Question 1.
July 2016 Kate Nelson asks:
1a. What are the best practice evaluation principles that
adaptation project managers can use to guide development and application of
effective evaluation processes to ensure that what is learnt can contribute to
the overall knowledge of the adaptation sector?
1b. How can Local Government use information about estimated asset useful life
in making no-regret approval and investment decisions in urban areas subject to
future climate impacts?
Answer from Donovan Burton, Climate
Adaptation Specialist
Thanks for the question Kate. There are a few
questions tied up in this “question”. Some easier to answer than others, and
with a lack of context I will have to make some assumptions in my response. Firstly,
the term “best practice” for anything to do with climate change adaptation is a
moving target. The adaptation milieu is still in its infancy and any claims of
best practice should be regarded with caution. I’ll replace this with “good
practice”.
Response to Question
1a
The most fundamental principle for evaluation to
support an increase in the overall knowledge of the adaptation sector is to
foster a system that allows the transparent sharing of information.
In essence this is what the intention of the CoastAdapt tool is. Climate change
adaptation is about informed decision-making and not very much of that seems to
occur at the moment. One of the barriers to adaptation is the fact that
organisations are too afraid (or sometimes legally constrained) to share
information.
There is a great framework called the Collective
Impact Model which originated in Stanford (see here). One of the five key
principles is related to information management – and I think is relevant to
your question:
Shared measurement system: Developing a shared measurement system is essential
to collective impact. Agreement on a common agenda is illusory without
agreement on the ways success will be measured and reported. Collecting data
and measuring results consistently on a short list of indicators at the
community level and across all participating organisations not only ensures
that all efforts remain aligned, it also enables the participants to hold each
other accountable and learn from each other’s successes and failures. (Kania & Kramer
2011)
As we are now in the information age it should
be reasonably simple to establish systems for the above. Organisations must
recognise that data are a critical piece of infrastructure and be prepared to
invest in systems and staff that will allow them to implement activities to
support adaptation evaluation.
For local governments, protocols can be put in
place for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) through climate change adaptation
policies (e.g. corporate standards) – see what Kingborough Council have
recently done here. In essence what Kingborough
Council are doing is establishing corporate standards around the application of
adaptation. This consistent methodology allows for the sharing of consistent
information internally. The challenge will be sharing/comparing information
with other councils that have differing standards or risk thresholds.
However, systems/frameworks that support shared
monitoring and evaluation across jurisdictions and time scales are almost
impossible to find. This is why I invented one a couple of years ago, which is
being used for over 100 local governments and State Agencies in Australia
(see here).
M&E for climate change adaptation is a
rapidly evolving space (as is anything to do with climate change). A great
resource which highlights the range of M&E principles and methods, written
by Dennis Bours and others, can be found here. Actually anything written
by Dennis on M&E is a great starting point, so I suggest you subscribe to
his blog (see here).
Assumption 1: Your question doesn’t seem to focus on an answer for
good practice evaluation principles in general – just the ones that ensure that
“what is learnt can contribute to the overall knowledge of the adaptation
sector”? So I have focussed on that. Get back to me if you can provide me with
some better context or clarification.
Assumption 2: The “adaptation sector” is a very big sector with
each having its own specific adaptation process. It can encompass all
practitioners of adaptation from local government staff through to designers of
agricultural insurance – and everything in between. Given that question 1b
refers to local government I have assumed you mean – contribute to the overall
knowledge of the “local government” adaptation sector (including those who
engage with local governments).
Note from NCCARF: CoastAdapt contains
guidance on M&E, and NCCARF will shortly be publishing the results of a
short research project conducted by Stefan Trueck and colleagues at Macquarie
University.
1b. How can Local Government use information
about estimated asset useful life in making no-regret approval and investment
decisions in urban areas subject to future climate impacts?
Answer to Question 1b
Everyone wants to make no-regrets approvals and
investment decisions; doing so is another matter. Guaranteeing no-regrets is
challenging as any decision-making comes with trade-offs, even if you can’t see
them in your lifetime (and climate change adaptation is a complex space). What
local governments need to do for asset management with a climate change lens is
to firstly ensure that they have an internal corporate standard that directs
them to minimum information requirements and how that information is used (see
my response to question 1a with Kingborough Council’s adaptation policy). Local
governments should ensure that climate change is explicitly mentioned in any
asset management plans – this then will link to strategic plans, corporate
plans and long term financial management plans. In reality climate change
should be in all of these corporate documents.
As I mentioned in the previous response (see
1a), climate change is about informed decision-making. So for asset management,
local governments need to ensure that there is an up-to-date spatial inventory
of the assets. That may sound like simplistic advice but I know many do not do
this. Once a spatial inventory exists, local governments then need to undertake
an exposure assessment and quantify how many units (e.g. kilometres of road,
number of buildings, etc) are exposed to differing hazards at differing
timescales. Once units are quantified then the cost is usually straight forward
as your organisation will have (or should have) a set replacement value. Once
again I direct you to Kingborough as they have done this very thing for the
coastal community of Kingston Beach (see here). This quantification
process allows the CFO and asset managers to use this information in their
existing asset management methods (e.g. for depreciation and maintenance
regimes, etc).
Local governments should also realise that it
may not be their assets that present barriers to adaptation – for example in
Tasmania water and sewerage are managed by a separate entity. Local governments
need to ensure that they are maintaining conversations and collaboration with
these and other utilities (e.g. electricity and ICT) as their failure to
consider climate change in their asset management may limit the ability to
service a community in the future.
Also, traditional asset management practices may
not be enough. Local governments should also take stock of their green
infrastructure, as protecting catchments and the local environment may extend
the life of existing assets. A good example of this is how New York saves money
and extends the life of existing water treatment facilities by protecting the
surrounding ecosystem (see here).
An NCCARF report on local government asset
management can be found here.
I hope I have answered your questions and am
happy to refine the answer based on any further context-specific information
you provide.
Question 2.
July 2016 Craig Perry Asks:
How do you effectively engage communities to identify and
determine how they value the coast in the ‘risk management/adaptation planning
process’ when there is currently no risk(s) and there is not any significant
long-term change projected for 30 or more years? Is there any value in engaging
the community at this time? Are there any examples where we can learn from
their experiences (acknowledging that communities are different)?
Answer from Professor Tim Smith, Director of
the Sustainability Research Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast
Wicked problems such as climate change
adaptation, which are highly complex with multiple stakeholder perspectives,
create unique challenges for community engagement. In most instances, climate
change adaptation is unlikely to be a one-off action and instead consist of
pathways of action that may alter course over time.
Because of these conditions, community
engagement for climate change adaptation is best conducted within a social
learning frame, which requires multiple and sustained engagement activities
over time. However, this is difficult because of the resources (financial and
human) needed to undertake engagement effectively and persistently.
Recognising these limitations, I suggest a
process of engaging through existing functional networks that currently exist
within communities of place and communities of interest (sporting clubs,
service clubs, faith-based groups, school groups, etc.). Through this approach,
the role shifts from doing engagement to supporting others to engage. In this
way, the engagement process becomes co-designed and should focus specifically
on the motivations, preferences and capacities of the target audiences (the
three fundamental components of community engagement that are typically ignored
in most processes!).
By taking this approach, motivations unique to
the existing networks can be addressed to build relevance of future impacts and
the need for action (e.g. tailoring a message to parents about not being able
to watch their grandchildren play sport because their sports fields will be
subject to more intense flood events). Without knowing your context, it is
difficult to provide specific examples of the values and risks but I would be
surprised if there were no significant climate change impacts for your coastal
community projected within the next 30 years (e.g. more intense storms) and
drawing on examples of impacts from other regions may help to explain possible
risks.
The approach of supporting engagement through
existing networks has a few caveats, which require consideration, depending on
the specific context and goal. For example, some of the more vulnerable people
in society may not belong to any network, and there may also be particular
power relationships within networks that may need consideration. However,
resources for community engagement are usually quite limited, especially for
sustained processes over time, and the more mainstreamed a social learning
process can become the more likely it is to effect change. The value of early
engagement is not only in mainstreaming but also in building adaptive capacity
(e.g. for autonomous responses).
Much more detail on the key elements of the
process and rationale are include in the Information Manual on Community
Engagement (IM CE) for CoastAdapt, which is available here. The examples we have
included in the IM CE include: Twin Streams (Waitakere City, NZ); Marks Point
and Belmont South (Lake Macquarie, NSW); and Great Lakes (USA). There are very
few examples of contemporary retreat strategies, which are likely to be the
most contentious. We have included an example of retreat (Twin Streams, NZ)
that was only possible because of early and sustained engagement.
Question 3.
July 2016 Natural Ecosystems Network Asks:
1. How do we stimulate a process of re-framing biodiversity
objectives so that they are feasible under climate change, reflect society’s
values, are ecologically robust and can usefully inform policy and research?
2. What are the trade-offs that arise from infrastructure that protects the
built environment from sea-level rise and the movement of the natural
environment? How can adaptation methods for natural environments also be used
as adaptation methods to protect infrastructure (i.e. ecosystem buffering)?
3. What
regions may offer potential as climate refugia for different species under
future climate scenarios? Are there any refugia areas which may function to
protect multiple species (e.g. subtropical reefs for tropical fish and corals)?
Will these areas shift under increased warming? Are these regions currently
protected?
Answer from Alistair Hobday, CSIRO Oceans and
Atmosphere
Response to Question 1
We can stimulate a process of reframing by
considering timing of decisions, adaptation pathways, and the values, rules,
and knowledge that constrain or permit particular decisions and pathways.
As the climate continues to change, the impacts
on species and ecosystems will become significant and widespread and many
current approaches to conservation will become increasingly difficult and
ineffective. The timing of biological changes is not always clear, but we can
anticipate which aspects might change and which might persist. This provides
the basis of practical approaches for anticipating the implications for biodiversity
and the ecosystem benefits and services that society enjoys (see Dunlop et al.,
2013).
Thinking about the timing of decisions along a pathway helps people frame
adaptation as a series of decisions over time, instead of a once-off choice (see
Stafford Smith et al., 2011). Adaptation options selected now, without
considering alternative futures, may become ineffective or even maladaptive in
the future. Thinking about decision timing draws people’s attention to the
importance of path dependency in adaptation decision-making. This helps people
understand how important it can be to take a long-term perspective in order to
avoid inadvertently setting out along an undesirable path. The concept of Adaptation Pathways emphasises
the importance of both decision timing and decision context, and frames
adaptation as the evolution over time of the decision contexts that enable and
constrain adaptation decisions (see Wise et al., 2014). Instead of seeing
pathways as only a sequence of decisions, the Adaptation Pathways concept helps
people view adaptation in terms of the evolution of systems of values, rules, and knowledge.
This helps broaden the perspective on adaptation away from narrow framings of
decision problems and helps us to understand the importance of uncertainty and
learning as integral parts of the adaptation process.
Prevailing systems of societal values, rules and
knowledge define the context in which decisions are made (see Gorddard et al.,
2016). The interaction of values, rules and knowledge (VRK) both creates and
limits the set of decisions that are practical and permissible in a given
decision context. This means that successful adaptation may require changes to
prevailing systems to enable new decisions to be made. The VRK model can be
used to help diagnose constraints in decision processes. This means that
adaptation initiatives can be reframed to reveal new approaches to developing
adaptation responses to more complex problems.
In some cases, even while societal attitudes may
shift, the rules for supporting species adaptation may not be suitable, and so
legal frameworks may need to change (see McDonald et al., 2016). An example of
developing options for adaptation that are technically suitable,
institutionally possible, and socially acceptable has been developed for use
with marine species (see Hobday et al., 2016; Alderman and Hobday 2016).
Response to Question 2
Trade-offs exist, conflicts exist, costs
differ, and natural approaches offer considerable multiple benefits compared to
built infrastructure. A combination of approaches will be needed around
Australia’s coastline.
Infrastructure, such as seawalls, breakwaters,
and groynes, can be built to protect coastal assets, such as roads, bridges,
housing and other infrastructure from storm surge and sea-level rise. These
hard structures can lead to additional geomorphological modification, such as
the presence of beaches seaward of seawalls, or the movement of sand behind groynes.
These changes may cause loss of public amenity, such as beaches, or increase
the rate of erosion if sand supply is interrupted. The use of engineering
solutions to protect coastal assets is expensive and so will only be possible
when high value assets are in need of protection and there is someone to pay.
Coastal protection via engineering structures is controversial, with a range of
court battles serving as high profile examples of the conflict between protect
and retreat strategies. Infrastructure can also limit the landward retreat of
coastal habitats such as mangroves, saltmarshes, and dunes. Some of these
habitats also provide ecosystem services such as coastal protection, carbon
sequestration, and recreational opportunities, as well as providing important
habitat for protected and fished species.
There is emerging evidence that natural systems
can also provide buffering to coastal assets, for both gradual sea-level rise,
and extreme events, such as storm surges and even tsunamis (the latter are not
climate related). Seagrasses have a particularly high capacity to dissipate
wave energy, whereas salt marshes and mangroves have a high capacity to protect
from surges. When these ecosystems co-occur, their combined effectiveness in
protecting from waves and surges in considerable. However, in cases where
erosion is particularly strong and rapid, natural systems may not provide a
sufficient buffer, and setting aside land for coastal retreat of these systems
may be needed. The relative cost of natural and engineered coastal protection
varies depending on the method used to assess the economics, however, natural
habitats are considered the most cost-effective in the long run, and over the
large coastlines that may need protection.
Response to Question 3
What regions may offer potential as climate
refugia for different species under future climate scenarios? Are there any
refugia areas which may function to protect multiple species (e.g. subtropical
reefs for tropical fish and corals)? Will these areas shift under increased
warming? Are these regions currently protected?
On land and in the ocean, there are fast and
slow change areas. The slow change areas may protect multiple species. Research
led by JCU (see further reading for question 3, below) has shown that while
much of Australia would suffer dramatic species losses in the future, large
parts of the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range would fare well. These
areas would be less affected by climate change and would retain a greater
potential to support significant wildlife populations. The researchers involved
in this work have reported that the Queensland Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection has used these data in considering future extensions to
wildlife reserves, and begun purchasing “future refuge” properties to add to
the protected area estate. This story is similar to other places in Australia,
where there are refuges, not all are within protected areas, and so new additions
to the protected area estate will be needed. In the ocean, the fastest warming
areas are in south-east and south-west Australia (Hobday and Pecl 2014), and so
species in these locations must move, adapt or die.
Further reading for question 1
Alderman, R. and A. J. Hobday (2016). Developing
a climate adaptation strategy for vulnerable seabirds based on prioritisation
of intervention options. Deep Sea Research II: doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.003.
Dunlop M, Parris, H, Ryan, P, Kroon, F (2013)
Climate-ready conservation objectives: a scoping study, National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, pp.
102.https://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/climate-ready-conservation-objectives-scoping-study
Gorddard, R., M. J. Colloff, R. M. Wise, D. Ware
and M. Dunlop (2016). Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the
decision context. Environmental Science & Policy 57:
60-69.doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004.
Hobday, A. J., L. E. Chambers and J. P. Y.
Arnould (2015). Prioritizing climate change adaptation options for iconic
marine species. Biodiversity and Conservation 24(14): 3449-3468 DOI
10.1007/s10531-015-1007-4.
McDonald, J., P. C. McCormack, A. J. Fleming, R.
M. B. Harris and M. Lockwood (2016). Rethinking legal objectives for
climate-adaptive conservation. Ecology and Society 21(2): 25 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08460-210225.
Stafford-Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey and
C. Hamilton (2011). Rethinking adaptation for a 4°C world. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences 369: 196-216.
Wise, R. M., I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S. E. Park,
H. C. Eakin, E. R. M. Archer Van Garderen and B. Campbell (2014).
Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change
and response. Global Environmental Change: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002.
Further reading for question 2
Duarte, C. M., I. J. Losada, I. E. Hendriks, I.
Mazarrasa and N. Marbà (2013). The role of coastal plant communities for
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change.
Further reading for question 3
https://climatechangeresearch.network/nccarf/james-cook-university-scientists-have-mapped-the-entire-australian-continent-to-find-the-areas-that-will-best-support-wildlife-70-years-from-now-even-under-a-relatively-severe-climate-change-scenario
Hobday, A. J. and G. T. Pecl (2014).
Identification of global marine hotspots: sentinels for change and vanguards
for adaptation action. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24: 415-425. DOI
10.1007/s11160-013-9326-6.
Question 4.
August 2016 Question by Rohan:
What are the implications for other communities of the recent
ruling on Belongil?
(Answer by Ballanda Sack, Special Counsel,
Beatty Legal Pty Limited)
Byron Shire Council’s coastal management of
Belongil beach has been the subject of litigation initiated at various times by
private landowners (in favour of the construction of protective measures) and
concerned community groups (opposed to such measures) for well over 7 years.
In August this year Council announced that a
settlement had been reached between it and owners of land at the beach to
resolve a long running Supreme Court case commenced in 2010. Essentially, the
case initiated by the landowners alleged negligence on the part of Council in
its management of coastal erosion issues at Belongil beach. Specifically, the
claims related to the construction of a structure/rock wall intended to protect
the southern (main) beach in the 1960s-1970s. This structure was alleged to
have caused erosion at Belongil to the north west. Council was also alleged to
have been negligent in its ongoing management of the area and specifically in
the policies expressed in draft planning instruments and a draft coastal zone
management plan prepared in 2009 which gave effect to its policy of “planned
retreat”. This policy had the effect of preventing landowners from installing
permanent protective measures or maintaining measures already in place.
Early this year Council undertook public
consultation for a revised Coastal Zone Management Plan (Draft CZMP) and this
plan was lodged with the Minister for Planning for certification under the
Coastal Protection Act 1979. The Draft CZMP permits landowner initiated
emergency protective measures at Belongil beach and proposes the construction
of a seawall at the beach. The estimated construction cost exceeds $14 million,
$13 million of which is to be borne by the landowners.
The Draft CZMP has not yet been certified by the
Minister. Coastal management in NSW is in a state of reform with a new Coastal
Management Act 2016 enacted but not yet in force. Commencement of the
legislation is being deferred until the Guidelines and SEPP underpinning the
Act have been finalised and undergone public consultation. The new legislation
establishes an alternative regime for the preparation of Coastal Management
Programs by Council in accordance with the proposed detailed government
guidelines. If the Minister certifies the Draft Byron CZMP within 6 months of
the commencement of the Act then Council will be entitled to act on it until
December 2021.
As the matter was settled out of court, it makes
no new law and provides no guidance as to how a court might determine a
negligence/nuisance claim against a local council in similar circumstances.
The circumstances at Belongil, however,
demonstrate the challenges for local government in balancing private property
interests with community interests, the complexities of coastal management and
the pressures that can be exerted by very well resourced and persistent
landowner litigators.
(Answer by Sharon Pope, Manager Integrated
Planning, Lake Macquarie City Council)
Each case needs to be reviewed on its merits.
Existing protective work in one location may be causing accelerated erosion and
damage to an adjoining property, or could be causing unacceptable hazards and
risks to the public, so removal may be more critical. But if all things were
the same as the circumstances surrounding this case, then it indicates that
councils should not take steps to remove current protective works, as they
currently exist, if this is against the wishes of the property owners who
erected the works or those who benefit from them (e.g. subsequent property
owners).
If the current protection work is damaged,
destroyed, or washed away, the property owners must still follow the usual
process to seek approval from the relevant consent authority, and the
applicable landowner, for permission to rebuild, repair or replace the
works. A full merit assessment would occur to determine whether to grant
approval. The ruling maintains the status quo in this regard.
The ruling also indicates that councils should
not unreasonably withhold access to their land for the purposes of allowing
property owners to carry out approved protection works. Councils may still
withhold access if they have a reasonable basis to do so – for example, if the
carrying out of the proposed works would unreasonably interfere with public
access or give rise to safety concerns. The concept of access not being
unreasonably refused is based upon provisions in the New South Wales Coastal
Protection Act which provide that a public authority must not unreasonably
refuse a person access to public land to enable the person to lawfully place
temporary coastal protection works on the land. So this aspect of the ruling
also maintains the status quo.
________________________________________________________________________________
Question 5.
August 2016 Kate asks:
When will we know that the environmental impacts we are
seeing on the coast are actually being caused by changes to the climate?
Answer by Kevin Walsh, Associate Professor,
University of Melbourne School of Earth Sciences
This is an important question but would probably
need to be more specific to receive a tightly focused answer. “Environmental
impacts” could mean biological as well as physical changes. If I stick to my
relevant area of expertise, namely sea-level rise caused by global warming, we
may already be seeing in some locations the early coastal effects of sea-level
rise (NY Times, Sept. 3, 2016 – http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0). The main early effect
would be what could be called “fair weather flooding”, which is just increased
tidal flooding due to the same tides that have always occurred, plus the
additional sea level caused by global warming. Note that in some locations the
land is falling, which is a geological effect, so this would need to be added
to the sea-level rise effect to get the total impact. Future fair weather
flooding is relatively easy to predict and we know that certain locations will
be affected by it or are already being affected.
As for more complicated effects like coastal
erosion, the jury is out at present. The problem is that coastal effects are
highly local: in one location, erosion could be large, but 10 kilometres down
the coast there could be no effect, due to differences in the coastline
composition, currents and wave climate. Models that are used to predict these
effects are currently not very accurate at this scale, so they have a very
limited ability to predict into the future to see when these local effects will
become large as sea level continues to rise. Coastal erosion effects of sea
level rise to date have also often been overwhelmed by the effects of large
storms, natural variability like El Nino, human influences, and so on.
Available observations indicate that most coasts have eroded in the past couple
of decades, which is at least consistent with sea-level rise, but there is no
scientific proof in the form of conclusive modelling experiments of the
association of this increased erosion with global warming. Thus we actually
don’t know when coastal erosion effects will grow to the point where they will
be conclusively demonstrated to be caused by global warming or not.
Further reading
Cazenave, A., & Cozannet, G. L. (2014). Sea
level rise and its coastal impacts. Earth’s Future, 2(2), 15-34.
Le Cozannet, G., Garcin, M., Yates, M., Idier,
D. and Meyssignac, B., 2014. Approaches to evaluate the recent impacts of
sea-level rise on shoreline changes. Earth-Science Reviews, 138, pp.47-60.
Question 6.
September 2015 Ralph Roob Asks:
The City of Greater Geelong
Council are evaluating the effectiveness of establishing a near shore semi
submersed breakwater to dampen wave energy with the primary objective of
preventing further erosion along a vulnerable section of coast near
Portarlington, 50km south of Melbourne. The structure will also aim to provide
optimum structural habitat for shallow water reef communities.
Are any members of the expert panel aware of
similar projects that have been trialled in Australia, particularly in waters
less than 2 metres deep that are prone to severe wind derived waves?
Answer by Mark Gibbs, Director of Knowledge to Innovation,
QUT
Artificial reefs and semi-submerged breakwaters
have been used as a means of shore protection for centuries and can be traced
back to ancient Egypt. Nearshore shallow water submerged or intertidal
structures experienced a resurgence over recent decades as computer models that
can predict breaking waves were developed. This enabled such structures to be
designed in a way that could also create artificial surfing reefs so that the
structures served as shore protection measures and added amenity value.
However, their utility as surfing breaks has
been limited, often owing to the lack of precision in construction of these
structures (for example, the Narrow neck artificial reef on the Gold Coast). Such
structures can be very effective both as shoreline protection measures and as
fish attraction devices. The Narrow neck reef, for example, is renowned for
attracting biodiversity. To this end, a new such structure is being presently
designed for Palm Beach, on the central Gold Coast.
Care must be taken when considering this option
as, by design, these structures disrupt sediment transport pathways. Sediment
trapped behind these structures, which can help stabilise the beach profile, is
potentially sediment that becomes unavailable for shore protection elsewhere.
Hence careful consideration of the opportunity cost must be given. Many
consultants now offer a numerical (computer) shoreline evolution modelling service.
However, these models are still relatively unsophisticated and must be treated
with some caution.
There have been attempts to establish less
permanent structures to achieve the same end. However, such temporary
structures have a habit of coming unstuck even in relatively minor storms.
Question 7.
October 2016 Question submitted by Dave Rissik
1. Climate change will affect future generations. What can we
do to involve more young people in adaptation ideation and decision making such
as sitting on committees?
Answer by Annette Xiberras, Managing
Director, U.C.A. Pty Ltd Cultural Heritage Planners.
We need to have a youth forum on climate change,
inviting students and young adults to write the agenda. This would include a competition
for delivering the agenda and papers at the forum, leading to possible
employment opportunities, positions on the committee, and awards. The forum
could be advertised in papers, social media, posters around schools and so on.
Also, we should give the opportunity to present
posters and art as well as papers, to be more inclusive of the diverse approach
within our youth of Australia. Making young people feel that they own the forum
and are in control will empower them to look at possible alternative solutions
to problems. Being part of a forum committee and having a voice that will be
heard I think will be the biggest draw card.
We also should be looking at the education
curriculum and introducing climate change as a subject within schools, which
looks at the effects of climate change and physically measures the impact on
the environment, using a holistic approach to understanding present and future
changes.
Education is the best from of knowledge and
awareness, which is lacking in our youth of Australia. The basic introduction
of the dangers of climate change need to come in at a fundamental level that is
understandable, interesting and informative. I think that education and
interaction with our youth will be the way to introduce them to the problem and
be a great starting point to interest them. This will then in turn make them
want to get involved and part of a movement to start looking at ways to stop or
try and combat global warming.
We need to include the multi-cultural youth of
Australia by selecting leader’s from these cultures to lead the youth to the
table and give them a voice. This needs to be a fully supported committee with
sitting fees and secretariat support. These voices need a space on the more
senior and government committees representing our youths’ point of views and
ideas.
Question 8.
October 2016 Question submitted by Dave Rissik
2. How can we access carbon mitigation funding to pay for
adaptation projects such as riparian revegetation, salt marsh mangrove restoration,
and dune stabilization? These projects often seem too small for the funding
bodies to take seriously and yet present opportunities with significant
benefits.
Answer by Melanie Bishop, Associate Professor
of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University
Mangrove forests, saltmarshes and seagrass beds
are among the most effective ecosystems in the world for sequestering and
storing carbon. Although they account for less than 0.5% of the Earth’s area,
collectively these so-called ‘blue carbon’ habitats account for 30 to 40% of
carbon taken up by living organisms, and can store as much as five times the
carbon of terrestrial forests per unit area (Mcleod et al. 2011). Unlike
terrestrial forests, where most carbon is held in the live plants themselves,
in coastal ecosystems the majority of carbon is stored in sediments below. The
carbon-rich material from dead plants is trapped by the shoots and roots of
coastal vegetation, and becomes buried in the waterlogged sediments below where
it may be stored for millennia.
When coastal vegetation is degraded or lost, so
too is its ability to sequester and store carbon. Carbon stores already
accumulated may be remobilised – putting more carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere (Pendleton et al. 2012). Hence, there are significant carbon
mitigation benefits of stabilising and restoring coastal vegetation.
The Australian Department of the Environment and
Energy is presently scoping a method to estimate the emissions reduction that
results from protection and restoration of mangroves. If a method is approved,
such activities will then be eligible for consideration under the Emissions
Reduction Fund. In the meantime, many State governments and several private
foundations offer funding for community and/or local government projects that
repair degraded ecosystems, in some cases for carbon mitigation benefits.
In addition to sequestering and storing carbon,
the protection and repair of coastal vegetation has many other benefits,
including dune stabilisation, erosion control, enhancement of fisheries
productivity and improvement of water quality. Some funding opportunities for
habitat rehabilitation projects specifically focus around these other ecosystem
services. For example, funding from the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust can
support projects that can demonstrate benefits to essential fish habitat.
Thinking creatively about the multiple benefits of coastal habitat repair will
assist in identifying other potential funding sources.
The case for repair of coastal vegetation is
strengthened by data demonstrating the success of projects in meeting goals
such as carbon sequestration, erosion control, fisheries productivity and/or
clean water quality. Hence, it is essential that when projects are funded, they
include a monitoring component that evaluates their success.
References
Mcleod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm,
R., Björk, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E., Schlesinger, W.H. and Silliman,
B.R., 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of
the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 9(10), pp.552-560.
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:251863/UQ251863_OA.pdf
Pendleton, L., Donato, D.C., Murray, B.C.,
Crooks, S., Jenkins, W.A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C., Fourqurean, J.W., Kauffman,
J.B., Marbà, N. and Megonigal, P., 2012. Estimating global “blue carbon”
emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal
ecosystems. PloS one, 7(9), p.e43542. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043542
Question 9.
October 2016 Question (Steve) asks:
The CHRMAP (coastal hazard risk
management and adaptation planning) process within the Western
Australian Policy context prescribes a process to understand coastal hazard
risks from both inundation and erosion. In terms of erosion, the policy is very
limited on how to determine the effect of erosion from either storm surge and
sea level rise. Basically the policy is very focused around Perth and therefore
on ‘sandy coastlines’. In the north west of Australia, we have a range of
alternative coast types namely ‘coastal lowlands’ within sheltered areas (e.g.
protected by mangroves and large tidal flats). Therefore, the level of risk
from erosion in this context is extremely minimal to non-existent.
However, the policy position requires that erosion for sea level rise be
determined as for ‘sandy coastlines’ (e.g. Bruun Rule) which therefore mandates
a 90m erosion setback (S3) be added to the erosion hazard lines over the
100-year planning framework. In the context of our environment, the extent of
this ‘hazard’ is not realistic. This is reinforced through the historic
observations (S2) which shows a stable, if not accreting coastline over the
past 50 years.
Therefore, my question is: As the policy prescribes an unrealistic starting
point, how much justification is required to outline the erosion hazard as
insignificant and rare, and therefore a risk that does not require any further
consideration?
Answer by Dr Philip Haines, Managing
Director, Water & Environment Group, BMT WBM Pty Ltd
Your question raises a few interesting points.
Firstly, as a word of caution, historical observations (S2) are not necessarily
a good indicator of potential shoreline response to future sea level (S3), and
instead, a more detailed coastal assessment should always be done to understand
local coastal processes, including sediment transport, and responses to
projected sea-level rise conditions. It is widely recognised in the coastal
engineering industry that the ‘Bruun Rule’ is quite restrictive, and not
necessarily relevant even on sandy coastlines, especially where there is strong
longshore sediment transport and influences on coastal processes from onshore
and offshore structures, reefs etc. That said, within the context of CHRMAP,
the Bruun Rule has been used to estimate a generic allowance on the WA coast to
cater for shoreline recession associated with future sea-level rise (90m as
specified in SPP2.6 Schedule One). But the CHRMAP also mandates the use of a
risk-based assessment, meaning that such an allowance is to consider both
likelihood and consequence of such an event occurring. The generic allowance is
a simple way to delineate broad spatial planning control area overlays and is
often used to raise stakeholders’ awareness of coastal hazards.
The risk assessment process adopted by CHRMAP
provides a mechanism for dealing with uncertainties of hazards, through the use
of likelihood and consequence scales. Identified hazards that have a low chance
of occurring over a nominated timeframe can be assigned as low likelihood
within the risk framework. It is always best to provide justification for a
decision made within a risk assessment framework, especially with regard to
assigning quantified likelihoods or consequences. With respect to the generic
90m sea-level rise allowance, there is no explicit method provided in the WA
policy to quantify the actual likelihood of the hazard. Some examples are
provided in the CHRMAP guidelines, but I recommend you seek professional advice
on a case-by-case basis and by using the best available information to deliver
a robust and defensible risk assessment.
With respect to your specific question, if I
were in the shoes of the officer administering the Policy, I would need to be
convinced that the likelihood is indeed low in the areas you have suggested.
But I would be looking for consideration of the full spectrum of coastal
hazards, covering both recession and inundation. So even though the likelihood
of shoreline recession due to future sea-level rise may be low in your
particular location, the likelihood of increased coastal inundation may
actually be high as it is a coastal lowland. If this is the case, you should
also be mindful that consequences may be different between recession hazards
and inundation hazards. That is, consequences would likely be high if the land
was to erode away completely, whereas consequences would probably be lower if
the land was only inundated on an occasional basis.
From a policy perspective, use of the mandated
90m setback provides a level of assurance to the administrator that ‘worst
case’ conditions are considered. For greenfield development sites, sensible
risk management may advocate an ‘avoidance’ strategy. For sites of existing
development though, or where consequences are particularly high, it would be
best to proceed with the other components the CHRMAP risk-based process and to
seek more detailed investigations to refine definitions of likelihood,
consequence and risk based on best available information, science and
engineering methods.
Question 10.
October 2016 Question (Daniel)
There are many ways in which risk is communicated and even more ways in which
it’s interpreted. Engineers use assessments like “design for 1 in 100
years” while climate risk is sometimes used in terminology such as
“likelihood” of something happening now, by 2050 or by 2100. These
and many other terms confuse the community and the practitioner when delivering
projects or information. Are there simple but effective ways all these terms/approaches
can be contextualised and communicated to improve understanding?
Answer by Mark Gibbs, Director of Knowledge
to Innovation, QUT
This is a great question and I’m happy that you
have asked it.
While more than one Greek philosopher identified
with the concept of risk, and that risk would be related to the consequence and
the likelihood of an event occurring, the formal definition of risk is often
attributed to the French philosopher Blaise Pascal in the late 1600s. Most
famous for “Pascal’s Wager”, Pascal defined risk as directly and simultaneously
dependent on both the likelihood (commonly expressed as a probability) and the
consequence of a hazard occurring. This definition has been enshrined in the
international standard ISO 31000 series and is widely used in many technical
disciplines, including the engineering and actuarial professions.
For example, the commonly used term of 1-in-100
years expresses the average likelihood of an event occurring, but not the
consequence of such an event. Therefore, such terms do not express risk; only
likelihood. As an aside, the term 1-in-100 years is now better expressed at the
1% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) event.
Unfortunately over the past decade or so, a new
generation of climate and natural hazard practitioners and researchers thought
it best to attempt to re-invent the formal definition of risk. The result is
exactly what you have identified – there are now multiple definitions being
used. My personal view is that this is unhelpful and leads to confusion. My
recommendation is therefore that we all stick to the existing, accepted
definition that is defined in the international standards (that is,
risk=likelihood*consequence).
Having said that, we know that there is
widespread lack of understanding among communities on what 1-in-100 years, or
1%AEP, actually means. Some reading on this is as follows, and I would be happy
to discuss further.
Gibbs, MT, (2016). Why is coastal retreat so
hard to implement? Understanding the political risk of coastal adaptation
pathways. Ocean & Coastal Management 130, 107-114
Gibbs, MT, (2015). Pitfalls in developing coastal climate adaptation responses.
Climate Risk Management 8, 1-8
Gibbs, MT and Browman, HI (2015). Risk assessment and risk management: a primer
for marine scientists, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(3), 992–996.
doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu232
Gibbs, MT, (2015). Guiding principles for infrastructure climate change risk
and adaptation studies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, DOI:
10.1080/10286608.2015.1025385
Question 11.
November 2016 Question from Cr John McCallum:
Is the thermal expansion of the oceans as the atmosphere
heats up as much of a problem as the sea level rise (3mm/year)? In other words,
many models show SLR at an almost constant rising gradient but does thermal
expansion reach a maximum level and then stop?
Answer by Dr Kevin Walsh, Associate
Professor, University of Melbourne School of Earth Sciences
This question has two parts. First, does the
density of water reach a plateau as temperature rises? The answer to this is
unequivocally no. Below is a graph showing the density at various pressures of
water, as a function of temperature. Density continues to decrease with
increasing temperature (Figure 1), so if the temperature of the ocean continues
to increase, the density will be less, so the volume of the ocean will be more,
and so thermal expansion of the oceans will continue.
Figure 1. Density as a function of
temperature, for various pressures (1 bar is about one atmospheric pressure).
The other part of the question is whether the
ocean temperatures will continue to increase, thus causing further thermal
expansion. Based on the latest projections, we have no indication that they
will stop warming, although of course there is a range of predictions. Also, as
the question correctly points out, thermal expansion is not the only component
of sea-level rise: another large component is the melting of land-based ice.
The relevant proportion of these two effects in the total rise in sea level
will change with time, but in all future projections, thermal expansion remains
the largest component (Church et al. 2013), unless the Antarctic ice sheets
become unstable.
Further reading
Church, J.A., et al. , 2013: Sea Level Change.
In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.
Question 12.
November 2016 – A member of the Natural Ecosystems Network asks:
(a) What are the connectivity issues for coastal environments: the land/sea
interface, estuaries and near-shore marine systems?
(b) How will ecosystem processes (self-purification, delivery of ecosystem
services to adjacent environments etc.) be affected by climate change?
(c) What are the direct impacts of climate change on interconnected realms?
Answer by Dr Melanie Bishop, Associate
Professor of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University
Estuarine and coastal zones are transition zones
between land and sea. As low points in the environment, to which the land
drains, estuaries and coasts are strongly influenced by freshwater, nutrient
and sediment inputs from freshwater systems, as well as run-off of nutrients,
sediments and pollutants from catchments (Sheaves 2009). Connectivity with the
sea determines the extent of saltwater intrusion and tides into estuaries, and
the opportunity for larval exchange between estuarine, coastal and marine
domains.
Many estuarine and coastal species are dependent
on multiple habitats to complete their life cycles (Sheaves 2009). Several
species of fish, such as lamprey, salmon and eels, display large-scale
migrations from freshwater to marine environments, or vice versa, to spawn.
Additionally, many aquatic organisms display a larval stage in their life
history, and may be transported kilometres from source to sink populations by
wind, waves and currents.
Processes that enhance or inhibit the flow of
organisms and resources between land and sea, and along coastlines, are likely
to have large impacts on coastal ecosystems, and the ecosystem services they
provide (Sheaves 2009).
Several of the physical impacts of climate
change, including sea-level rise, change in rainfall patterns, and altered
storminess, may have large effects on estuarine and coastal ecosystems by
directly and indirectly modifying connectivity. For example, altered rainfall
patterns, coupled with sea-level rise, are expected to result in significant
saltwater intrusion of the Kakadu wetland system (BMT WBM 2010). For estuarine
habitats, the potential impacts include decreases in the abundance of migratory
birds that utilise the area for foraging and breeding, decreases in culturally
important fisheries species such as mud crabs and threadfin salmon, as well as
changes in the extent of mangroves (with retraction in some areas and expansion
in others; BMT WBM 2010).
In addition, adaptation of human settlements to
climate change may influence coastal ecosystems by modifying land-sea
connectivity (Bishop et al. in press). In areas of increased rainfall,
reservoirs may be built for flood mitigation, while in areas of decreased
rainfall, natural flows may be redistributed for agriculture and human
consumption. Water retaining structures can serve as barriers to fish
migration, unless fish ladders are provided. These barriers can also serve as
barriers to sediment transport, leading to loss of mudflats and erosion of
beaches at downstream, coastal locations. Where water-retaining structures
alter the timing, frequency and volume of freshwater flows into the coastal
zone, they may interfere with spawning events that are often triggered by
changes in salinity and/or flow.
Seawalls, breakwaters, groynes, and barrages built
to protect coastal infrastructure from more frequent storm surges and coastal
flooding under sea-level rise, can also produce substantive collateral damage
to coastal ecosystems by disrupting land-sea and long-shore connectivity of
organisms and resources (Bishop et al. in press). For example, these structures
may facilitate movement by marine pest species that utilize the increased
hard-substrate as a stepping stone for spread. Additionally, dead seaweed has
been observed to accumulate on the up-current side of groynes, producing
unsightly and odorous banks of decaying material which local authorities have
to remove on tourist beaches. This accumulation results in starvation of
down-drift beaches of this nutrient source that fuels the productivity of sandy
beach ecosystems.
Understanding the mechanisms by which climate
change directly and indirectly modifies connectivity is essential if marine
spatial planning and green engineering are to be effectively utilised to
minimise impacts.
Further reading
Bishop MJ, Mayer-Pinto M, Airoldi L, Firth LB,
Morris RL, Loke LHL, Hawkins SJ, Naylor LA, Coleman RA, Chee SY, Dafforn KA (in
press) Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and
solutions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol (accepted, 29 May, 2016)
BMT WBM (2010). Kakadu-Vulnerability to climate
change impacts. A report to the Australian Government Department of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b2915be6-16e4-4cb3-8533-471ed879bfc1/files/kakadu-coast.pdf
Sheaves M (2009) Consequences of ecological
connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 391: 107-115. http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2009/391/m391p107.pdf
______________________________________________________________________
Question 13.
November 2016 Question from Robert Gibson:
How do the risks of losing sand following renourishment
compare between a large embayment such as Port Phillip Bay and an east facing
ocean beach on the south coast such as that found at Port Fairy? What are the
risks/benefits of sourcing sand from approximately 800m offshore and placing it
on the beach as part of a beach renourishment program? How does this affect the
overall sand budget of the system?
Answer by Dr Philip Haines, Managing
Director, Water & Environment Group, BMT WBM Pty Ltd
Sand dynamics in all coastal embayments are
driven by the wave climate. Swell waves do not penetrate far into Port Phillip
Bay, meaning that the majority of wave action around the Bay foreshores is
derived from local winds. This means that the Port Phillip Bay wave climate is
characterised by relatively small amplitude and small period waves.
Nourished sand that is placed on the foreshores
of Port Phillip Bay will respond to the local wave climate. Given the wave
climate is relatively small (compared to open ocean embayments at least),
mobilisation and loss of sand after nourishment will likely be limited. If the
sand is placed carefully on the beach, cognisant of the wave climate, then
losses can indeed be minimised. In contrast, placement of nourished sand on an
open coast beach, such as Port Fairy, will be more susceptible to loss given
the higher degree of sediment mobility, purely because of the larger wave
climate. Again, placement can be designed to roughly match the every-day wave
climate, and thus minimise sand loss to a degree. However, if a larger storm
occurs, or the dominant wave direction changes for a time, then the beach will
respond and nourished sand may be lost more rapidly.
Sourcing of sand for nourishment is a challenge.
Nearshore sand is often an alluring option, as transportation costs would be
low, and the sediment characteristics are usually compatible. However, taking
sand from nearshore sand bars may affect the local or regional sand transport processes.
Sand is mobilised and transported under the action of waves and tides. Along
the Eastern seaboard of Australia, a large wave climate means that sand in
water depths of up to 20-30 metres can still be mobilised and interact with the
coastal processes. Only bigger waves during more severe storm events will
mobilise sand in deeper waters, so the occurrence of such mobilisation is
relatively infrequent. It is for this reason that offshore sand sourcing in the
Gold Coast occurs at depths greater than 30 metres. Unfortunately, this depth
requires special dredgers, generally brought in from overseas.
Offshore dredging could potentially have a
significant impact on local and regional sand budgets if it occurs in water
depths that are too shallow, that is, where sand is transported from time to
time both in cross-shore and alongshore directions. Interruption with natural
sand transport processes, through offshore dredging, may inhibit the natural
on-shore transport of sand, leading to beach recession, especially if the
dredged sand is not placed locally. If offshore dredging is proposed as part of
a beach nourishment program, it is imperative to have a detailed appreciation
of local and regional sand transport processes to ensure that the dredging will
not cause secondary impacts on coastal responses.
Another important consideration for beach
nourishment of offshore sand reserves is the placement methodology. Options
generally are:
i. bottom dumping closer to the beach, but not
directly onto the beach;
ii. rainbowing (ejecting in an arc) onto the
lower profile of the beach; or
iii. mooring and pumping via pipeline to the
upper beach profile.
The costs increase in this order, as does the
‘immediate’ benefit to the beach.
———————————————————————————————————–
Question 14.
December 2016 – Joanne asks:
I get asked quite a bit about the planning horizons for coastal adaptation,
particularly related to sea-level rise. Please help me better understand/explain
the reasoning behind most planning, engineering and policy decisions being set
to the 2100 or 2110 timeframes.
Answer by Leo Dobes, Crawford School of
Economics and Government, ANU, and Professor Jean Palutikof, NCCARF Director
There is no “correct” or ideal planning horizon
for coastal adaptation to sea level rise (SLR). There is no scientific, economic
or engineering reason to use only the 100-year timeframe. It has simply become
conventional to do so.
Like most conventions, it is not entirely clear
why 100 years has become common usage, but policy makers and modellers do tend
to copy each other, mainly because it makes life simpler. One hundred is a nice
round number; using it provides comparability with other studies, and one can
get away without justifying it on the grounds that everyone else uses it
too.
However, there is some underlying rationale for
using 100 years. The estimated values and climate effects of the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) concepts used by
the IPCC vary depending on timeframes and the different lifetimes of greenhouse
gases. The dominant convention nowadays is a 100-year period for GWPs. To
ensure consistency in modelling, use of 100-year GWPs or GTPs is generally
matched by corresponding estimates of the physical effects and economic
implications of climate change over the course of a century. If you want to
learn more about GWP and GTP, there is more information at http://www.fluorocarbons.org/uploads/Modules/Library/efctc-factsheet_gtp.pdf.
Some global climate models are used to project
the effects of climate change beyond 100 years. Sea-level rise is projected to
be relatively gradual because it depends on many different factors. For this
reason, 500-year modelling projections are sometimes used. However, climate
model results need to be interpreted in the context of local conditions to be
of practical use.
Choice of timeframe ultimately depends on the
purpose for undertaking the modelling. Coastal councils would be less likely to
require information on sea-level rise or temperature increases beyond 100 years
because most infrastructure for which they are responsible has an effective
life of a century or less. Roads, for example, are considered by Austroads to
have a life of about 20 years, although repairs and maintenance can extend
this. NCCARF provides some illustrative information on infrastructure lives and
climate change for the UK on page 3 of their Policy Guidance Brief 7, Climate proofing Australia’s infrastructure.