How can we balance today’s pressing needs with long term risks?

How can public officials, especially in low income countries, address today’s short- term pressing needs while preparing for tomorrow’s climate-related impacts and surprises? Government officials at the national level charged with incorporating climate change risks into plans and policies face a daunting array of challenges. The world is already experiencing early impacts of climate change in physical, hydrological and ecological systems, exacerbating enduring development challenges. Even if the global community commits to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, significant impacts will continue long after atmospheric concentrations of these gases have stabilized. The impacts of climate change are predicted to grow in frequency and strength and compound one another. Under such circumstances, government officials will face increasingly difficult decisions on how to prioritize interventions to address climate change, spur economic growth, and meet social and political objectives. Decision makers will face a continual balancing act, contending with short-term development challenges and climate risks while at the same time preparing adequately for future needs and risks, some of which are uncertain and will only manifest themselves in decades to come. To do this effectively will require early planning and proactive decision making, approaches which human society has historically found difficult to embrace and implement. To date, our decision-making processes have often been slow to react to, learn from, and foresee change. The most vulnerable countries face the greatest difficulties. With few resources, their governments must not only deal with multiple near-term development challenges but also consider long-term policy objectives to address future climate-related, and other, risks. How are decision makers, especially in low income countries, to address pressing needs today while preparing for climate-related surprises and eventual impacts? If decision makers are motivated to incorporate long-term climate risks into decisions only when there is a reasonable certainty that risks will materialize, action may come too late and opportunities to manage some impacts may have passed. This is particularly problematic in vulnerable countries, where economic growth and development goals are unlikely to be achieved if future climate risks are not also taken into account in the near term. Some illustrative examples of the dilemmas facing decision makers in balancing short-term and long-term risks include: There is a high probability that sea level rise will pose significant risks to many coastal communities in the future. How should decision makers prioritize among various policy objectives and approaches, especially if resources are limited? For example, should they cease development of coastal areas and relocate communities at risk, or develop coastal areas with early warning systems and greater resilience to withstand sea level rise and fiercer storms? At what point are the risks great enough that they should choose the former policy over the latter? Rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa may increase or decrease in the next several decades, and there is still uncertainty with regard to where and when those changes may occur. But the consequences, no matter what the timing, location and direction of the impacts, are huge for an area already suffering from food security problems and for which agriculture is still a significant part of many nations”™ GDPs. How should a decision maker prepare for eventual changes in variability and mean climate, especially when resources are limited and the decision maker is facing urgent needs today? In addressing the question at the top of this prompt, we ask authors to discuss how decision makers can balance the need to address short-term and long-term policy making objectives. Below are some issues you may wish “” but are not obliged - to consider or incorporate in formulating your response. Examples of the kinds of interventions that fulfill both short-term and long-term policy making objectives. Situations in which decision makers might prioritize mitigation of short-term risks over addressing long-term policy objectives. Examples of conditions in which long-term investments of scarce resources to adapt to future long-term, high consequence impacts might be justified, and of hurdles that might block the prioritization of such investments and actions. Types of economic or other incentives that could be used to foster decision making that balances short-term and long-term priorities. (For example, changes to cost-benefit analysis, discount rates and other economic tools). Other types of tools that might aid decision makers in considering risks that will manifest themselves long after they have left their positions. Means of engaging the public and civil society engage in weighing short-term and long-term policy/planning objectives, and determining acceptable risks. Informative examples of any parallels in other areas of risk management that can inform those charged with prioritizing among short-term and long-term climate-related decision making.

Must we fundamentally change course to conserve ecosystems in a changing climate?

Do we need to adopt a fundamentally different approach to conserving ecosystems and their services in a changing climate? Ecosystems - Earth’s natural capital - provide services such as clean water, food, climate regulation, fiber and fuel that are vital to the well being of human society. Over the past five decades, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystems have undergone more transformation than at any other point in the past, primarily driven by increased human consumption and the demand for, and overuse of, ecosystem goods and services.  Ecosystem degradation has continued at the expense of the long-term conservation of the vital services that ecosystems provide to human communities and has resulted in an unprecedented rate of species loss.  These trends are now being exacerbated by climate change, even as recognition grows that ecosystem conservation and sustainable management techniques will play critical roles in improving the resilience of communities to climate impacts. While ecosystems will naturally adapt and evolve in response to climate change, this adaptation may not occur in a form that enables the continuation of existing ecosystems services for people and maintains existing species diversity. This is especially true if ecosystems are so degraded by non-climate factors (such as habitat fragmentation) that they do not have the capacity to adapt in a manner that will preserve existing properties. Such circumstances are of particular concern for the rural poor who overwhelmingly depend on natural resources. The absence of concerted efforts to conserve ecosystems and their services in a changing climate could threaten tens of millions of livelihoods and even lives. The 2010 World Resources Report is focusing upon how governmental decision-making at the national level can contend with a changing climate, and specifically how policymakers and planners can better react to and prepare for climate change’s uncertainty, surprises, time lags, and heightened change and variability. The conservation and sustainable management of ecosystems and their services can assist in the design of long-term approaches to climate change adaptation.  Such efforts can also assist communities in preparing for and reacting to climate-related risks (for example, via mangrove conservation to protect against sea level rise). Yet, the world has long failed to adequately conserve ecosystems and their services even in the absence of climate change risks. We know already exactly what barriers need to be overcome to conserve ecosystems and their services: divided oversight or management responsibilities, short planning horizons, uncertainties surrounding ecosystems valuation and inadequate incentives for conserving ecosystems, among others.  The real issue is this:  in the face of climate change impacts, is overcoming such barriers enough?  Or do we need wholesale changes in managing ecosystems if they and their services are to be protected in a changing climate? This leads us to pose the following critical question in this paper series: Do we need to adopt a fundamentally different approach to conserving ecosystems and their services in a changing climate? This question seeks insight into whether we should continue, with more urgency, to pursue existing practices for incorporating ecosystems into decision-making processes and overcome related barriers or whether we need to adopt radically different approaches in the way we contend with the additional stress of climate change on ecosystems. We ask authors to consider the following issues in their responses. Please do not feel limited by them or required to address them all. Where possible, please provide relevant examples on the ground. Please take some time to explain your views on the role of ecosystems in adaptation including benefits and limits. What are approaches for communicating this role to government decision makers and communities? Today we use a combination of command-and-control, incentive-based, voluntary, and other types of policy instruments. Does the additional stress that climate change poses on ecosystems place a premium on command-and-control measures that can lead to explicit controls and limits on access to resources (e.g. rezoning to prohibit further development of marshlands)?  If so, given that command-and-control instruments do not explicitly maximize cost efficiency, how can governments justify such decisions to their citizenry? Given incomplete information with regard to how climate change will interact with other drivers of ecosystem degradation and how it could potentially trigger irreversible change, how do decision makers determine the acceptable risk to an ecosystem?  To what extent does climate change place a premium on the precautionary principle - as opposed to cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment methods - justifying more significant action? At what point should decision makers accept ecosystem change and attempt to cope with it rather than take proactive measures to slow down and halt such transformation? How should they make such decisions?

What types of information are needed for adaptation decision making?

Any decision maker advancing climate change adaptation interventions will need adequate and accurate information to make effective choices. In particular, they need the right types of data and knowledge about the climate risk at hand, the vulnerability of exposed populations, adaptation options, and a number of other factors. Specific information needs will vary from situation to situation and are likely to be shaped by the type of climate risk being addressed and the response it requires. Some risks will come as a surprise (e.g. weather-related disasters) and will require responsive efforts. Others will occur over a longer time scale  (e.g. eventual sea level rise) and will require proactive policies and plans. And while some risks will be well understood, others will be highly uncertain and will require robust approaches that can handle multiple possible futures. We present three examples below which are representative of these different types of climate risks.  For each, we ask authors to reflect upon the information needs for advancing adaptation efforts in that situation. We are curious to hear your thoughts on how information needs vary according to the nature of the risk at hand, as well as what information may be needed regardless of the type of risk being addressed. 1.      Information needs for responsive policymaking/planning Recent flooding in Pakistan during the summer of 2010 displaced millions, killed almost 2000 people, and set back numerous development goals. While this one event cannot be directly attributed to climate change, extreme events like this are likely to become increasingly frequent. Decision makers will need to respond quickly to such surprises. What information sets are most useful in responding to such changes?  Please also consider non-climatic data in your response. How much/what types of information are sufficient before an adaptation intervention can be advanced? What stakeholders should be involved in determining these information needs? How can decision makers strike a balance between an inclusive, participatory approach to defining information needs – which will lend legitimacy to response activities – while reacting quickly to the situation at hand? 2.      Information needs for proactive policymaking/planning Three West African coastal cities are each projected to hold more than eight million people by 2015. Sea level rise is projected to significantly impact these megacities (Boko et al. 2007). Even if risks from sea level rise manifest themselves decades later, policymakers will need to take steps today to enhance the resilience of these coastal inhabitants. For example, urban areas may need to be redesigned to reduce vulnerabilities of concentrated populations to projected storm surges and floods, and planners may need to prepare for the restructuring of entire sectors (such as aquaculture) that are no longer viable in a changing climate. What information sets are most useful in preparing for such likely eventual changes?  Please also consider non-climatic data in your response. How much/what types of information are sufficient before an adaptation intervention can be advanced? What stakeholders should be involved in determining these information needs? 3.      Information needs for robust policymaking/planning In Europe, large glaciers are projected to lose between 30% and 70% of their volume by mid-century (Schneeberger et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2004), which will significantly affect spring and summer water discharge levels.  Water users and planners will have to be prepared for both   extremes within this range. Given the uncertainty inherent in the projected impacts, what information sets are most useful in preparing for such eventual changes?  Please also consider non-climatic data in your response. How much/what types of information are sufficient before an adaptation intervention can be advanced? What stakeholders should be involved in determining these information needs? In addition to the above questions, we ask authors to reflect upon the extent to which information needs vary among the above examples. In other words: Do information needs vary depending on whether the risk is a surprise versus a long-term threat? Do information needs vary if there is less certainty about the risk?

How can national-level governments learn from the private sector and encourage investment and decision making to promote the public good in a changing climate?

As adaptation needs intensify around the world, and investment and implementation costs become apparent, there is growing interest in engaging the private sector in these efforts. With the potential to increase investment capacity, creativity and innovation, the private sector is a prospective partner who can multiply the impact of government, development agency and civil society efforts. Corporate experience and practices in managing risk may also help inform decision making for climate adaptation by these other actors. For example, whilst companies require certainty to make long-term investments, some have developed tools and approaches to moderate the risks of an uncertain economic environment, such as volatile fossil fuel prices, exchange rate fluctuations, and other market instabilities, and have become adept in managing change. These provide lessons from which the public sector might usefully draw. In addition to bidding on government-led adaptation investments, such as new infrastructure projects, the private sector will play a major role in shaping adaptation efforts by integrating climate risks into their own planning processes and investments. For example, companies could, by adapting their own operations, help protect critical global markets from disruption —especially those sectors that utilize natural resources and depend on critical ecosystem services, such as steady water supplies. Some may even find new business and investment opportunities that promote economic development by incorporating climate adaptation priorities into growth strategies. To what extent, and precisely how, the private sector will respond to a changing climate, is at present an open question. Corporate responses may strengthen vulnerable communities. Or they may ignore or misinterpret adaptation needs, resulting in activities and investments that instead run counter to the public good. As governments seek to build climate-resilient societies, their efforts to facilitate behavior and activities by companies that promote ‘positive’ adaptation can help shape the direction of private sector actions. This paper series for the World Resources Report asks expert authors to consider the overarching question: How can national-level governments learn from the private sector and encourage investment and decision making to promote the public good in a changing climate? Within this context, we pose the following sub-questions as possible areas to explore in your responses. - How does your company manage risks, especially risks characterized by uncertainty, like impacts from climate change? - What public policy incentives would enable your company’s adaptation program to support and enhance a developing country's national strategy to adapt to climate change impacts?