Adaptation symposium conversations
Working with climate change: an adaptation symposium brought together some of the best international and Australian minds working to discuss climate change adaptation. Listed below are observers’ summaries for concurrent sessions.
Reflections from Dr Samuel Fankhauser
Session 1: Seascapes - managing coastal assets, protecting the marine environment and supporting coastal communities
Session 2: Landscapes - preparing for different climate futures, maintaining the health of our land ad biodiversity
Session 3: Cityscapes - safeguarding and managing our built infrastructure and urban communities in a future of changed climates
Session 4: Adaptation - local government action
Session 5: Adaptation - Land use
Session 6: Adaptation - Water
Session 7: ‘Green’ opportunities
Session 8: Making sure we know as much as we can: the research agenda
Session 9: Impacts, adaptation and social justice
Reflections from Dr Samuel Fankhauser
Two things struck me at the Melbourne Adaptation Symposium, which I attended as an external expert new to Australia. The first thing to strike me was the high and immediate vulnerability of Victoria, which is already feeling the effects certainly of climate variability and arguably of climate change. Australia has been called the most vulnerable developed country in the world and the Symposium made it clear why.
The second, altogether more reassuring observation was the high level of awareness about climate change across the public debate and in particular among government officials. Victoria is well ahead of most regional governments, and of many national governments, in this respect.
There was no unanimity. There were different points of view, diverging interests and disagreements on priorities, for example about the best approach to rebuild in fire hazard zones. This is as it should be. It is through this type of public debate that the best adaptation policies will emerge.
And the government is right to frame that debate with a new green paper, launched during the Symposium, and ultimately through a climate change law. The UK passed its Climate Change Act in November 2008 and it has changed the nature of the climate change debate in Britain. The Act is mitigation-heavy, but it does require the government to conduct comprehensive risk assessments at five-year intervals. Work on the first climate change risk assessment is currently being tendered.
The need for a legal framework does not mean that adaptation is primarily a government responsibility. It is not. Most adaptation will be done by private agents. But it is the responsibility of governments to create an environment that allows households and firms to adapt effectively. People and markets are very good at adapting, but there is nevertheless a need for price incentives and complementary regulation. Governments will also be expected to provide public goods like good information and a climate proof infrastructure, and they will have to look after those population groups that cannot help themselves. But ultimately adaptation is a private activity.
In Victoria the initial focus is understandably on water management and bush fires. Since much about climate change is still uncertain, it makes sense to start adaptation in those areas where there are unambiguous early benefits. But over time the scope of adaptation will have to broaden. Victoria’s coastlines will be affected by sea level rise, its farmers will have to change their production patterns and electricity producers will have to accommodate an increase in load as demand for air conditioning grows – while at the same time decarbonising their fuel mix and meeting additional demand from an electrified vehicle fleet. The changes required will be deep and fundamental.
However, the exact nature of what will have to be done is still unclear. Our knowledge of the regional impacts of climate change is still woefully inadequate, and one has to be careful not to read too much into the preliminary results of regional climate models, although they are fast improving.
It is this high uncertainty that poses the biggest challenge to policy makers. Whenever the Symposium touched on uncertainty and the quality of regional data the debate became more speculative and the answers more tentative.
Uncertainty is therefore a clear priority for further research in Victoria, for the Commonwealth and globally. We urgently need better regional data, ideally framed in the language of probability. This is a key challenge for the natural sciences. But we also need better approaches to deal with this level of uncertainty from a policy and investment perspective. This is a challenge for policy makers and social scientists.
The Adaptation Symposium has created a tremendous platform from which to continue the adaptation debate in Victoria. As an outsider I was impressed by the high calibre of the debate at the Symposium, and rather amazed at the genuine surprise of local participants when told about their leadership in this area. Keep up the good work.
page top
Session 1: Seascapes - managing coastal assets, protecting the marine environment and supporting coastal communities
Chair: Dr Kate Auty, Chairperson - Ministerial Reference Council for Climate Change Adaptation
Panel members: Libby Meares - Victorian Coastal Council, Ian Carruthers - Department of Climate Change (Commonwealth), John Ginivan - Department of Planning and Community Development, Dr Peter Appleford - Department of Sustainability and Environment, Mark Bartley - DLA Phillips Fox
Observer’s summary:
The panel members spoke about the role that their various institutions play in management of the coastline, and how these institutions incorporating climate change into this work.
The Victorian Coastal Council has undertaken social research to better understand the community values of the coastline. This work contributes to establishing the strategic vision and management priorities for the coast through the Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS). The recently released VCS highlights three core issues facing the Victorian coastline: climate change, population growth and marine biodiversity, which were common themes throughout this session. The VCS also included a requirement that coastal planning authorities plan for a minimum sea level rise of 0.8m by 2100.
The implications of this policy position were discussed in relation to recent planning decisions, including Victorian Civil Administration Tribunal (VCAT) decisions to prevent development in part due to the vulnerability of land to sea level rise and climate change impacts. It was highlighted that the recent VCS policy direction would serve to strengthen the precautionary approach in planning, although additional mechanisms – such as the embedding climate change within the Planning and Environment Act (currently under review), should also be considered.
The State and Australian Governments spoke about the current work that is underway to help coastal managers and planning authorities understand and act on coastal hazards that are heightened by climate change. This includes a number of mapping projects and interpretation and guidance for specific planning applications. The need for all levels of government, and community and industry groups to work together and take responsibility for addressing emerging hazards was emphasised. Key documents, including the Biodiversity White Paper and the Climate Change Green Paper, will be key in determining the policy directions of coastal and marine management in a time of climate change.
The audience questioned the panel about whether these policy documents would be responsive enough to the challenges presented by climate change. However, these policy documents are intended to provide a framework for managing changes, not for anticipating all of the change that will be required. This framework aims to facilitate a shift from preservation of coastal / marine environments to protection, based on a risk management approach. Discussion questioned whether this shift (from ‘preserve’ to ‘protect’) was a shared research belief, as many may not see that marine and coastal environments will need to change under climate change.
A key concern from the audience is that climate change is still poorly understood and that the science of climate change is poorly communicated – particularly to the broader community. There remains a need to realistically acknowledge issues, and communicate them using common language. Often complex scientific and policy language is used to tell the story, which results in misinterpretation or loss of interest from the public. The need to communicate climate change issues is important as risk perception will be a key factor in the choice and implementation of policy approaches.
page top
Session 2: Landscapes - preparing for different climate futures, maintaining the health of our land ad biodiversity
Chair: Dr Richard Eckard, University of Melbourne & Department of Primary Industries
Panel members: Kimberley Dripps - DSE, Rob Gerrand - Parks Victoria, Christine Forster - Victorian Catchment Management Council, Garry O’ Leary - Department of Primary Industries,
Observer’s summary:
The four speakers and chair provided a broad coverage of the major Victorian landscapes and natural resources. The chair set the scenarios of both long and short term adaptation and mitigation measures, with the cautionary warning that some short-term adaptation may prove mal-adaptive in the longer term. Adding insightfully that issues should be viewed through the scales of demographic, system and component changes.
It was observed that biodiversity was universally regraded as a highly vulnerable sector with a forthcoming Land and Biodiversity White Paper set to emphasis ecological connectivity; landscape resilience; the protection of key assets particularly refugia and wetlands; and the improvement in monitoring and reporting. To take account of climate change (and existing threats), reforms in planning , catchment strategies and markets (fuller use of eco-markets?) were required. The issue were complex and interdependent with the urgency of the issue raising the trade off between delays for knowledge and action. Viable solutions will require systems and interdisciplinary thinking as we learn from each other. Innovatively, research into climate change, public health and biodiversity was being initiated.
Climate change will have multiple effects on parks and reserves (currently 17% of the land area of Victoria) both in their natural assets and human use (recreational and tourism). ParksVic, as the management agency, drew the link between adaptation and mitigation and was implementing a risk management strategy that included water recycling and extending bike paths across urban landscapes. In the rural landscape, the old paradigm as parks as “islands” was being abandoned for parks as part of “biolinked” landscapes where the connectivity of biodiversity was restored, e.g. leadership shown in Habitat 141 program in SW Victoria). Biodiversity assets also had the potential carbon sinks.
Many if not most of Victoria’s landscapes are not in good health according to the second Catchment Health report (2008), with many rivers and wetlands showing the stress of a decadal drought (e.g Wimmera River salt levels 2 x seawater near Lake Hindmarsh). On the other hand, the extent of dryland salinity area had declined and the modelling of weeds under climate change showed a “mixed bag” with expansion and contraction of ranges. The critical importance of soils (and their decline as carbon stores) was highlighted and their “drying out” (eg. Glenelg Hopkins), a future prospect, had been the worst in decades. One was left in no doubt that the wealth derived from agriculture was a large conversion of natural capital.
Research and modelling derived from the agriculture sector was interesting in that the inter-relationships between plantations (and land-use) and water in the landscapes were beginning to be appreciated and quantified.. Such modelling and allows the possibility that the breadth and interconnections of ecosystem services are beginning to be understood. Victoria will definitely needs this in a carbon constrained and water stressed future.
Although each speaker provided a view from a variety of “discipline perspectives’, an asute questioner asked: “When we can start looking at landscapes as a whole system?” Herein lay the critique and perhaps the way forward. The cumulative and potential damage to the natural systems with a “business as usual” approach are now evident. Climate change may be a major catalyst for getting a much needed new societal vision for the landscape, the costs of the colonial one are too much in a century of climate change. With the probability of increasing aridification of the southern half of the continent, lets hope from the desert prophets do come.
page top
Session 3: Cityscapes - safeguarding and managing our built infrastructure and urban communities in a future of changed climates
Chair: Barbara Norman, Manager, Research and Partnerships, Global Cities Institute, RMIT
Panel members: Mick Bourke - Environmental Protection Authority, Sally Capp - Committee for Melbourne, Michael Nolan - AECOM, Tom Roper - Australian Sustainable Built Environment, Prof. Rob Adams - City of Melbourne, Doug Macpherson, Sustainability Victoria, Fiona Calvert, Department of Transport
This session explored how we can shape our cities to respond to future climates. It examined how we can respond to the impacts of climate change on our buildings and infrastructure in a way that ensures the health and wellbeing of our current and future urban communities. Intensifying this management challenge is the rapidly growing nature of cities. This is the first time in history where there are more people living in cities than not and this trend is likely to continue. Cityscapes was a thought provoking session that highlighted challenges that are critical and difficult to address, yet offered creative and practical solutions.
The impacts of climate change add additional pressure on city infrastructure, which is often already under stress and supporting populations that are much larger than what it was originally designed to cope with. An increase in sea level is expected to affect the ability of sewerage infrastructure to operate effectively, and we have already seen in Melbourne the pressure that extreme heat events place on rail infrastructure.
A number of challenges need to be considered in developing and adapting urban infrastructure for future climates. For example, as part of its climate change adaptation planning, the Victorian Department of Transport is considering a number of questions in climate change adaptation planning for the transport system in Melbourne including:
- How does the system cope with heat?
- Where are the vulnerabilities in the system in regards to building materials?
- How will the system cope with extreme events such as serious storms or extreme heat events?
- How will a changed climate affect the way people use the system (eg less rainfall will result in more cycling and walking, but more extreme heat events will result in less walking and cycling)?
Early intervention in re-thinking and re-designing infrastructure for future climates is preferable as it is cheaper and will result in more effective outcomes. However this is often not a choice because of longevity - some infrastructure is not due to be replaced for a very long time. Most of the infrastructure needed in 2029 already exists. A great challenge therefore is to adapt existing infrastructure and enable it to cope with the different climatic conditions of the future. Any new infrastructure must be built with the climate conditions of the future in mind. It is therefore necessary to effectively communicate these messages to the people involved in developing the infrastructure.
The long life of buildings is also an adaptation challenge. It is therefore necessary to retrofit existing buildings and re-visit current approaches to housing design so that new buildings are suitable for climates of the future. One initiative that is gaining community support is to take advantage of the mostly unused space on top of city buildings and install rooftop gardens. These gardens have been found to have many positive benefits including reducing local temperatures and the intensity of the urban heat island effect, as well as reducing the pressure on stormwater infrastructure. Positive social outcomes also result from rooftop gardens including the sense of well being that can be gained from green space and an increased sense of community from gardens that are open to the public.
New buildings should be designed and built with the future climate in mind. In Melbourne, residential buildings have traditionally been designed to be “heating houses” to allow residents to be comfortable in chilly winters. With the expected increase in temperatures resulting from climate change, housing design would need to shift so that the emphasis will be on cooling rather than heating. But this raises another important issue: a shift in energy demand will occur as there will be less heating (predominantly by gas in Melbourne) and more cooling (provided by air conditioning units which uses electricity).
Increasing the density of a city rather than increasing urban sprawl and the spreading of a city into useable farmland and green space is a way of responding to a number of challenges at once, including climate change, the need to minimise a city’s environmental impact, and responding to increasing urban populations. This approach can be examined by exploring the possibilities for Melbourne. Melbourne has a number of growth corridors which stretch out from the city. Rather than spreading these fingers further, density can be increased in areas that are already developed. This is possible without changing the layout of Melbourne, or losing any urban green space or subsidising further land on the fringe of the city. There are opportunities to increase housing density around public transport routes such as tram lines, where land is developed, but often underdeveloped. It is possible that 4-5 storey dwellings along public transport routes would be a sufficient level of density to house Melbourne’s population. Increased density around public transport routes is very likely to result in increased public transport use. Understandably, negative views on higher density development were formed as a result of poor development that has occurred in the past in many Australian cities – particularly from certain developments that took place in 1970’s. However, further support for increased density may be achieved by more effective communication of the benefits, the assurance that past mistakes will be avoided and by demonstrating that lifestyle will not be compromised. There is growing support for this type of housing, especially from young professionals who wish to work in the city but not travel very far to get home.
The Cityscapes session demonstrated the possibilities that exist for developing solutions to the challenge of safeguarding and managing the urban built environment in the face of a future of changed climates. Many creative and practical ideas were put forward and proactive and well considered measures that are currently in place were discussed. It was however highly emphasised in the session that good governance and good leadership must be in place to ensure the effective implementation of this work, as without action the level of risk remains the same.
page top
Session 4: Adaptation - local government action
Chair: Mike Hill, Chair of the Victorian Local Sustainability Advisory Committee
Panel members: • Dr Benjamin L Preston - CSIRO, Darren Ray - Victorian Local Governance Association, Nina Rogers - Municipal Association of Victoria, Hartmut Fuenfgeld - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
Observer’s summary
Councils undertake a very wide range of activities in delivering services to their communities. The breadth of council services is reflected in the role of local government as described in the Local Government Act 1989. The Act states: “In seeking to achieve its primary objective, a Council must have regard to the following facilitating objectives:
- to promote the social, economic and environmental viability and sustainability of the municipal district
- to improve the overall quality of life of the people in the local community.
Funding and resource constraints were identified as an issue. How can councils invest in climate change adaptation measures without compromising day to day management requirements? And at the same time tackling other emerging challenges eg unemployment in rural communities? Developing partnerships, showcasing and sharing lessons learnt were identified as mechanisms for leveraging resources.
Capacity building in councils is essential to enable them to work with their communities to respond to the challenges of climate change. Three of the presentations described projects aimed at addressing this issue:
- The Victorian Local Sustainability Accord (Accord) is a partnership between local government and the Victorian State Government which aims to help councils build their capacity to address sustainability and climate change adaptation issues. It encourages partnerships, showcases local government activities, provides funding for local government projects and provides a communication pathway to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change through the Victorian Local Sustainability Advisory Committee. This program has been successful over its first four years and has generated significant interest from other states.
- The Livable and Just project being led by the VLGA (with funding from the Accord) aims to investigate the capacity of local governments to deal with sustainability, climate change and equity issues within communities.
- ICLEI’s adaptation toolkit has been designed to help to improve climate change adaptation capacity within councils.
Session 5: Adaptation - Land use
Chair: Alison Stone, General Manager, Office of Fire, Department of Sustainability and Environment
Panel members: Graeme Anderson - Department of Primary Industries, Neil Barr, Department of Primary Industries, Darren Gladman - DSE, Mark Eigenraam - DSE, Brian Davey - Department of Primary Industries
Observer’s summary
In Victoria, if not se Australia, land-use change trajectories reveal large areas moving away from 150 years of traditional agriculture. Climate change, as a new major driver will intersect with these trajectories including those where an adapted agriculture continues. How can or will society manage these changes and evolve landscapes that are better adapted to changing climates - better able to produce desired ecosystem services? These are global issues.
The speakers provided different and expert perspectives on three elements of the mix – agriculture, details of new catchment modelling and, the social effects of current land-use change. The speakers demonstrated the complexities of dealing with current land-use change issues including the importance of broad policy settings and social inertia (and disruption) of change.
For agriculture, climate change would be an addition risk factor (warmer and drier) above the already variable climate farmers already face. Varying climate drivers from all surrounding oceans (Indian, Southern & Pacific) were linked to existing variability and future global change. Policy responses (e.g. emissions trading) also have major potential impact on agriculture and land-use. Feedback from farmers suggested that they tended to look more tactically (short-term) than strategically when it came to climate change. Responses required progressive harder decisions: modifications to existing operations (e.g. change sowing times); more significant changes dislocations (e.g. expand farm in existing region); to major discontinuities (e.g. expand farm in new climate region, exit farming). In order to increase the adaptive capacity of the sector a Future Farming Strategy included adaptation to climate change.
Neil Barr presented analysis of statistics relevant to the current changing socio-economic agriculture landscapes in Victoria. However, the power of the presentation was to drive home the message that land-use change has very important social dimensions extending through individuals, families and communities. Climate change will mean a carbon constrained and water stressed future – with some industries based on irrigation already “adjusting” to the worst drought on record. There’s a person behind each statistic in land-use change and there is an inertia in social change influencing speed and direction of land use change.
Exciting developments in catchment modelling were presented although the audience had a lot of detail to comprehend. The driver for this development was for improved economic outcomes, incorporating quantified environmental services. The emerging capacity to model and monitor ecosystem services at various scales will be increasing valued as society’s perception of those services also changes. … Anyone for a bit more C-sequestration? Such tools will be a welcome addition in the land-use change debates and policy development around adaptation of landscape to climate change although this aspect was not highlighted.
Land-use change is a recognised challenge for many natural resource management agencies, including DSE in Victoria with adaptation to climate change an important new driver of long-term change. The session showed land-use brings policies, people and places together and their inter-connectedness are key foci of adaptation. Although it was encouraging to see the emergence of some sophisticated analysis and new tools - what adaptation will mean for land-use; what landscapes will produce and look like remain open questions.
page top
Session 6: Adaptation - Water
Chair: Dr Jane Doolan, Executive Director, Office of Water, Sustainable Water Environment and Innovation, Department of Sustainability and Environment
Panel members: Campbell Fitzpatrick - DSE, Dr Ron Ben-David - Essential Services Commission, Cheryl Batagol, Melbourne Water, Dr Tony Wong, Monash Sustainability Institute
Observer’s summary:
Dr. Jane Doolan chaired a vision-filled panel of representatives from government, regulation and a research institution. Strangely enough, the panel conducted their presentations to a room full of Victorians. In response, the panel targeted their discussions towards the context-aware audience.
Given that there is no “baseline” for climate change, adaptation actions are required to secure Victoria’s water supplies. An emerging theme from the panel was on the changed direction of water policy in response to climate change, such as the large water augmentation plan as well as continued behaviour change action, such as reducing shower times and reusing water around the home. Focus was brought to the urban and the rural settings with the needs of the environment highlighted towards the conclusion of the panel discussions. Question time allowed for interactive discussion between the audience and the panel members. Questions ranged from water restrictions and energy use, to community acceptance towards potable reuse and to “what if the next 12 years is not the worst case of water supply, but the new baseline?”
Campbell Fitzpatrick gave an insightful overview of the last 12 year dry period experienced by Victoria. Nothing drives policy forward like a good crisis, and the marked reduction in rainfall with the greater reduction in streamflows has spurred the Victorian Government to react in multifaceted ways. These ways range from farm dams legislation to Our Water Our Future to the Sustainable Water Strategies. Resulting from these policies, Victorians have experienced water restrictions, behaviour change programs regarding reducing and reusing water and the beginnings the Victorian Water Grid.
Ron Ben-David followed with a water policy overview and the uncertainty of climate change impacts. The accumulation of uncertainty makes decision making on climate change adaptation measures a daunting challenge. Not an excuse for hopelessness. The risks of inaction are potentially higher than the risks of making the “wrong decision” for instance building large infrastructure that does not get used. “Woe betide the policy maker…” who invests in a strategy that does not improve the situation. The policy prescriptions for adapting water management include:
1. Investing in scientific research
2. Preparing and planning
3. Embracing diversity and innovation
4. Deepening markets
5. Clarifying the role of government
Cheryl Batagol brought the focus towards the Melbourne metropolitan area and provided a context for adaptation. Changing climate, growing city, increased community expectations arising from a strong literacy around water management and use.
There is now a strong focus on planning for current and future generations for ensuring water supply and protecting waterways, and using climate change adaptation to achieve this outcome. The impacts of climate change are linked, for instance higher temperatures and lower rainfall means an increase in dry catchment bushfires.
Key adaptation actions Melbourne Water has and is taking are:
1. 2005 CSIRO/Melbourne Water climate change study
2. Melbourne Water climate change action plan
3. Together with DSE, the 2007 major augmentation of water supply
a. building a flexible response to a changing climate
4. Behaviour change
a. water conservation and water recycling
5. Longer term - storm water utilisation
a. potential to defer other large augmentation measures
Successful adaptation can be defined as the transition of science to adaptive responses and planning to operations. Mostly a non-linear pathway to success.
Dr Tony Wong turned the spotlight towards cities as catchments, the urban environment. Adaptation to uncertainty, building resilience and intergenerational equity for water resources were the main themes of the discussion. Diversifying water supply sources and the emerging role of decentralised water services were offered as going some way towards a solution to secure our water supplies.
Campbell followed with a focus on rural Victoria. Given that there is no “baseline” for climate change, adaptation actions are required to secure Victoria’s water supplies. There is an obligation on Victoria’s water corporations to prepare water supply demand plans and drought response plan. Independent economic regulator recovers the cost of adaptation and protects customers. Rural Victoria has been adapting to a reduction in water supplies since 1996. The value of water has therefore increased as the scarcity of supply has increased. Adjusting to less water supply is painful and this where good policy can ease some of that pain.
Dr Jane Doolan concluded the panel presentations with a focus on the environment. How do you manage a 70% reduction in streamflows? Through the widespread qualification of rights and using the environmental water reserve. During drought, environmental managers identify key habitat refuges and adopt a seasonally adaptive approach, whilst looking at the role of infrastructure as a tool to achieve positive outcomes for the environment.
page top
Session 7: ‘Green’ opportunities
Chair: Prof. John Thwaites - Professorial Fellow & Chair ClimateWorks Australia and the Monash Sustainability Institute
Panel members: Tim Piper - Australian Industry Group, Tony Nicholson - Brotherhood of St. Laurence, John Connor - The Climate Institute, Craig Roussac - Investa, Kate Beddoe - AMCOR, Dr Chris Mitchell - CO2 Group
Observer’s summary:
Representatives of industry, community and the environment came together to identify, often in great detail, what is real and what is hype when assessing the opportunities arising out of climate change. The chair set the scene by noting:
- many adaptation options will also be mitigation options (e.g. insulation)
- the global financial crisis is an opportunity to be leveraged
- there are large numbers of jobs to be created, which will require new skills and training
- Victoria can and should aim to be at the centre of the new green economy.
What is business doing? John Connor highlighted a recent survey of firms which found that, although 80% acknowledge climate change risk, only 9% are doing something about it.
Craig Roussac explained that efficiency is just another competitive advantage and smart businesses have been working to reduce their exposure to rising energy prices for some time. However, efficiency is often not a material issue to decision makers responsible for buildings. An executive responsible $500 million asset won’t be excited about $500,000 change in energy costs (0.1% of the value).
Duncan Thompson saw climate change as risk management. Change comes from identifying risks, assigning responsibility, setting standards and ongoing evaluation. John Connor noted that the risks from “sub prime” will be dwarfed by “sub clime” risk.
What can we expect? All agreed that many jobs will be created when we “climate proof” our buildings and modernise our energy system. Modelling suggests 26,000 jobs would be created under the CPRS and RET. However, many of these jobs are not permanent. A key challenge is to capitalise alternative industries.
What is the role for government? According to Tim Piper, business will be influenced far more by public expectations and the marketplace than by legislation. Looking at the water shortages in Brisbane, Craig Roussac noted that, although government can respond in a crisis, these lessons are forgotten when the crisis subsides.
The panel agreed that government must look out for the most vulnerable. Tony Nicholson explained how the least well off have been the worst affected and outlined a proposal by BSL to retrofit 3.5 million homes which would improve health, lower emissions and create a further 40,000 jobs.
page top
Session 8: Making sure we know as much as we can: the research agenda
Chair: Dr Graham Mitchell, Chief Scientist, Department of Sustainability and Environment and Department of Primary Industries
Panel members: Prof. David Griggs - ClimateWorks Australia, Prof. Jean Palutikof - National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Prof. Rodney Keenan - University of Melbourne, Dr Jon Barnett - University of Melbourne, Jan Bowman, Department of Human Services
Observer’s summary:
A formidable panel of local and international academics discussed the past, present and future of adaptation research as a Victorian imperative.
Professor Griggs opened the session by providing an international perspective of the adaptation research landscape. The breadth of innovative research being driven by non-government agents was clear, and highlighted the strong role of private partnerships in progressing our knowledge of the issues.
Effective research partnerships
The shape of effective adaptation research partnerships was at the forefront of the debate presented by the panel. The panel of academics called for long-term funding agreements for adaptation research, making a convincing case to do away with project-based funding for an issue characterised by uncertainty.
The issues-based ‘silo’ approach taken by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility was explained by Professor Palutikof; with Professor Kennan noting that we need to get better at devising co-investment models that support truly collaborative multi-disciplinary research. A number of panellists agreed that grant-based investment did not allow for research (in particular, research communities and their stakeholders) to be built upon, to change as new information comes to be, or to trial any recommendations that arise from research. We seem a long way from the preferred ‘systems’ approach to understanding and addressing climate change adaptation.
Determining research priorities
Dr Barnett premised this discussion by acknowledging that there are limits to adaptation, and associated research. Defining those limits must occupy some of the priority research agenda. A number of other research priorities emerged from the ensuing discussion:
- Defining true adaptation vs. change designed to delay true adaptation
- Understanding the social impacts of climate change, and finding ways to implement long-term adaptation strategies in light of those impacts
- Engaged decision-making related research
- Communicating value in order to prompt (or remove barriers to) rapid action
- Effective visual communications techniques for adaptation practitioners
Translating knowledge
Professor Keenan drew the full support of the panel when he called for the research effort to be accompanied by the use of modern communications techniques in order to move community thinking as fast as the science. Dr Hanna took the discussion on effective communications techniques further by challenging the adaptation community to understand information barriers to vulnerable groups. “The people that are dying from heat wave are not the people that are checking government websites for warnings” she illustrated.
A disconnect between scientific knowledge and community awareness was seen as a “failure” by the research community to communicate the scale and urgency of the challenge posed by climate change. A failure that Victoria cannot afford in the foreseeable future.
page top
Session 9: Impacts, adaptation and social justice
Chair: Dr Kate Auty - Chairperson Ministerial Reference Council for Climate Change Adaptation
Panel members: Simon Molesworth, Dr Anna Hurlimann - University of Melbourne, Jess Fritze - Victorian Council of Social Service, Sue Hendy - Council on the Ageing Victoria, Emily Ballantyne-Brodie - Future Canvas, Larissa Brown, Centre for Sustainability Leadership
Observer’s summary:
The panel members spoke about a diverse range of topics in their presentations, including:
- environmental sustainability principles
- a research proposal to study the social impacts of climate change within four communities in Gippsland
- social equity and the financial costs and impacts of climate change adaptation
- ageing population in a changing climate and how we can assist
- design and sustainability
- adaptive leadership.
As one of Australia’s leading environmental lawyers, Simon Molesworth AC, QC, discussed the environmental principles in the Environmental Protection Act 1970, with particular focus on the principle of intergenerational equity and the importance of integrating economic, social and environmental considerations in our decision making. Mr Molesworth suggested that we all have a moral responsibility to work together to respond to climate change by ensuring the appropriate mix of government intervention, economic incentives, communication and awareness raising activities.
Dr Anna Hurlimann gave a presentation about a specific research proposal that the University of Melbourne has submitted for Australian Research Council funding: “Understanding the socio-economic context for decision making regarding adaptation: sea level rise in Gippsland”. If the proposal is successful, the project will develop an approach to identify the social and equity outcomes of various strategies to adapt to sea level rise within four communities in Gippsland.
Jess Fritze, Victorian Council of Social Service, gave a presentation on the inequitable distribution of the financial, costs and impacts of climate change. Climate change will have a greater impact on lower income households, than higher income households. The ability to respond to increased costs for food and utilities, transportation, food security, health and mental health, will be dependent upon their ability to respond. Those who are more financially secure would be more likely to be more resilient and protected to the heat wave. Ms Frize suggested that significant structural and systemic policy changes are required to address the issue of social inequity in the context of climate change.
Sue Hendy, Executive Director of Council on the Ageing Victoria, presented on how society needs to address ageism and, in the context of climate change, senior Victorians have a lot of skills and knowledge to offer the broader community. Ms Hendy highlighted that people over sixty-five years of age are now far more diverse in their backgrounds than before; approximately 38% of people over sixty-five are from culturally and linguistically diverse groups. This is increasingly important for policy makers in how they communicate the impacts of climate change.
Seniors were one of the most affected population groups during the 2009 Victorian heatwave. Ms Hendy estimated that about 70% of the people who died in the 2009 Victorian heatwave were senior Victorians. Ms Hendy highlighted the importance of age friendly communities and community connectedness programs as a one way to build resilience and connection in neighbourhoods to reduce isolation, particularly of older people.
Emily Ballantyne-Brodie, Future Canvas, presented on the work of Future Canvas. Future Canvas is a design collective of volunteers that aims to inspire culture change for sustainability. The organisation has a strong emphasis on behaviour change. Ms Ballantyne-Brodie used two videos – ‘Flinders Street at 12pm’ and a vox pop at Federation Square – to demonstrate what sustainability means to different people in the community. Future Canvas uses online forums, blogs and fun events to engage individuals to become active in sustainability at a local level.
Larissa Brown, Centre for Sustainability Leadership, talked about leadership in the context of responding to climate change impacts. Ms Brown used two examples of how people have been innovative and demonstrated leadership in their place of employment to make change for the better. Ms Brown encouraged the audience to visualise the future for our world that they desire and consider where they can make change.
During the short question and answer session, audience members asked the panel about:
- what the community sector has been doing to date with regards to mitigation
- who’s responsibility is it to raise awareness of the social equity issues and climate change
- social equity and welfare distribution
- whether they were aware of any research to support claims that low income households are getting poorer as a result of natural disasters.
