s
International Development
Research Centre
Chang’a et al. (2010);
Mugabe et al. (2010);
Kalanda-Joshua et al.
(2011); Majule et al. (2013);
Masindel et al. (2013)
Reservation lands (western
USA)
Health, water supplies,
environment
Defi ne vulnerabilities and
impacts
Increase adaptive capacity
Compile observed changes
Utilize environmental
legislation
Review indigenous
knowledge
Analyze local
meteorological data
Analyze historical/legal
context
Increase monitoring
Universities and affi liated
NGOs; tribal offi ces; federal
agency research
Redsteer et al. (2010); Doyle
et al. (2013); Gautam et al.
(2013)
Table 15-1 | Application of local knowledge in climate change adaptation.
a
TEK = Traditional ecological knowledge: adaptive ecological knowledge developed through an intimate reciprocal relationship between a group of people and a particular place
over time.
b
NGO = Nongovernmental organization.
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
876
knowledge often highlights vulnerabilities and impacts that may not
be well known, especially when the areas where local knowledge is still
held are remote and poorly monitored (e.g., Majule et al., 2013).
Indigenous communities are those populations that have cultural and
historical ties to specific homelands. They are generally distinct from
politically dominant populations (Battiste, 2008). Because of these
characteristics, they are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts.
When assessing indigenous vulnerability and developing CCA strategies
and resilience to climate change, the following issues need to be
examined and addressed: the relationship of indigenous peoples to land,
the degree of migration or displacement of indigenous communities
(Miron, 2008), and their adaptive capacity. Vulnerability and challenges
to adaptation for indigenous people are discussed broadly in Chapters
13, 27, and 28.
Local councils and planners are often confronted by the complexity of
adaptation without adequate access to guiding information or data on
local vulnerabilities and potential impacts. Even when information is
available, they are left with a portfolio of options to prepare for future
climatic changes but without effective guidance on decision making
and the potential for unanticipated consequences arising from those
decisions (Wilson, 2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Patt and Schröter, 2008; Urwin
and Jordan, 2008; Gupta et al., 2010; Mathew et al., 2012; Rodima-
Taylor et al., 2012; Mukheibir et al., 2013).
Local governments play a central role addressing the challenges of
adaptation planning and implementation (Blanco and Alberti, 2009;
Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2009; Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Simon, 2010;
Matthews, 2012). However, scholars stress the important role of
partnerships among public, civic, and private sectors in CCA (Berkhout
et al., 2006; Agrawal, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Howe, 2011; Tompkins
and Eakin, 2012). Inclusive and participatory approaches in adaptation
planning at the local level are encouraged by international organizations
(UNDP, 2004, 2010a; Moser, 2008; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Ensor
and Berger, 2009; Geiser and Rist, 2009; World Bank, 2010; Ford et al.,
2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011a).
Urban areas are also the locus of a growing number of planning initiatives
(Revi, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Stren, 2008; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Hamin
and Gurran, 2009; Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009; Lowe et al., 2009;
O’Demsey, 2009; Parzen, 2009; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2009; Tanner et al.,
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 15.1 | What is the present status of climate change adaptation
planning and implementation across the globe?
Climate change adaptation has been receiving increasing attention as a result of recent media coverage and reports.
Since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), a large assortment of adaptive actions has taken
place in response to observed climate impacts. These actions mostly address sectoral interests, such as agricultural
practices (e.g., altering sowing times, crop cultivars and species, and irrigation and fertilizer control), public health
measures for heat-related risks (e.g., early warning systems and air pollution control), disaster risk reduction (e.g.,
early warning systems), and water resources (e.g., supply and demand management). Some of these are
“autonomous” actions in a specific sector.
Another area where progress has been made since AR4 is the development of broad national-level plans and
adaptation strategies. These have now been established in developed and developing countries worldwide. Because
adaptation policy requires decision making amid uncertainties about future climate change and its impacts, the
major pillars of adaptation plans are iterative assessment, flexible and adaptive planning, and enhancement of
adaptive capacity. Adaptation plans are being developed and documented at the national, subnational, and
community levels and by the private sector; however, there is still limited evidence of adaptation implementation.
Implementation remains challenging because in the transition from planning to implementation the many interested
parties must overcome resource, institutional, and capacity barriers. The difference in time scales between medium-
and long-term adaptation plans and pressing short-term issues poses a significant problem for prioritizing adaptation.
In parallel with national-level planning, community-based adaptation (CBA) has become an increasingly prevalent
practice, particularly in developing counties. It is increasingly apparent that CBA potentially offers ways to address
the vulnerability of local communities by connecting climate change adaptation to non-climate local needs. Cities
and local governments have also begun active engagement in climate change adaptation. Local governments play
an important role in adaptation because they directly communicate with affected communities. For the past several
years, leading practices have begun in New York City, Mexico City, Toronto, Albay Province in the Philippines, and
elsewhere. These achievements were possible because of elected and local leadership; cooperation among national
and local governments, private sectors, and communities; and the participation of boundary organizations, scientists,
and experts.
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
877
2009; Corfee et al., 2010; Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Simon, 2010;
City of New York, 2011; City of Rotterdam, 2011; Romero-Lankao and
Dodman, 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Carmin et al., 2012; Matthews,
2012). The primary determinant in creating adaptation plans has been
a response to current climate extremes as well as potential future
impacts (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Rosenzweig et al., 2011;
Carmin et al., 2012). The difference in approaches has implications for
a
daptation governance, institutional arrangements, resources, and
stakeholders involvement in the planning and implementation
processes. Understanding how these approaches work merits further
analysis. Enforcing parallel agendas for DRM and CCA runs the risk of
duplicating efforts and resources, creating competing actions and
potential conflicts with unintended negative consequences, including
maladaptation. Institutional arrangements would need to bridge the
divide between CCA and DRM, particularly in terms of legislation,
operational and management structures, working agendas, and time
horizons (Schipper and Pelling, 2006; Birkmann and Teichman, 2010;
Falaleeva et al., 2011).
15.2.2. Adaptation Implementation
There is a minority of academic literature that provides information on
the implementation of adaptation plans, in contrast with the large
accumulation of literature that discusses concepts, strategies, and plans
of adaptation. Projects and cases of adaptation, including those
implemented, are presented mainly in reports from international
organizations, multilateral development organizations, national and
subnational governments, and NGOs (e.g., UNFCCC, 2011; Mullan,
2013). In addition, the sectoral and regional chapters in this report have
segments that discuss adaptation planning and implementation and
that provide an additional database of sectors and practices. Therefore,
this section assesses the status of adaptation implementation based on
these chapters in addition to other literature.
Adaptation practices reflected in the WGII AR5 include agriculture,
public health for heat-related risks, disaster risk reduction, water resources,
coasts, and urban areas, among others. Options and approaches used
in implementation vary widely, ranging from traditional and existing to
new and innovative measures. For example, farmers have been adapting
to climate change worldwide, and current common practices include
altering sowing times, crop cultivars and species, or irrigation and fertilizer
control (Fujisawa and Koyabashi, 2010; Lasco et al., 2011; Olesen et al.,
2011); reduced tillage practices; and technical measures to more
effectively capture rainwater and reduce soil erosion (Thomas et al.,
2007; Marongwe et al., 2011; see also Sections 7.5.1, 22.4.5.7, 23.4.1,
24.4.4.5, 27.3.4.2). These have proven to be effective in many cases,
while some measures faced other problems; for example, earlier sowing
is often prevented by lack of soil workability and frost-induced soil
crumbling (Oort, 2012). Furthermore, simple options such as changes
in sowing and harvesting dates may become less successful in a more
variable climate (Moriondo et al., 2010; see also Section 23.4.1).
Adaptation in agriculture is also linked with water management.
Adaptation to water scarcity can be improved by taking into account a
set of agronomic practices and irrigation such as deficit irrigation
(Geerts and Raes, 2009; see also Section 27.3.4.2). For public health for
heat-related risks, major approaches are developing early warning
systems and air pollution control. According to Chapter 11 on Human
Health, some studies report that heat wave early warning systems are
effective to reduce heat-related mortality, resulting in fewer deaths
during heat waves after implementation of the system (e.g., Ebi et al.,
2004; Tan et al., 2007; Fouillet et al., 2008). A national assessment
attributed the lower death toll to greater public awareness of the health
risks of heat, improved health care facilities, and the introduction in
2004 of a heat wave early warning system (Fouillet et al., 2008; see also
Section 11.7.3).
Mullan (2013) indicated that implementation of adaptation plans are
still at an early stage despite the rapid development of strategies and
plans that have occurred in OECD countries. In many sectors, adaptation
to both environmental conditions and climate change includes
accumulating traditional experience and knowledge for adaptation.
Furthermore, each country has also developed its own policies and
options to prevent, cope with, mitigate, and utilize various environmental
changes. As the occurring adaptive actions are usually based on such
existing knowledge and options, they are incremental. Research has
shown that local governments that have started implementing
adaptation plans mostly tend to adopt a reactive or event-driven
approach to adaptation relying on technical measures. Often the focus
is on climate variability and current weather extremes rather than long-
term climate change(Næss et al., 2005; Tompkins, 2005; Wall and
Marzall, 2006; Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Blanco and
Alberti, 2009; Amundsen et al., 2010; Glaas et al., 2010; Anguelovsky
and Carmin, 2011; Measham et al., 2011; Preston et al., 2011; Dannevig
et al., 2012; Romero-Lankao et al., 2012; Runhaar et al., 2012). Climate
adaptation efforts reported on at present are often piecemeal and
fragmented approaches, dealing with partial solutions and approaches
to climate adaptation, rather than more full-scale implementation
(Granberg and Elander, 2007; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Bulkeley et al.,
2009; Amundsen et al., 2010; Burch, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Preston
et al., 2011; Dannevig et al., 2012; Mees et al., 2012; Romero-Lankao,
2012; Runhaar et al., 2012). In many cases, these practices have been
embedded in existing policies, and thus not necessarily framed or made
visible as climate adaptation actions (Tompkins et al., 2010; Berrang-
Ford et al., 2011; see Box 25-5). It should be noted that several of these
reports on local climate adaptation actions have been taking place
without explicit regulative demands for climate adaptation.
A particular challenge is implementation of local and short-term
decisions in the context of long-term climate information. Improving
the use of climate risk information across time scales, especially in the
context of early warning systems, has helped bridge these gaps (van
Aalst, 2009; IPCC, 2012; Pulwarty and Verdin, 2013). Independent from
the growing attention for extremes in CCA, there has also been a shift
in disaster risk management policy and practice, aiming to shift the
balance of attention and expenditure from disaster response and
reconstruction to disaster risk reduction and building resilience (not
limited to climate-related extreme events).
There is growing awareness of the need for ecosystem-based, institutional,
and social measures, although engineered and technological adaptation
options are the most common adaptive responses (see Box CC-EA). A
feature captured in WGII AR5 is that integrated approaches have been
pursued in many areas such as integrated water resource management
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
878
and integrated coastal management (see Table 3-3; Sections 8.3.3.4
and 23.7.2 for water; Section 5.5.4 for coasts). These integrated policies
aim at addressing multiple objectives including CCA, development, and
disaster risk reduction. For example, the U.S. Water Utilities Climate
Alliance (WUCA, 2010) provides a comprehensive overview of ways of
delivering water management which incorporates climate change and its
uncertainty. Climate change has been incorporated into water resources
planning in England and Wales (Arnell, 2011; Wade et al., 2013) and in
the Netherlands (de Graaff et al., 2009). Guidance has been also
d
eveloped on the inclusion of adaptation in water management (UNECE,
2009) and river basin management plans (EC, 2009b; see also Section
23.7.2). Many sectors promote adaptive management in CCA to improve
flexibility in its implementation.
Targets of early adaptation are focused on capacity building within
governments and communities. These important first steps include
increasing awareness of the risk of climate change, access to scientific
information, development of common goals, and creation of operational
institutions, which are important premises for adaptation. Capacity
building itself is often a target of adaptation implementation, particularly
in developing countries (e.g., van Aalst et al., 2008; Simões et al., 2010;
UNFCCC, 2013; see Table 15-1 for capacity building cases). There are
many factors to promote or hinder the implementation of adaptation;
Table 15-2 provides examples where the drivers and motivations for
transition to implementation are highlighted. Section 15.5 provides an
analysis of the role of institutional dimensions for both planning and
implementation of adaptation.
15.2.3. Financing for Adaptation
Adapting to the impacts of climate change requires the mobilization of
a significant amount of funding for adaptation measures in a wide
range of sectors. A number of studies suggest that the annual amount
of adaptation funding needed by developing countries by 2030 is on
the order of several tens of billions of dollars (e.g., UNFCCC, 2007;
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 15.2 | What types of approaches are being used
in adaptation planning and implementation?
Adaptations employ a diverse portfolio of planning and practices that combine subsets of:
Infrastructure and asset development
Technological process optimization
Institutional and behavioral change or reinforcement
Integrated natural resources management (such as for watersheds and coastal zones)
Financial services, including risk transfer
Information systems to support early warning and proactive planning.
Although approaches vary according to context and the level of government, there are two general approaches
observed in adaptation planning and implementation to date: top-down and bottom-up. Top-down approaches
are scenario-driven and consist of localizing climate projections, impact and vulnerability assessments, and formulation
of strategies and options. National governments often take this approach. National adaptation strategies are
increasingly integrated with other policies, such as disaster risk management. These tendencies lead to adaptation
mainstreaming, although there are various institutional barriers to this process. As the consideration of the social
dimensions of climate change adaptation has attracted more attention, there has been an increased emphasis on
addressing the needs of the groups most vulnerable to climate change, such as children, the elderly, disabled, and
poor. Bottom-up approaches are needs driven and include approaches such as community-based adaptation (CBA).
CBA is often prominent in developing countries, but communities in developed countries also use this approach.
Where a combination of top-down and bottom-up activities has been undertaken, the links between adaptation
planning and implementation have been strengthened. In either approach, participation by a broad spectrum of
stakeholders and close collaboration between research and management have been emphasized as important
mechanisms to undertake and inform adaptation planning and implementation.
Local governments and actors may face difficulties in identifying the most suitable and efficient approaches because
of the diversity of possible approaches, from infrastructure development to “softer” approaches such as integrated
watershed and coastal zone management. National and subnational governments play coordinating roles in
providing support and developing standards and implementation guidance. Therefore, multilevel institutional
coordination between different political and administrative levels is a crucial mechanism for promoting adaptation
planning and implementation.
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
879
Continued next page
Scale What is being implemented and why
Transition from planning to
implementation
Monitoring and evaluation
V
illage of Kaslo
(
British Columbia)
and surrounding
u
nincorporated
rural areas
(
Regional District
of Central
Kootenay (RDCK)
E
lectoral Area D).
Implemented
2
010 2012.
(Kaslo and
Regional District
o
f Central
Kootenay
P
artnership,
2010)
T
he Village of Kaslo and RDCK Electoral Area
D
developed a Climate Adaptation Action Plan
and identifi ed water supply as a key community
v
ulnerability related to projected climate change.
Action plan noted that current demand for water
a
lmost equaled supply and observed the very limited
d
ata on water supply for creeks that supply water for
the community.
T
he Village of Kaslo and RDCK Electoral Area D
b
rought in experts in fi elds related to climate change
impacts and involved extensive public outreach and
e
ngagement.
Adaptation planning process identifi ed projected
c
hanges in stream freshet and stream fl ows associated
w
ith climate change could result in insuffi cient water
supply.
C
ommunity leaders working through the Kaslo and
District Community Forest Society sought funds
t
o establish stream fl ow monitoring stations and
developed a monitoring framework on key creeks to
track changes in fl ows providing water to communities
w
ithin Kaslo and RDCK Area.
The Columbia Basin Trust contributed funding to this
e
ffort as part of follow-up to its support of the initial
climate change planning process.
M
onitoring and evaluation performed by Columbia
B
asin Trust’s Communities Adapting to Climate
Change Initiative.
E
lectoral Area D Advisory Planning Commission
monitors the implementation of action
r
ecommendations.
N
ational
Framework on
Local Adaptation
P
lans for Action
(LAPAs), Nepal.
I
mplementation
began in 2011.
(
Government of
Nepal, 2011)
N
epal adopted the LAPA in 2011, becoming the
rst country to promote a bottom-up approach
to adaptation planning and implementation. The
N
ational Adaptation Plan for Action and the National
Climate Change Policy state that at least 80% of the
available budget will go toward directly implementing
a
daptation actions at the local level. To date, 70 LAPAs
have been prepared (69 at the village administrative
s
cale and 1 within a municipality) and are under
implementation by vulnerable communities.
P
olicy makers recognized the need to integrate local
and context specifi c adaptation plans into local to
national adaptation planning as a way to ensure
r
obust climate change adaptation planning and
implementation.
T
he Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
and the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local
Development played a leadership role at the
c
entral level in coordinating the development and
implementation of LAPAs.
M
onitoring and evaluation play key roles in supporting
iterative planning.
Financial arrangements play a key role in integrating
l
ocal adaptation options into development planning
processes.
A
daptation investments are being costed and
integrated into annual and medium-term budget
f
rameworks and resource mobilization strategies.
Nepal’s budget for fi scal year 2013 / 14 has included
Climate Change Financing Code, and of the total
budget, 5.36% is directly related to climate change
nancing.
Local
government, the
Albay Province,
Philippines.
Implementation
began in 2008.
(Lasco et al.,
2009)
The Albay Declaration on Climate Change Adaptation
specifi ed mainstreaming climate change into local and
national development policies. The Albay Integrated
Agricultural Rehabilitation Program established
farm clusters to assist farmers and fi sher folk in their
agricultural, food, technological, and training needs.
Program planning began in December 2006 after
Typhoon Reming’s devastation. The plan prevents
scarcity of agricultural commodities, accelerates food
production, pump-primes the agricultural industry in
the province, and speeds up rehabilitation of upland
agricultural areas in Albay.
The provincial government of Albay established
the Center for Initiatives and Research on Climate
Adaptation in 2008, a living research and training
institution in collaboration with the Environment
Management Bureau, World Agroforestry Centre,
Bicol University, and the University of the Philippines
Los Baños. Local champions such as the Governor
committed time and resources to put climate change
on the provincial agenda and also on the national
development and policy agenda, addressing the needs
of farmers and fi sher folk.
Main mechanism for institutional and stakeholder
collaboration is through the Inter-Agency Committee
on Climate Change Philippine Senate Resolution
No.191, passed during 14th Congress, 1st regular
session, adopting the Albay Declaration on Climate
Change Adaptation as a framework.
Mainstreaming of global warming concerns gives a
voice to the Albay Declaration in Congress and directly
encourages policymakers to mainstream climate
change in policymaking; and indicators measure a
cleaner environment for the community, improvement
of infrastructure development plans, land
d e v e l o p m e n t / c o n v e r s i o n a c t i v i t i e s , institutionalization
of pre-planning, enhanced implementation, and
enhanced monitoring and evaluation.
Pilot Program
on Climate
Resilience (PPCR),
2009.
(CIF, 2012; PPCR,
2013)
Phase I (planning): supported by multilateral
development bank partners, in 2 years a strategic plan
was developed consistent with national development
objectives.
Phase II (implementation): countries defi ne
“transformational change” in the context of their
national circumstances.
Scaling up potential of successful pilots (e.g., use of
good practices in Bangladesh).
Addressing basic needs (e.g., food security in Niger).
Mobilization of large-scale resources for investments
(e.g., coastal highways in Samoa).
Country leadership capacity dependent on experience
with integrating climate change into planning
activities, institutional and human capacities, and need
to respond to emergencies. Recent climate extreme
related disasters have affected development.
The capacity of countries to take on a leadership role
depended on their prior experience with integrating
climate change considerations into planning activities,
their institutional and human capacities, and their
demands to respond to other emergencies. The
strategic plans drew on National Adaptation Plans
for Action, national climate change strategies (if they
existed), and national development strategies and
plans.
Lead agency roles assigned to planning or fi nance
ministries (e.g., Zambia, Samoa) or environment-
related ministries (e.g., Bangladesh).
Disaster risk management units included.
Coordinate the work of donors and /or leverage non-
PPCR resources. For example, Cambodia and Zambia
have leveraged co-fi nancing from the International
Fund for Agricultural Development and the Nordic
Development Fund, respectively.
The framework includes fi ve core indicators designed
to measure outcomes at the country level, aggregated
from individual PPCR components. These are (1)
number of people supported by the PPCR to manage
the effects of climate change; (2) degree of integration
of climate change in national, including sector,
planning; (3) extent to which vulnerable households,
communities, businesses, and public sector services
use improved PPCR-supported tools, instruments,
strategies, and activities to respond to climate
vulnerability and climate change; (4) evidence of
strengthened government capacity and coordination
mechanisms to mainstream climate resilience; and
(5) quality of and extent to which climate-responsive
instruments / investment models are developed and
tested. All of the core indicators address gender issues
either directly or indirectly.
Table 15-2 | Transition from planning to implementation.
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
880
World Bank, 2010; Smith et al., 2013). However, the annual costs could
potentially range into the hundreds of billions of dollars (Parry et al.,
2009). The differences between these estimates highlight the high degree
of uncertainty in how they are derived. Key factors that contribute to this
uncertainty include differences in the sets of sectors that are included in
the analyses and the analytical methodologies used; uncertainties related
to future climate changes and how best to adapt to them; and the lack
of an agreed on operational definition of adaptation (e.g., Fankhauser
and Burton, 2011; Christiansen et al., 2012; Naidoo et al., 2012; Smith
et al., 2013).
Adaptation financing broadly refers to resources that are deployed to
support climate-resilient development (World Bank Group, 2011). Funding
for adaptation can be mobilized through a range of international and
domestic, public and private financing mechanisms, and can take various
forms (e.g., loans and grants). Public financing sources are typically used
to support projects in the infrastructure sectors, where returns on
investments (ROIs) are usually less attractive to private investors.
Sources of public financing for adaptation include contributions from
national budgets, multilateral and bilateral development funds, and
UNFCCC operational funds—the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed
Countries Fund, and the Special Climate Change Fund (Christiansen et al.,
2012; Haites and Mwape, 2013; Romani and Stern, 2013). A potentially
key source of future public financing for adaptation is the Green Climate
Fund that was officially designated at the 17th Conference of the Parties
to the UNFCCC in Durban, but is not yet operational.
Examples of ongoing work targeting challenges in priority adaptation
themes in several countries are provided by the Climate Change and
Water Resources program at the Inter-American Development Bank. The
lessons learned from emerging adaptation experiences are, first, that
infrastructure investments (e.g., dams, levees, canals) remain critical for
climate adaptation and reducing vulnerability to climate and weather-
related events; and, second, that infrastructure investments need to be
complemented by previously neglected investments in soft infrastructure
(e.g., watershed management, land use planning and information, and
stakeholder engagement). Efforts are also being supported by other
regional development banks; for example, the Climate Adaptation for
Rural Livelihoods and Agriculture (CARLA) project is supported by the
African Development Bank Group).
Adaptation measures that offer reasonably predictable ROIs that are
comparable to the returns on investments for non-adaptation measures
with similar risk profiles have more opportunities to receive private
financing (Christiansen et al., 2012). The fisheries and agriculture sectors,
where operations are often locally owned, are examples of sectors that
typically draw relatively high proportions of private financing in developing
countries (often from domestic sources). Sources of private financing for
adaptation traditionally include a range of financial institutions, such as
international banks, multinational corporations, private equity and pension
funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds. Charitable
foundations and social investors are also sources of private financing
for adaptation; compared to the financial institutions, these sources are
often more motivated to provide financing for measures that generate
lower ROIs (Christiansen et al., 2012).
Private financing for adaptation is primarily of two types: debt and
equity. Debt-based financing typically consists of loans (e.g., bank loans)
or bonds that must be paid back over time with interest. Equity-based
financing generally involves a transfer of ownership rights through
stocks or other assets. Export credits and foreign direct investment are
two additional potential forms of private financing for adaptation. Export
credits include guarantees, insurance, and other support that can help
make developing country exports more competitive on the global market.
Foreign direct investment is seen as having only limited potential for
adaptation financing because it is highly concentrated in a few sectors
and in a limited number of countries (Christiansen et al., 2012).
In both the public and private arenas, financing for adaptation is
currently substantially less than financing for mitigation. According to
an assessment of the total amount of climate finance available in
2009/2010 by Buchner et al. (2011), financing for mitigation outpaced
financing for adaptation by a ratio of more than 20:1; whereas US$93
billion was provided for mitigation measures, only US$4.4 billion was
directed to adaptation measures. Buchner et al. (2011) also noted that
the vast majority (approximately 90%) of adaptation financing during
Scale What is being implemented and why
Transition from planning to
implementation
Monitoring and evaluation
United Kingdom
N
ational
Adaptation
P
rogramme.
Implemented in
2
012.
(
UK HM
Government,
2
013)
Pursuant to the Climate Change Act 2008, the
C
limate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) 2012 for
the UK brought together the best available evidence,
u
sing a consistent framework to identify the risks
and opportunities related to climate change. The
a
ssessment distilled approximately 700 potential risks
d
own to more than 100 for detailed review. Recent
extreme weather in Britain, such as the fl ooding in the
w
inter of 2012 and the drought of early 2012, brought
i
nto sharp relief the importance of anticipating and
managing weather extremes. Costs of rebuilding and
i
mpacts on essential public services highlighted the
need for implementing preparedness and adaptation.
The Climate Ready Support Service provides direct
s
upport and online information to help organizations
assess their sensitivity to a changing climate and
t
ake steps to manage their climate risks. Through
the Service the Environment Agency is working with
p
artners in priority sectors to provide tailored tools,
g
uidance, and training to enable them to understand
and respond to the challenges of a changing climate.
E
stablished partnerships are with the Met Offi ce, the
L
ocal Government Association, Climate UK, and the
Climate Change Partnerships.
T
he government is also supporting the building of
networks of organizations that may share common
r
isks, e.g., the Infrastructure Operators Adaptation
Forum.
Progress indicators provide iterative measures of
p
rogress to develop the next CCRA:
Process-based markers, such as whether planned
p
olicies have been implemented;
Q
uantitative data, such as statistics on trends in
f
actors that infl uence risks from fl ooding and water
scarcity.
T
hese provide a strong foundation for assessing
overall adaptation in relevant areas.
D
iscussions about the most appropriate framework
are continuing.
T
he Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee
on Climate Change under the Climate Change
A
ct assesses progress toward implementation of
objectives, proposals, and policies highlighted in this
report and the Register of Actions, with assessments
p
ublished in 2015 and every 2 years hence.
Table 15-2 (continued)
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
881
that period came from public sources, primarily bilateral institutions.
Private adaptation financing remains limited owing to market, institutional,
and policy barriers that depress ROIs on these activities (World Bank
Group, 2011). However, public-private partnerships that use public
financing to leverage private investment are currently used to fund
projects in several climate-sensitive sectors, such as infrastructure in the
energy, transport, and water and sewage sectors (World Bank, 2011b;
W
orld Bank Group, 2011). These partnerships are not necessarily focused
on climate adaptation, but can serve as models for future adaptation
projects.
15.3. Strategies and Approaches
15.3.1. Diverse Strategies and Mixed-Portfolio Approaches
Strategies and approaches in adaptation planning and implementation
vary according to context and level of government. National plans assume
a coordinating role in adaptation actions for subnational and local levels
of government, providing policy frameworks that guide decisions at the
subnational level, spurring and coordinating the creation of legal
frameworks, and directing action in key sectors for national development
(Biesbroek et al., 2010; Bierbaum et al., 2013; see also Section 15.2.1).
Subnational governments often have a complementary role to national
governments by reflecting the governance structure in each country
(West and Gawith, 2005; Lemmen et al., 2008; Karl et al., 2009; Pew
Centre on Global Climate Change, 2009). States and provinces in a
number of countries have begun to have an active role in CCA (Dinse
et al., 2009; Staples, 2011; Barsugli et al., 2012; Bierbaum et al., 2013;
Mukheibir et al., 2013).
In contrast, local level strategies are more diverse because climate
change impacts occur locally and adaptation is context dependent. The
scale of community engagement and the approaches used may provide
key elements for the success of adaptation programs (Patt and Schröter,
2008; Ensor and Berger, 2009; Ford et al., 2011; Pelling, 2011; Picketts
et al., 2012). Methodological guidelines for community adaptation plans
and actions fostered by international organizations emphasize strategies
focused on the use of local and traditional knowledge to increase
adaptive capacity at the community level (IFRC et al., 2009; IISD, 2012;
Crane, 2013). Moreover, community adaptation planning has been
strengthened through the use of geographic information systems (GIS),
modeling, climate change scenarios, ecosystem services, and other
scientific research methods applied to foster the ability of the community
to design adaptation (Shaw et al., 2009; Bardsley and Sweeney, 2010;
IAPAD, 2010). Multilateral development agencies recognize the importance
of inclusive approaches for adaptation planning and implementation,
but they tend to focus on strengthening the role of local governments
(USAID, 2007; OECD, 2009; Bizikova, 2010b; UNDP, 2010b; UN-HABITAT,
2011b; World Bank, 2011a; Abbas et al., 2012).
The diversity of approaches for local adaptation fosters opportunities for
creating and strengthening adaptation planning and its implementation.
But local governments and actors can face difficulties in making sense
of such a diversity of approaches and identifying the most suitable and
efficient approaches to follow, as mentioned in Section 15.2.1. Lessons
learned from the DRM experiences illustrate that a lack of coordination
occurs among the strategies taken to reduce the risk of disaster at the
local level (ISDR et al., 2010; ISDR, 2011). Local CCA strategies can face
similar problems. To be effective, local governments and actors critically
identify, select, and combine the strengths of diverse approaches. The
coordinating role of national and subnational governments can provide
support in this direction. However, multilevel institutional coordination
between different political and administrative levels in society can be
an institutional barrier to planning and implementation in developed
and developing countries (Few et al., 2007b; Urwin and Jordan, 2008;
C
orfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Keskitalo, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Measham
et al., 2011; Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Sietz et al., 2011; Rodima-Taylor
et al., 2012; Nilsson et al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013). There appear
to be few national guidelines to assist local governments in selecting
relevant approaches (Storbjörk, 2007; Glaas et al., 2010; Mozumder et
al., 2011; Adhikari and Taylor, 2012; Carmin et al., 2012; Hedensted Lund
et al., 2012; Peach Brown et al., 2013). Similar barriers have been
reported in DRM (ISDR et al., 2010; ISDR, 2011). A combination of top-
down and bottom-up activities may strengthen local adaptation planning
and implementation (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2009;
Preston et al., 2013). Connecting adaptation planning strategies and
local development needs and plans (USAID, 2007; OECD, 2009; Bizikova
et al., 2010b; UNDP, 2010a; UN-HABITAT, 2011b; World Bank, 2011a;
Abbas et al., 2012) and the use of low-regret strategies can also support
local adaptation strategies and their implementation (Hallegatte, 2009;
UNDP, 2010a).
15.3.2. Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management
The UN Hyogo Convention (2005–2015) has fostered the creation of a
significant number of disaster risk management (DRM) plans and actions
at the national and local level in developed and developing countries
(ISDR, 2011). The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
(IPCC, 2012) highlighted the complementary aspects and differences
between DRM and CCA. Measures that provide benefits under current
climate and a range of future climate change scenarios, called low-
regrets measures, have been identified as starting points for addressing
projected trends in exposure, vulnerability, and climate extremes in
national and regional adaptation plans (see Section 8.3.2.2). These
measures have the potential to offer benefits now and lay the foundation
for addressing projected changes. Furthermore, the evaluation of DRM
implementation helps to strengthen CCA because climate change impacts
and DRM are key elements of adaptation and have a prominent role in
these early stages of CCA (Few et al., 2007b; Hofstede, 2008; Mitchell
et al., 2010; Garrelts and Lange, 2011; Harries and Penning-Rowsell,
2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Rumbach and Kudva, 2011; Etkin et al.,
2012; IPCC, 2012).
DRM includes managing hazards from extreme weather events and
helps communities to deal with the uncertainty of climate change
(Mitchell et al., 2010). On the other hand, disaster risk management
strategies often fail to account for the differing spectrum of threats, and
time and spatial scales needed to address the root causes of climate
change vulnerability and open opportunities for CCA (Etkin et al., 2012).
Proponents of merging DRM with CCA stress the mutual benefits of this
approach. They also note that, currently, CCA and disaster risk reduction
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
882
are within separate agencies, although they share similar objectives and
challenges that can duplicate efforts if there is not an effort towards
better coordination and integration (USAID, 2007; IFRC et al., 2009;
Bizikova et al., 2010a; UNDP, 2010b; UN-HABITAT, 2011b; Abbas et al.,
2012; EIRD, 2012; Turnbull and Turvill, 2012).
Current institutional structure and operation cultures are not congruent
with the need for multidimensional approaches for DRM at the national
and local level in a number of countries (ISDR et al., 2010; ISDR, 2011).
T
his chapter identified similar institutional barriers in adaptation planning
and implementation discussed in Section 15.5.1.2 (Few et al., 2007b;
Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Keskitalo, 2009;
Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Measham et al., 2011; Robinson and Berkes, 2011;
Sietz et al., 2011; Nilsson et al., 2012; Rodima-Taylor et al., 2012; Glaas
and Juhola, 2013). Addressing these institutional barriers in DRM and
CCA jointly can help create more efficient and effective strategies and
actions to adapt to short-, middle-, and long-term climate impacts.
Planning has been highlighted as key tool for DRM and adaptation but
it requires also transformations in its operational structure and practices
to fulfill this role (Wilson, 2006; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Roberts, 2010;
Preston et al., 2011; Carmin et al., 2012; Mathew et al., 2012; Rodima-
Taylor et al., 2012; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012).
DRM experiences reveal the importance of linking development and
disaster risk prevention and reduction. Strengthening the integration of
CCA with development has been also suggested (Lemos et al., 2007;
Ewing et al., 2008; Hodson and Marvin, 2009; Hardee and Mutunga, 2010;
Sietz et al., 2011). Connecting DRM and CCA to existing development
pressures, agendas, policies, governance structures, and communitywelfare
can help reduce the risk of unintended consequences of adaptation.
DRM would also facilitate the support and acceptance of adaptation
by decision makers and stakeholders at the subnational and national
level (Dovers, 2009; Sovacool et al., 2012). Integrating DRM and CCA
with development strategies, policies, plans, actions, and pressures
can help address social vulnerability to climate change while providing
opportunities for adaptation.
National and local efforts in disaster risk reduction recognize the
importance of considering DRM a continuous learning process.
Adaptation to climate change can also be viewed as a continuous
learning process (not a single outcome), requiring regular monitoring
and evaluation, as climatic and socioeconomic conditions change, and
knowledge of the impacts increases (Adger and Barnett, 2009; Hinkel et
al., 2009; Hulme et al., 2009; Preston et al., 2009; Arnell, 2010; Hofmann
et al., 2011). Considering DRM and CCA learning processes assists in
creating integrated approaches for national and local development
strategies and plans. The process can also attend to intersecting social
processes and help alleviate differing vulnerabilities that result from
inequalities in socioeconomic status, income, and exposure to climate risks.
Lessons from DRM highlight the importance of participatory approaches
and the use of local knowledge in the design and implementation of
disaster risk prevention and reduction and CCA (Few et al., 2007b; van
Aalst et al., 2008; ISDR et al., 2010; UNDP, 2010b; EIRD, 2012). By the
same token, local knowledge-based adaptation is primarily focused on
the use of traditional knowledge to increase adaptive capacity at the
community level (see Table 15-1 for examples). Local knowledge often
highlights vulnerabilities and impacts that may not be well known
owing to the close interactions between climatic and non-climatic
stressors associated with structural inequalities to vulnerability in societies
(exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) (Majule et al., 2013).
Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches and using low-regret
strategies and actions in DRM and in adaptation planning and
implementation increase climate resilience, improve livelihoods, reduce
development pressures, and strengthen economic and social well-being
(Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Hallegatte, 2009; Bizikova et al., 2010b;
U
NDP, 2010b). It can also help alleviate the concerns of limiting the
effectiveness of policy interventions, as mentioned in Section 15.2.1.
15.3.3. Adaptation and Development
Discussions of the relationships between sustainable development and
climate change have increased over the past decades (Cohen et al.,
1998; Yohe et al., 2007; Bizikova et al., 2010a). As impacts of climate
change hinder the achievement of development goals at all scales,
O’Brien et al. (2012) emphasize that disaster risk management is
increasingly considered as one of the frontlines of adaptation, and a
promising arena for mainstreaming or integrating climate change
adaptation into sustainable development planning. In many cases, the
most attractive adaptation actions are also those that offer development
benefits in the near term, as well as reductions of vulnerabilities in the
longer term (Agrawala, 2005; Klein et al., 2007; McGray et al., 2007;
Hallegatte, 2008; NRC, 2010). In developing countries, adaptation has
been embedded in the development context in NAPAs and national
adaptation strategies.
Attention to the social dimensions of adaptation, including rates of
change in social conditions, in part of the literature coincides with the
interest of international organization and scholars in the relationship
between adaptation planning and implementation and development
(UNDP, 2004; Lemos et al., 2007; Dovers, 2009; OECD, 2009; Stringer et al.,
2009; Bizikova et al., 2010b; UN-HABITAT, 2011b). The literature supports
the standing contention that adaptation takes place as a response not
just to climate change but also to multiple stresses (Adger et al., 2005;
Thomas and Twyman, 2005). Linking existing policy, agendas, knowledge,
risks, and issues communities already face with adaptation planning
can help reduce the unintended consequences of adaptation (Dovers,
2009). The importance of climate change adaptation is also influenced
by how the issue is framed. For example, to the extent that it is viewed
as a public safety issue or a development issue, it may have greater
resonance within local government (Measham et al., 2010). Other authors
consider integrating local knowledge and experience, including
households, into multidimensional and multiscale approaches to guide
the construction of adaptation responses to climate change, and integrate
them with development strategies (Ewing et al., 2008; Moser and
Satterthwaite, 2008; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Hodson and Marvin, 2009).
Other literatures emphasize the role of planning as a switchboard for
adaptation and development (Füssel, 2007; Hallegatte, 2009; Preston
et al., 2011). This might require systemic changes to enable planning
approaches capable of managing complexity and uncertainty, and
multidimensional and multilevel coordination (Pahl-Wostl, 2009;
Tompkins et al., 2010; Huntjens et al., 2011, 2012).
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
883
15.4. Tools Used for Decision Making,
Planning, and Implementation
15.4.1. Decision Support Tools
A feature of adaptation planning is decision making under uncertainty.
There is a large body of literature that examines how to integrate uncertain
information into decision-making processes and use this information
to evaluate the significance of uncertainties for decision outcomes.
Treatment of uncertainty is dealt with in Section 2.3.1. Adaptation
decision making is informed by various tools present in both top-down
and bottom-up forms. Top-down tools often include downscaled simulated
climate scenarios for regional level projections, accompanied by expert
opinions. These are applied using multi-criteria optimization methods,
evaluation of feasibility that may include cost effectiveness such as cost-
benefit analyses, and assessment of potential impact severity (Carter
et al., 1994; IPCC-TGICA, 2007; Adger et al., 2009a,b; see also Sections
5.5.3, 9.4.2). In the bottom-up approach, those affected or at risk
examine their own impacts and vulnerabilities and incorporate adaptive
options for the appropriate sector or community. Stakeholders may
organize social and institutional activities in the light of actions and
interactions among those engaged in the process. Advances in stakeholder
participatory methods have significantly enhanced the development of
this type of decision-making tool in recent years (Epstein and Axtell, 1996;
Wolfram, 2002; Kaner et al., 2007; see also Section 2.4.4).
No single tool suits all circumstances of adaptation decision making,
although information development tools such as Community-based Risk
Screening Tool-Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL) can manage diverse
vulnerabilities and risks (IISD, 2012). By outlining the problems and the
available inputs to the adaptation decision process, this tool may
provide a suitable option (Gimblett, 2002). IPCC (2012) notes there are
distinct differences in problem orientation and solution space depending
on whether an adaptation plan commences with climate modeling
outputs versus that of a risk- and vulnerability-based framework.
15.4.2. Tools for Planning
Uncertainties in climate change, coupled with the complexities of social-
ecological systems, require a dynamic approach to adaptation planning
and implementation. Knowledge about climate change risks from various
stakeholders and organizations is an essential resource for adaptation
planning. Multidisciplinary efforts, some of which are discussed below,
have engaged in development, assessment, and communication of
climate information and risks across different time scales.
15.4.2.1. Monitoring, Modeling, and Spatially Integrated Tools
Integration of monitoring and/or modeling systems with the techniques
of GIS can strengthen adaptation planning and implementation. The
complex, multiscale, interdisciplinary nature of climate change impacts
on socio-ecological systems has made the computer-based modeling
approach a tool for understanding the evolving processes and future
conditions (Alter, 2004; Pyke et al., 2007). These include remote-sensing
and global positioning systems and discussion support or a dynamic
dialog between researchers and practitioners. As a result, much more
powerful, process-visual, and spatially implicit decision-support systems
have been developed. One example is the development of the Invasive
Species Forecasting System (ISFS) (Stohlgren et al., 2005) that combines
USGS science and NASA Earth observations with software engineering
to provide regional-scale patterns of invasive species and vulnerable
habitats. Similarly, in the Yellow River, the second largest drainage basin
of China, low-flow seasons caused the lower channel to dry up and
forced governments to develop a basin-scale decision-support system
(
Li and Li, 2009). The European Spatial Planning Adapting to Climate
Events Project (ESPACE) asserts that urban planning contributes to
adaptive efforts by utilizing tools for adaptation through both
conventional and green infrastructure and design (porous surfacing,
green roofs, etc.) (ESPACE, 2008).
15.4.2.2. Communication Tools
There are a wide range of communication tools that can play an important
role in adaptation implementation. These tools include brochures,
bulletins, posters, magazines, policy briefs, videos, TV and radio
broadcasts, Internet, and many more that are being employed to carry out
participatory dialogs. These provide avenues for communication among
information developers (e.g., scientists, trainers, project implementers,
government agencies, etc.) and community members, groups at risk,
etc., who also influence the nature of information disseminated. At the
local level, interactive strategies include theater, role-playing, music,
learning-by-doing, and hands-on exercises. There are also group
discussions of community members to debate climate risks and possible
solutions to cope with impacts that positively affect behavior and
practices. Reports, concept notes, brochures, magazines, presentations,
and workshops provide more effective tools to communicate with policy
makers at local and national levels. At the country/regional level, broad
dissemination channels such as TV, radio and internet broadcast, blogs,
and high-level summits have been effective in creating widespread
awareness, as demonstrated in the Advancing Capacity for Climate
Change Adaptation (ACCCA) project (http://www.acccaproject.org/
accca/), UK Climate Impacts Program (UKCIP; Pringle, 2011), and the
SREX report (IPCC, 2012).
To assist the syntheses, a variety of rule- or matrix-based methods have
been applied for screening adaptation options such as relative cost
effectiveness of alternative adaptation measures (Benioff and Warren,
1996), and for adaptive opportunities for coastal zone management
(Uljee et al., 1999). Greater emphasis on user interaction, sensitivity
analysis, and capabilities currently provides more effective visualization
and customized reports (Sarewitz et al., 2000; Sarewitz, 2004). Multi-
criterion and multi-actor participatory approaches allow users to
consider alternative adaptation strategies and evaluate trade-offs,
typically in the development of tools for environmental assessment and
management (Julius and Scheraga, 2000).
15.4.2.3. Early Warning and Information Systems
Monitoring and early warning systems (EWS) have long played important
roles in helping in adjustment and adaptation especially on the local
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
884
scale. The disaster research community has shown that successful
warnings of impending events are those that are complemented by
information on the risks actually posed by the hazards and by potential
strategies and pathways to mitigate damage within a particular context
(Drabek, 1999; UNISDR, 2006). The use of climate data analyses and
projections in early warning and information systems is an important
and established mechanism to inform disaster risk mitigation (Pulwarty
and Verdin, 2013) or climate-related health risks (see Section 11.7.3). It
helps to ensure the link between generation and application of climate
knowledge for management of climate-related risks and CCA. In this
Box 15-1 | Examples of Tools and Measures
Conventional and Green Infrastructure
Large investment has been made on engineered structure to protect coastal areas against climate-related events. In New York
C
ity, infrastructure adaptation strategies to climate change include both hard and soft measures. Hard structures in the New
York City region include seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, bulkheads, and piers, but these have not yet been strengthened and
elevated over time in response to projected rates of sea level rise (Gornitz, 2001). Storm-surge barriers have been recommended
to protect against high water (Aerts et al., 2009; Zimmerman and Faris, 2010). Such barriers are also used in the Thames in
London (UK Environment Agency, 2012; see Box 5-1) and Rotterdam (Aerts et al., 2009). Soft measures involve wetland and
dune restoration, beach nourishment, enhancement, and expanding the Staten Island Bluebelt—a stormwater management
system to other areas (NYCDEP, 2008).
In the Netherlands, during the second half of the 20th century, large structures had been built to protect the coastal area (Kabat
et al., 2009). To keep the country flood-proof over the 21st century, an estimated total cost of implementing a new ambitious
plan is €2.5 to 3.1 billion a year to 2050, representing 0.5% of the current Dutch annual gross domestic product (GDP) (Stive et
al., 2011). The new plan is a paradigm shift that addresses coastal protection “working with nature” and providing “room for
river” instead of only “fighting” the forces of nature with engineered structures.
Development of engineered structures can lead to more greenhouse gas emissions and potential negative impacts on ecosystems
(see Section 5.5.6). On the contrary, green infrastructure (porous surfacing, green roofs, etc.) have been used in parts of Europe
(ESPACE, 2008), Portland, Philadelphia, New York (Foster et al., 2011), London (GLA, 2011), and Quy Nhon in Vietnam (Brown et
al., 2012) (see Section 8.3.3.7).
Use of Information and Communication Technologies
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) can help strengthen the physical preparedness of livelihood systems for
climate change-related events. These can contribute to design of defenses and determination of their optimal location, and
make the livelihood system more robust. GIS technology was applied to foster the ability of the community to deal with climate
change hazards and trends in the Philippines (IAPAD, 2010) and form modeling processes of climate change adaptation that
supported regional stakeholders to develop better protection of key spaces in the landscape (Bardsley and Sweeney, 2010).
Visualization of sea level rise and climate change damage in Delta in British Columbia, Canada, increased awareness of long-
term risks and response challenges to local community, government, and the public (Shaw et al., 2009).
By sharing observations and reflections through ICT tools, users foster new ways of assimilating or translating information,
which can be shared through wider networks, and then influence action, enabling new experiments/practices to take place. This
generation of new and broader learning cycles will in turn strengthen systematic resilience (Ospina and Heeks, 2010). Karanasios
(2011) outlines the range of new and emergent ICTs (e.g., wireless broadband, sensor networks, GIS and Web-based tools)
being applied to climate change issues, and investigates their use in developing countries.
Other Tools
Other tools are being used such as insurance (see Section 8.4.2; Table 10-8), linking CCA to ICZM (Section 5.5.3) or DRR (Section
8.3.2.2), reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (Section 13.3.1.2), using climate change scenarios
(Box 14-1), ecosystem-based adaptation (Box CC-EA, Box 8-2, Section 22.4.5.6, Figure 22-6), and land use (Box 25-10).
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
885
regard, interest in climate services is growing in many countries (see
Section 2.4.1).
EWS includes a diversity of approaches. These range from technological
advances in systems, satellite information, and climate modeling (UNISDR,
2006; Smith et al., 2009; Bierbaum et al., 2013) to local level early warning
based on traditional knowledge needed to develop and inform strategic
r
esponse options in adaptation planning and implementation. Local
knowledge can be complemented with scientific climatic data, research,
and planning tools (GIS, modeling, etc.) to strengthen community-based
monitoring and vulnerability assessment in disaster risk management
and adaptation to climate change (Green and Raygorodetsky, 2010;
Kalanda-Joshua et al., 2011; Newsham and Thomas, 2011; Nakashima
et al., 2012).
Current science and technology do not resolve the uncertainties in
modeling the response of ecosystems to climate change and management
interventions at levels needed for probabilistic early warning. Yet the
need for precise climate information is often overstated (Smith et al.,
2009). The long-standing experience with climate extremes and
variability offers many usable lessons in spite of these uncertainties. The
impacts of climate change will be most strongly felt by populations
vulnerable to changes in the distribution and magnitude of extreme
weather and climate events, as these affect crops, disease outbreaks,
and soil and water quality. The diverse types of EWS in developed and
developing countries are valuable tools that could help societies
develop strategies to cope and adapt to climate-related risks.
15.4.3. Technology Development, Transfer, and Diffusion
Development and diffusion of technologies and management practices
will continue to be critical to many adaptation efforts. While a wide
range of adaptations are possible with current technologies and
management practices, technologies expand the range of adaptation
possibilities by expanding opportunities or reducing costs (Smith et al.,
2009). Technologies related to information collection and diffusion are
particularly important for adaptation planning, including technologies
for data collection and information dissemination during extreme events
and emergencies. Despite remaining uncertainties, technologies to project
climate changes, and identify potential impacts and vulnerabilities, are
frequently seen as precursors to successful adaptation planning.
Developing countries require enhanced access to improved climate
models, but also adaptation planning tools that focus on robustness in
the face of uncertainty (Dessai et al., 2009).
Technology choices can both reduce and exacerbate risk, and their use
in adaptation planning and implementation requires considering their
potential effects (Jonkman et al., 2010). For example, technologies can
strengthen physical infrastructure, such as bridges and buildings, so that
they can withstand more extreme hazards. However, relatively centralized
high-technology systems increase efficiency under normal conditions
but risk cascading malfunctions in the event of emergencies. In some
circumstances, technologies to reduce short-term risk and vulnerability
contribute to increased future vulnerability to larger extreme events
(Etkin, 1999; Moser, 2010). This was seen in the impacts of Hurricane
Katrina on New Orleans, where a flood defense system enabling
construction in a floodplain was subject to catastrophic failure in the
face of a particularly large extreme event (Freudenburg et al., 2008;
Link, 2010).
International efforts for technology transfer have been concentrated in
the UNFCCC framework’s five themes: technology needs and needs
assessments, technology information, enabling environments, capacity
building, and mechanisms for technology transfer. A key project is
developing a technology transfer clearinghouse called TT:CLEAR, and
e
stablishing a Technology Center and Network (UNFCCC, 2012).
However, successful technology transfer requires not only exchange of
technological solutions, but also strengthening policy and regulatory
environments, and capacities to absorb, employ, and improve appropriate
technologies. In both developed and developing countries, multilateral
institutions can support collaboration that engages private interests in
regulatory planning and possibly activities, particularly if ongoing funding
is expected (Tessa and Kurukulasuriya, 2010).
15.4.4. Insurance and Social Protection
Insurance is widely seen as a cost-effective tool for adaptation planning
and implementation for increasing financial resilience, especially when
compared to ex post disaster aid (Warner et al., 2009; Linnerooth-Bayer
et al., 2011). It is in this context that insurance has received the attention
of those planning and managing climate adaptation: IPCC’s SREX report
(IPCC, 2012) recognizes that risk sharing and transfer mechanisms at
local, national, regional, and global scales can increase resilience to
climate extremes, while for slow-onset impacts it is usually considered
unsuitable (Collier et al., 2009). The main question is if and how insurance
products, particularly natural disaster and agricultural cover, can be
designed so that they trigger adaptive behavior. The insurance price
signal is widely considered as the first step in taking risk reduction
measures (Fankhauser et al., 1999), but it does not imply that action
will be taken. In fact those at risk, such as local farmers, may not have
the capacity to act because they lack tools, methods, or financial means.
The role of insurance is also discussed in Section 10.7 in this report.
Many scholars agree on the theoretical potential for insurance to facilitate
climate risk reduction through a wide scale of activities, ranging from
awareness raising and sharing of modeling and risk mapping data and
tools, to providing economic incentives for risk reduction and mandating
adaptation as a condition for granting insurance (Crichton, 2008; Suarez
and Linnerooth-Bayer, 2011; Surminski and Oramas-Dorta, 2011; Paudel,
2012). Evidence of how this is successfully achieved is limited to private
insurance and reinsurance companies, scientists, and governments
aiming at adaptation, most notably through sector initiatives such as
ClimateWise and UNEPFI’s Insurance Working Group (Mills, 2004).
Existing insurance schemes for flooding in the USA (Michel-Kerjan and
Kunreuther, 2011) and the UK (Ball et al., 2013) show the challenges of
fostering risk reduction through insurance. Those two schemes are on
opposite ends of a broad scale—the U.S. National Flood Insurance
Program being a public sector scheme, while the UK’s flood insurance
is provided by a private insurance market. Both systems struggle with
the implementation of risk-based pricing as the guiding principle of
insurance. Picard (2008) highlights the trade-off between effectiveness
of risk based pricing and equity—as those most vulnerable struggle to
15
Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation
886
pay for risk-based premiums. Public-private partnerships may be able
to assist through premium subsidies, or broader collaboration on risk
management, as seen in the case of the UK’s flood insurance.
The use of insurance to manage extreme weather events varies across
the world, with penetration of insurance coverage determined mainly
by income levels (Ranger and Surminski, 2012), with insurance in most
low- and middle-income countries still in its infancy (Churchill, 2007;
Warner et al., 2009). Demand-side limitations include access to and
a
ffordability of coverage, desirability of products, and financial literacy
(Linnerooth-Bayer et al., 2011).
Over the last decade, risk transfer schemes have been developed in low-
income countries, often run as pilot projects between the private sector
and public authorities. Analysis of the existing disaster risk transfer
activities in low- and middle-income countries indicates that the potential
for utilizing risk transfer for risk reduction is far from exhausted, with
only very few schemes showing an operational link between risk transfer
and risk reduction (Surminski and Orama-Dorta, 2011; IPCC, 2012, p.
355). Some innovative efforts are currently being tested to address these
challenges—such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) insurance
scheme in Peru, an index-based forecast insurance that pays out on the
basis of a seasonal forecast, giving policyholders the opportunity to use
the pay-out for preventive measures, such as the purchase of drainage
cleaning machinery or to improve transport infrastructure or adjust cash
flows in anticipation of possible income reduction (GIZ, 2012). A
regional insurance system is also an innovative tool for sharing disaster
risks among participating countries. For example, the Caribbean
Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) was established as a risk
pooling facility, attended by 16 countries, to limit the financial impact
of catastrophic hurricanes and earthquakes to Caribbean governments
by quickly providing short-term liquidity. Another approach is the
agricultural insurance scheme in Sudan, where farmers are required to
adopt more resilient farming practices to gain access to the risk transfer
scheme and the Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation (HARITA)
scheme in Ethiopia (Oxfam, 2009).
There are various adaptation options that target the specific vulnerability
of disadvantaged groups as social options of CCA. Social protection
programs include public and private initiatives that transfer income or
assets to poor people, protect against livelihood risks, and raise the social
status and rights of the marginalized (see Glossary). The roles of social
protection in CCA are discussed in Section 14.3.2 and Box 13-2.
15.5. Governance for Adaptation
Planning and Implementation
15.5.1. Institutional Dimensions for
Planning and Implementing Adaptation
15.5.1.1. Importance of Institutional Dimensions
Since the AR4 findings on substantial barriers to mainstreaming adaptation
and suggested research challenges in further understanding adaptation
processes of mainstreaming adaptation (Adger et al., 2007), the academic
literature identifying drivers and barriers to climate adaptation planning
and implementation has increased. A recent review has shown that
more than 200 context-dependent barriers have been identified in 81
peer-review papers, mostly but not exclusively based on small-N inductive
case studies (Biesbroek et al., 2013). The message from the literature is
clear: adaptive capacity signals potential but does not guarantee
adaptive action (O’Brien et al., 2006; Adger and Barnett, 2009; Burch,
2010; Tompkins et al., 2010). While there is growing recognition that
adaptation planning is essential (Ayers and Huq, 2009; Wilbanks and
Kates, 2010; Ford et al., 2011), research reporting on planning and
i
mplementation has increased appreciation of the magnitude of the
institutional dimension for limiting or enabling the mainstreaming of
climate adaptation (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Berkhout, 2012; Biesbroek
et al., 2013). Several studies, in different settings, for example, river
basin management in Brazil (Engle and Lemos, 2010), municipalities in
Canada (Burch, 2010) and Australia (Measham et al., 2011), villages in
Western Nepal (Jones and Boyd, 2011), and pastoralist groups in Kenya
(Eriksen and Lind, 2009; Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Adhikari and Taylor,
2012), illustrate such difficulties. Adaptation studies, targeting specifically
how institutional dimensions limit or enable the mainstreaming of climate
change considerations in policy making, planning, and decision making
at different levels and in different sectors, have grown in number
(Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Koch et al., 2007; Roberts, 2008; Bulkeley et
al., 2009; Engle and Lemos, 2010; Glaas et al., 2010; van den Brink et
al., 2011; Storbjörk and Hedrén, 2011; Huntjens et al., 2012; Termeer et
al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013).
Institutions are composed of tangible formal procedures, laws and
regulations and tacit informal values, norms, traditions, codes, and
conducts that shape expectations and guide actions among actors and
organizations, serving as manifestations of institutions (Ostrom, 1990;
Dovers and Hezri, 2010). Adaptation planning and implementation
follows formal institutions associated with regulations, policies, and
standards created and enforced by government actors but also requires
the participation of informal institutions through interactions among
stakeholders according to cultural, social, and political conditions in
societies (Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Carmin et al., 2012). Chapter
14 describes the importance of these institutional frameworks for adaptive
capacity. Chapter 16 presents a framework for adaptation, opportunities,
and limits, where governance and institutional arrangements are
included. This section assesses the literature on how institutional
dimensions limit or enable adaptation planning and implementation
and what lessons can be learned from these experiences.
15.5.1.2. Institutional Barriers
While the literature clearly states that institutional dimensions may both
enable and limit adaptation planning and implementation, the literature
referred to in Section 15.5.1.1 has so far mostly reported on how current
institutional arrangements restrict the mainstreaming of climate
adaptation. Biesbroek et al. (2013) have stated that although studies
in developed countries are more common and comparative approaches
of institutional dimensions, exploring differences and similarities in
different countries, are rare, institutional dimensions are highlighted for
both developing and developed countries. Low-income developing
countries report on weak institutional environments and middle- and
high-income countries emphasize institutional barriers that prevent the
15
Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15
887
mobilization of adaptive capacity. Barriers in general are seen as
dynamic and context dependent across sectoral, spatial, and temporal
scales, meaning that how a particular institutional barrier operates to
either strengthen or limit adaptation planning and implementation can
vary both between and within countries, depending on case study
locations. Also, the importance and severity of each barrier to the
proposed change supposedly changes over time and interacts with
o
ther constraints (Burch, 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Biesbroek et
al., 2013). Barriers are also shown to differ in different stages of planning
and implementation, for example, initial problem framing and agenda
setting, planning and strategy-making, implementation, monitoring,
and evaluating, which studies have increasingly made clear (Moser and
Ekstrom, 2010; Dannevig et al., 2012; Mees et al., 2012). The following
paragraphs illustrate five of the most commonly emphasized barriers
or enablers of institutional change.
First, the importance of multilevel institutional coordination between
different political and administrative levels in society is increasingly
cited in both developing and developed countries as challenging (Few
et al., 2007a; Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009;
Keskitalo, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Measham et al., 2011; Robinson and
Berkes, 2011; Sietz et al., 2011; Nilsson et al., 2012; Rodima-Taylor et
al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013). Several studies report on unclear
roles and responsibilities between levels and actors inhibiting climate
adaptation. They show that there are few national requirements or
guidelines to help local governments approach climate adaptation,
stressing the importance of developing regulations, policies, and codes
to support the institutionalization of local climate actions (Næss et al.,
2005; Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Glaas et al., 2010;
Mozumder et al., 2011; Adhikari and Taylor, 2012; Carmin et al., 2012;
Hedensted Lund et al., 2012; Peach Brown et al., 2013). Vammen
Larsen et al. (2012) stress that climate change does not possess clear
institutional characteristics as a municipal professional area. Rather, it
is viewed as a void with no clear rules and norms according to which
politics are to be conducted and policy measures agreed on. This has
meant that climate adaptation remains ad hoc and based on processes
of “muddling through in a sense that increases risks of failure (Preston
et al., 2011).
Further, the literature shows that the lack of clear national agendas and
incentives may burden local governments differently, based on their
different capacities (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Juhola and Westerhoff,
2011; Dannevig et al., 2012). Authors have also cautioned against a too
heavy emphasis on national guidance, suggesting that centralized
approaches may in some cases constrain local initiatives and create
unfortunate dependencies. Instead a combination of top-down and
bottom-up activities is proposed where national actors set a proactive
agenda for climate adaptation and support implementation that occurs
at subnational levels (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2009;
Preston et al., 2013). Connected to this question of guidance and
support is also a large strand of research showing that simply producing
more and better knowledge is not sufficient. This illustrates the role of
knowledge-brokers, policy entrepreneurs, and bridging organizations to
communicate and mediate the co-production of knowledge between
science and practice and make climate knowledge consistent and credible
at the appropriate decision-making scale (Tribbia and Moser, 2008;
Amundsen et al., 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Mozumder et al., 2011).
Second, the literature show that key actors, advocates, and champions
are decisive for initiating, mainstreaming, and sustaining momentum for
climate adaptation planning and implementation in different national
settings (Bulkeley et al., 2009; Burch, 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;
Tompkins et al., 2010; Garrelts and Lange, 2011; Runhaar et al., 2012;
Romero-Lankao, 2012). Key actors can be particularly important in the
absence of strong national level policies and strategies (Anguelovski and
Carmin, 2011; Dannevig et al., 2012). Champions further involve actors
in different roles, from junior staff to senior executives and elected
r
epresentatives (Measham et al., 2011). The literature on leadership
has distinguished between different types of leadership, where
visionary leadership means showing direction and motivating others;
entrepreneurial leadership means ability to get things done; and, finally,
collaborative leadership means bridging gaps, spanning boundaries,
and building coalitions (Gupta et al., 2010; van den Brink et al., 2011).
Although there is wide agreement that leaders are key for driving
change, a dependency on personal commitments and dedication of key
individuals may render adaptation planning and implementation fragile
if it takes place at the price of organizational learning (Næss et al., 2005;
Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Storbjörk, 2010).
Third, the horizontal interplay between actors and policies operating at
similar administrative levels is seen as key in institutionalizing climate
adaptation. Several international studies have shown that local
governments and administrations consist of different professional silos
with their own internal norms, values, and priorities and that the
institutional rigidity of existing administrative and political sectors creates
unfortunate compartmentalization where climate adaptation is seen as
the isolated task of a singular sector that may hinder mainstreaming
and horizontal coordination across sectors and departments (Mickwitz
et al., 2009; Burch, 2010; Roberts, 2010; Storbjörk, 2010; Runhaar et al.,
2012; Vammen Larsen et al., 2012; van den Berg and Coenen, 2012;
Wilby and Keenan, 2012). Preston et al. (2011) have determined that
adaptation plans from Australia, the UK, and the USA largely frame
adaptation in a narrow sense overlooking the capacity and institutional
challenges involved in the process of mainstreaming in other sectors.
Institutional rigidity also takes the form of path dependency where past
policies, decisions, habits, and traditions constrain the extent to which
systems can learn or adapt to climate change (Garrelts and Lange, 2011;
Berkhout, 2012; Runhaar et al., 2012; Preston et al., 2013). Some authors
have identified such cultures of reactive management or structu