Richenda Connell UK Climate Impacts Programme

1. Tools for climate risk management: The UKCIP climate adaptation risk framework and the UKCIP adaptation wizard SICCIA, Eibsee Hotel, Grainau, Germany, 30 June 2004 Richenda Connell UK Climate Impacts Programme

2. Outline • Introduction to UKCIP, studies & partnerships • UKCIP/Environment Agency climate adaptation risk management framework: How it works & key principles • Semi-fictional case study: Application of framework to a water resources decision • Prototype UKCIP adaptation wizard

3. UKCIP provides a bridge between decision-makers and climate scientists • ‘The UK Climate Impacts Programme helps organisations assess how they might be affected by climate change, so they can prepare for its impacts’ • UKCIP: • promotes stakeholder-led, problem-oriented research • provides core tools (CC scenarios etc) • provides guidance/advice for partnerships and studies • encourages integrated approaches Note: UKCIP set up for climate change; just beginning to consider ‘climate risks’ more generally • Set up in 1997 • Funded by UK Government Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) • Based at University of Oxford

4. UKCIP includes regional & sectoral studies & partnerships Sectoral: Regional: Nine English Regions Three Devolved Administrations: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland Regional studies provide overview of a range of possible climate impacts. Studies now complete for whole of UK

5. Impact study findings are integrated in key regional planning documents… ‘London’s warming’ scoping study The London Plan (spatial development strategy for Greater London) UKCIP02 climate change scenarios

6. Impact study findings are integrated in key regional planning documents… “The Mayor will and boroughs should assess and develop policies for the likely impacts of climate change on London identified in the work of the London Climate Change Partnership. Policies will be developed in conjunction with the Partnership and addressed in the first review of the London Plan.” (London Plan, 2004)

7. ..but most UK decision-makers have not yet made adaptation decisions • Is adaptation needed? • If adaptation is (perhaps) needed: • How much adaptation? • Choice of adaptation measures? • When to adapt?

8. UKCIP/EA report provides a decision-making framework for managing climate risks • Framework describes process for appraisal and management of risks and uncertainties • Similar to others used for corporate risk management – recognisable to decision-makers • Enables climate risks to be ‘mainstreamed’ within existing processes

9. A framework to support good decision-making in the face of climate risk

10. Stage 1: Identify problem and objectives • Background to problem • Climate sensitive? • Adaptation, influenced, constraining? • Type of decision? • Stakeholders? • Timescales?

11. 1 Need to take a balanced approach to managing climate and non-climate risks

12. 1 Case study: Identify problem and objectives • Silver Birches is a large tree growing business in East of England • Currently relies on mains water to irrigate pot-grown trees • Managing Director is worried about risk of water supply being cut off – even though this has not happened before • This is a climate adaptation problem

13. Receptors and exposure units Risk assessment endpoints Assessment period Project management issues Decision-maker’s objectives Success criteria Legislative requirements or guidance Attitudes to risk - optimistic, precautionary (‘risk averse’), etc Resources Stage 2: Establish decision making criteria

14. 2 Define what makes the correct decision • Need operational criteria for risk assessment and options appraisal • Take account of defined thresholds and risk attitude (optimistic, precautionary/risk averse, least regret)

15. 2 Case study: Establish decision making criteria • Objective: “Business to survive and prosper for next 20 years” • Criteria: Options will be judged against ability to provide secure water supply for next 20 years – consultant to define criteria • Risk attitude: M.D. is very risk averse to water supply loss – trees die in 15 days • Other criteria: Cost, practicality, reliability, feasibility, water quality, flexibility, contingency planning, response of employees, implications for neighbours

16. Case study: Establish decision making criteria Consultant’s recommended trigger point: 5% above lowest 12 month precipitation on record

17. Stage 3: Assess risk • Identify and characterize: • climate and non-climate risk factors (climate variables) • pathways and receptors • Screen and prioritize risks • Describe uncertainties • reducible v. irreducible • explicit assumptions

18. 3 Give appropriate attention to all risks & uncertainties • Climate variables: Which characteristics are important? – magnitude, direction, averaging period, statistical basis. How may these change? • Info on low probability / high consequence events may be most uncertain – but risk assessment may show these are highest risk • Uncertainty in non-climate risks & impact models may be of greater significance than uncertainties over climate hazards • Thresholds-based approach may help focus attention on critical uncertainties

19. Tools for identifying and describing uncertainty should be more widely used (Walker et al. (2003). Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4,(1), 5-17.)

20. Case study: Assess risk Influence diagram

21. Case study: Assess risk SDSM M-H emissions scenario simulated rainfall 2003-2023 Trigger level = 411 mm or 5% above driest year on record (1963 – 2002)

22. Stage 4: Identify options • Types of option (Do nothing?) • Generic adaptation strategies • No/low regret options • Flexible options ‘adaptive management’ • Delay decisions

23. Generic climate risk management options • Use of risk-based policy and project appraisal process and techniques • Delay and buy-time • Research • Monitoring - system performance - climate impact monitoring • Information supply, education, awareness raising • Contingency planning • - low probability, high consequence events • - strategic planning response Proactive Proactive Proactive or Strategic Proactive Reactive Proactive or Reactive Strategic

24. Diversification or bet-hedging • Technical or policy • Insurance – financial • Defend and manage • Change of use • planning response +/- technical measures • Retreat and abandon • strategic planning response • Safety factors, climate headroom, buffering measures • technical and regulatory response Generic climate risk management options Proactive Proactive Proactive or Reactive Proactive Reactive Proactive or Reactive Proactive, Strategic

25. 5 4 Adaptive management is recommended when dealing with uncertainty • Useful for decision-makers to keep open / increase options that allow climate adaptation in future, when need for adaptation and performance of different measures is less uncertain • Circular, iterative framework promotes adaptive management • Avoid implementing adaptation constraining decisions

26. Do nothing: Current management practice Mains water supply to trees Case study: Identify options • Do nothing • Diversify water supply / investigate other water supply options • Try contract with water supply company to guarantee minimum supply • Move or change business • Change crop type • Contract out tree growing • Water recycling • Joint venture with neighbours to develop alternative supplies • Insurance

27. Mains water supply to trees Reservoir to trees half full (18,000 m3) Drain to reservoir Adaptation option 1: Infrastructural strategy Build reservoir & abstract 7,200m3 per month from drain to reservoir Keep reservoir half full (18,000 m3) in case water supply is cut during drought event

28. Mains water supply to trees Mains water supply to reservoir Reservoir to trees Drain to reservoir Adaptation option 2: Informational strategy Build reservoir & abstract 7,200m3 per month from drain to reservoir Use all available reservoir storage - do not reserve any capacity Monitor rainfall against 411mm trigger level When trigger reached, immediately buy enough supply from mains supplier to meet needs for next 2 months

29. Stage 5: Appraise options • Assess performance against decision-making criteria • Sensitivity of options to uncertainty • Implementation risks

30. Runs out of water in May Stage 5: Appraise Options Performance of infrastructural strategy Reservoir storage for use during drought event/ mains supply cut off Assume mains water supply cut 1 September

31. Runs out of water in June Stage 5: Appraise Options Performance of informational strategy £153,000 cheaper than infrastructural strategy over 20 yrs Rainfall trigger reached Assume mains water supply cut 1 September

32. Stage 6: Make decision • Preferred option? • Appropriate problem definition and decision criteria? • Decision robust to uncertainty? • Confirm attitude to climate risks

33. Large Actual importance of factors Moderate Significance of climate risk factors Perceived importance of factors None Large Moderate None Significance of non-climate risk factors Significance of non-climate risk factors Under-adaptation Decision risks - Under-adaptation

34. Large Perceived importance of factors Moderate Over-adaptation Significance of climate risk factors Actual importance of factors None Large Moderate None Significance of non-climate risk factors Decision risks - Over-adaptation

35. Case study: Make decision • Both reservoir management options do well, but fail eventually during very prolonged drought • But informational strategy has cost benefit • Other considerations: • Building reservoir will require abstraction licence • Use of reservoir will have implications for others • Other options that could be explored include: • Build a bigger reservoir • Contract with water company • Note: Not all uncertainties addressed

36. Stage 7/8: Implement decision/ Monitor, evaluate review

37. Case study: Implement decision/Monitor, evaluate review • M.D. should monitor • 12-month running total rainfall (informational strategy) • Use of mains water supply • Business growth • Number of trees • New information on climate risks • Water company supply agreements and pricing policy

38. Applications of the framework thus far • ‘Designing for thermal comfort in a 21st century climate’ (Ove Arup & Partners, funded by Department of Trade and Industry) • ‘The Planning Response to Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice’ (CAG consultants & Oxford Brookes University for Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) • ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners’ (Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, UKCIP et al) • ‘Climate change and tourism in the Northwest’ (Ongoing) (University of Manchester & Tyndall Centre for Northwest Climate Group) • Next: Developing framework for application by companies & investors (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change with UKCIP, Environment Agency)

39. Lessons learned so far from application of risk framework • Decision-making including climate risks is complex, even for relatively simple problems! • Using a structured framework helps • Structuring the problem and choosing decision-making criteria (stages 1 & 2) are essential, often not given enough attention • Decision-maker’s attitude to risks is instrumental re. identifying and choosing between options • Process of working through framework throws up new ideas – early stages may need revisiting

40. UKCIP adaptation wizard • Aims to help decision-makers move through a process from simple understanding of climate risks, to integration of these risks into decision-making, making use of all UKCIP tools and resources • Draws heavily on risk framework, but less comprehensive • Web-based • Prototype version available at www.ukcip.org.uk/wizard • Comments welcome!

41. Four levels of entry

42. Layout of each level

43. Principles of good climate adaptation

44. Resources Conclusions and recommendations - 1 • Emphasis on understanding climate variability • Decision-maker’s problem and objectives are central to understanding adaptation problem • Hierarchical/tiered/iterative approach is useful • Importance of climate risk benchmarks (tolerable risk) • Essential to understand attitude to risk (tolerable risk)

45. www.ukcip.org.uk Prototype wizard www.ukcip.org.uk/wizard