An assessment of the
transferability of the UK’s
approach to monitoring and
evaluating climate adaptation
progress to the Canadian context
19 May 2015
Prepared in collaboration with the
Adaptation Platform’s Measuring
Progress Working Group, with the
support of Natural Resources Canada
Table of contents
I.
Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 2
II.
Our approach ..................................................................................................................... 7
III.
Roles and responsibilities for climate adaptation in the UK .................................................... 11
IV.
Overview of the Adaptation Sub-Committee ........................................................................ 25
1. Identifying the indicators needed to assess adaptation progress .................................. 28
2. Engaging with data owners and other adaptation stakeholders .................................... 32
3. Developing analysis and drawing conclusions on adaptation progress ........................... 36
4. Reporting to Government......................................................................................... 40
V.
Key learnings and recommendations for adopting the UK’s approach to adaptation M&E in Canada
....................................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix A - List of documents reviewed ...................................................................................... 57
Appendix B – Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 60
Confidential and Proprietary - Limitations of use
This Report has been prepared solely for the information and use of Natural Resources Canada’s management,
directors and employees and the Adaptation Platform Measuring Progress Working Group.
We accept no responsibility or liability for any loss or damage occasioned by any third party’s use or reliance on
any information contained in this Report. This Report should not be regarded as comprehensive nor sufficient for
making decisions, nor should it be used in place of professional advice. Before taking any particular course of
action contact EY or another professional advisor to discuss these matters in the context of particular
circumstances.
© 2015 Ernst & Young LLP. All rights reserved.
"EY" as used in this Report means the Canadian firm of Ernst & Young LLP or, as the context requires, other
member firms of the global Ernst & Young network, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
I. Executive summary
1
I.
Executive summary
Introduction
In collaboration with the Adaptation Platform’s Measuring Progress Working Group, with the support of
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Ernst & Young LLP (EY) conducted a research study of the United
Kingdom’s (UK) approach to monitoring and evaluating progress in climate change adaptation, with a
particular focus on the selection, measurement and analysis of adaptation indicators. The purpose of
our work was to identify elements of the UK’s approach to monitoring and evaluating climate
adaptation progress that would be applicable in Canada, based on lessons learned in the UK.
In this Executive summary we provide a brief overview of our approach to conducting our research
study, a high level description of the UK’s approach to monitoring adaptation progress, and our key
recommendations for how Canada could adopt a similar approach. Additional details can be found in
the subsequent sections.
Our approach
Our work-steps
We have undertaken three key areas of activity to review the UK’s approach to monitoring and
evaluation of adaptation progress (M&E) and to identify recommendations for adopting this approach in
Canada:
► Conducted a literature review of publically available documentation related to climate change
adaptation in the UK;
► Interviewed individuals from the UK’s Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC), as well as a selection of
other stakeholders that play a role in M&E; and
► Performed an analysis of the UK adaptation measurement approach and identified key
recommendations for its application to the Canadian context.
Throughout the course of our work we have engaged with the ASC, the organization with principal
responsibility for assessing the UK’s progress in preparing for climate change.
Focus on adaptation themes
The UK Government has categorized its adaptation activity into seven “themes”, each of which is
impacted by specific risks related to climate change. During the course of our work and during the
preparation of this report we have focused on the Agriculture and Forestry and Infrastructure themes
to provide illustrative examples of the UK’s approach in practice.
2
Key features of the UK’s approach to monitoring and evaluating
adaptation progress
The monitoring and evaluation of adaptation progress in the UK is a key mechanism for assessing the
UK’s preparedness for climate change and assigning responsibility for adaptation actions. An
assessment of the M&E approach therefore requires an understanding of the way that climate
adaptation is structured in the UK, and the roles and responsibilities of different organizations.
Responsibility for climate change adaptation in the UK
The Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA) requires the UK Government to “make provision about adaptation
to climate change”, and in doing so sets out a range of obligations on the Government and its agencies.
The CCA assigned the UK’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) with “crossdepartmental responsibility” for adaptation, meaning that it leads on these activities on the
Government’s behalf and works with other Government departments to ensure that climate adaptation
is considered in relevant areas of policy.
The CCA also established the ASC as an independent, politically neutral, expert body with the principal
objective of assessing the UK’s progress in preparing for climate change. It has statutory obligations to
provide advice to the Government on assessing the risks facing the UK from climate change, as well as
provide regular progress updates directly to the UK Parliament.
There are a broad range of organizations that will be impacted by climate change, and therefore play a
role in delivering the UK’s approach to climate change adaptation. Many of these organizations had
already started to understand their own risks and opportunities relating to climate change prior to the
publication of the CCA, with expertize spread across networks of individuals in the public and private
sectors and the academic community.
Principal adaptation activities
The principal adaptation activities of the UK are currently reported in three separate mechanisms:
1) Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) - The CCRA is the foundation for understanding the
specific risks and opportunities that climate change poses to the UK. The first CCRA was
completed in 2012 and is required to be updated every five years. The first CCRA focussed on
risks based on changes to the UK climate, rather than considering the broader impacts of global
climate change on the UK through impacts on traded goods, supply changes, migration, and
international relations.
2) National Adaptation Programme (NAP) - The NAP is the Government’s response to the CCRA and
provides a “snapshot” of the actions that Government, business and society are taking to adapt
to climate change and improve resilience. The NAP is updated in a five year cycle, lagging the
CCRA by one year.
3) Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP) - ARP enables the UK Government to require organizations
(known as “reporting authorities”) that provide public services to prepare climate change
adaptation reports on how they are assessing and acting on the risks and opportunities from
climate change. DEFRA has responsibility on a five-yearly basis to decide whether or not to
exercise its ARP, and justify this decision.
Summary of the ASC’s approach to M&E
The ASC’s principal objective is to assess the progress of the UK in responding to climate change. This
high level objective is delivered by assessing whether the actions set out in the NAP are being
delivered, and whether those actions are reducing vulnerability associated with a changing climate.
3
The ASC’s approach is, therefore, structured around the seven NAP themes. Based on its evaluation,
the ASC makes recommendations to Government on where further action may be necessary to reduce
vulnerability and/or improve climate change resiliency.
The principal activities undertaken by the ASC to deliver its objectives are:
1) Indicator identification - Developing a set of indicators for each NAP theme to show trends in
vulnerability, progress on adaptation actions, and trends in “realized impacts” from climate
change.
2) Engagement with data owners and other adaptation stakeholders - Working with the owners of
adaptation data and NAP actions to collect data and qualitative information, identify and address
knowledge gaps, test intended analytical approaches and prepare non-statutory annual progress
reports.
3) Analysis and drawing conclusions - Using the assessment framework, based on adaptation
processes and outcome-based indicators, to review whether NAP actions are being delivered and
evaluate whether the delivery of those actions is helping to manage vulnerability to climate
change.
4) Reporting to Parliament - Providing recommendations on where policy requires strengthening
across all NAP themes.
To date, the ASC has provided feedback to the UK Government through two key reporting activities –
non-statutory annual progress reports that “deep dive” into specific adaptation topics and letters of
advice on related policy topics. In 2015, the ASC will deliver its first statutory progress report to the
UK Parliament that will provide a progress update across all the NAP themes.
Recommendations for adopting the UK’s approach in Canada
In the body of the report, we have outlined a series of key learnings from the UK’s experience in
developing its M&E approach. For each of these observations, we have formulated recommendations
as to how the UK’s approach could be adopted in Canada, based on our understanding of the “current
state” of its adaptation activity. These are summarized below:
Recommendations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Clearly define responsibilities for climate change adaptation as a pre-requisite for assessing
adaptation progress.
A structured approach to climate adaptation supported by an understanding of risks and
opportunities, with clearly defined objectives against which progress can be measured, is required
for effective monitoring of progress.
Independent monitoring of adaptation progress, supported by the expertise of the scientific
community, drives a more objective assessment of adaptation progress than could be delivered
from within government.
Indicator identification and sourcing data requires extensive stakeholder participation.
Adaptation indicators, whilst important, represent only one component of adaptation of M&E and
must be considered alongside qualitative information to fully assess progress.
4
The structure of our report
► In section II we outline our approach to the research project
► In section III we set the context for climate adaptation in the UK by providing an overview of the
roles and responsibilities for climate adaptation in the UK
► In section IV we outline the UK’s approach to monitoring and evaluating progress on climate
adaptation through a description of the ASC’s structure, governance and activities
► In section V we provide details of the key learnings from our research and highlight
recommendations for how the UK’s approach to monitoring and evaluating adaptation progress
could be adopted in Canada
5
II. Our approach
6
II. Our approach
Introduction
The principal objectives of our work were to review the UK’s approach to monitoring and evaluating
adaptation progress, and to identify recommendations as to how the UK’s approach could be adopted
in Canada. To achieve these objectives we have undertaken the work-steps set out in figure 1 below.
Further detail of each activity is provided on the following page.
As the ASC is the principal body with responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation
progress, a key focus of our work across each of these activities has been to understand how it has
developed its approach. Across each of our work-steps and our engagement with the ASC, we have also
considered the following key issues:
►
►
►
►
The structure and governance of the climate change adaptation program;
How adaptation indicators are identified and prioritized;
The analytical approach to assessing adaptation progress; and
How the M&E programme influences decision-making.
Figure 1: Our approach
7
Literature review
We have conducted a literature review of key documentation related to climate change adaptation in
the UK, to develop our understanding of related M&E and to identify key themes and issues for further
discussion during our engagement with the ASC and our stakeholder interviews. The documentation
reviewed included:
► Reports and supporting documentation published by the ASC;
► Internal ASC documentation relating to the development of its approach to M&E;
► Adaptation reports by organizations published under the UK “Adaptation Reporting Power”
requirements;
► Submissions to the ongoing Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) inquiry on climate change
adaptation; and
► Various other documentation recommended throughout the course of our work.
Refer to appendix A for a list of the publically available documents assessed during our literature
review activities.
Stakeholder interviews
We conducted interviews with key individuals at the ASC, as well as external stakeholders involved in
M&E. The purpose of the interviews was to understand the ASC’s approach, the role of other
organizations in M&E and the interactions between those organizations. External stakeholders were
identified based on discussions with the ASC, and included:
► Government agencies;
► Industry representatives for our focus adaptation themes; and
► Other adaptation stakeholders.
Analysis of the applicability of adaptation in the Canadian context
After integrating the findings of the literature review, stakeholder interviews and our overall
assessment and understanding of M&E in the UK, we identified key lessons learned and developed our
recommendations as to how the Adaptation Platform’s Measuring Progress Working Group might adapt
elements of the UK’s approach for a Canadian context. Our analysis paid particular attention to the
following areas:
►
►
►
►
►
►
Governance model, including government structure, legislative and regulatory environment;
Geographic similarities and differences;
Climate change vulnerabilities and opportunities;
Data availability, including costs involved;
Pre-existing indicators that can be leveraged for adaptation; and
Collaborative networks between public and private institutions.
There are both similarities and divergences in the Canadian and UK approach to climate change
adaptation, which we further explore in Section V.
Focus on selected adaptation themes
We selected two of the UK Government’s seven adaptation themes to enable us to look, in more detail,
at the processes employed by the ASC in the identification and measurement of indicators, and the
assessment of progress. Agriculture & Forestry and Infrastructure were selected as our focus themes
based on the criteria below:
8
► Themes that have different levels of maturity in terms of adaptation activity, and data availability;
► Themes that give insight into the different adaptation activities in the UK, including the CCRA, NAP,
and ARP; and
► Themes that are relevant to the Canadian context.
Limitations to our approach
As described further in the next section, the ASC is still in the process of identifying, measuring and
reporting on a full set of indicators in advance of the publication of its first statutory report to UK
Parliament in June 2015. The annual progress reports published to date have been partial
assessments on specific NAP themes to identify the available data to inform the statutory report. In
addition, during the latter half of our research study, the UK Parliament’s Environment Audit
Committee (EAC) was in the process of holding an inquiry into adaptation to climate change, receiving
oral and written feedback on the ASC’s 2014 progress report and views on the NAP. The EAC is due to
publish its report in late 2015.
The views expressed in this research report are those of EY and not of others we have engaged with
during the course of our work. The contents of our research report, including the summary
descriptions provided and the results of our analysis, were formulated based on the documents
reviewed and interviews conducted, which were comprehensive but not exhaustive. If we had
performed additional procedures the content of our report may have differed.
9
III. Roles and responsibilities for climate
adaptation in the UK
10
III. Roles and responsibilities for climate adaptation in the UK
Introduction
Independent monitoring & evaluation in the UK is a key mechanism for assessing progress with
adaptation to climate change. An assessment of the M&E approach, therefore, requires an
understanding of the way that climate adaptation is structured in the UK, together with the roles and
responsibilities of different organizations. Below, we have provided an overview of the key provisions
for climate adaptation in UK law which sets the context for adaptation and M&E in the UK.
Roles and responsibilities for climate adaptation in the UK are set out in the
Climate Change Act
The CCA requires the UK Government to make provision for adaptation to climate change and, in doing
so, sets out a range of obligations on the Government and its agencies as listed below. Further
information on these activities is provided in Table 1.
► Assessing the risks and opportunities associated with climate change through a Climate Change
Risk Assessment;
► Developing a National Adaptation Programme to address those risks, and requiring periodic
independent assessment of how effectively the NAP is managing the UK’s risks and opportunities for
climate change; and
► Introducing the Adaptation Reporting Power, enabling the Government to require specific
organizations to report on their own climate change adaptation activities.
DEFRA leads on adaptation activity, whilst the ASC is responsible for assessing
adaptation progress
The CCA assigned the UK’s DEFRA with “cross-departmental responsibility” for adaptation, meaning
that it leads on these activities on the Government’s behalf and works with other Government
departments to ensure that climate adaptation is considered in relevant areas of policy.
The CCA also established the ASC as an independent, politically neutral, expert body with the principal
objective of assessing the UK’s progress in preparing for climate change. It has statutory obligations to:
► Advise Government on the preparation of the CCRA;
► Assess progress on the implementation of the NAP; and
► Provide advice to Government and devolved administrations on climate adaptation as required.
Provided below is a depiction of the responsibilities of the different parties involved in the UK’s
adaptation program and the ASC’s role in supporting their adaptation efforts.
11
Figure 2: UK adaptation responsibilities matrix
12
A summary of key climate adaptation deliverables in the UK
We have provided an overview of the main reporting deliverables for climate change adaptation in the table below. This outlines the purpose of
each activity, provides an overview of how each activity is delivered, and summarizes the outputs, benefits and key challenges.
Activity
Description and
purpose
How is activity delivered?
Key outputs / benefits
Challenges
Climate
Change Risk
Assessment
The CCRA is the
foundation for
understanding the
specific risks and
opportunities that
climate change poses
to the UK. The first
CCRA was completed in
2012, and is required
to be updated every
five years. It is
focussed on risks based
on projected changes
to climate and
population.
DEFRA commissioned external
consultants HR Wallingford to
prepare the evidence base for the
first CCRA. The assessment was
based on a quantitative analysis of
the risks and opportunities
associated with climate change.
The systematic, quantitative
approach taken in the CCRA has
enabled the prioritisation of key
risks and opportunities that need
to be managed through the NAP
based on the projected financial
impact on the UK.
In identifying 100 priority risks and
opportunities from an initial list of
700, the Government was guided by
the magnitude, confidence and
urgency scores assigned in the
CCRA. Two tiers of priority risks
were identified based on the
estimated magnitude of climate
impacts.
The risks and opportunities were
categorised into the following
priority areas:
•
Agriculture & forestry;
•
Business;
•
Health & wellbeing (including
local resilience & social
vulnerability);
•
Buildings & environment; and
•
Natural environment.
This highlighted those risks
needing urgent attention due to
confidence in the potential for high
magnitude impacts, or where there
are long planning horizons. Two
cross-cutting risks (flooding and
reduced water availability)
dominate the list of the highest
priorities and are important to each
NAP theme.
DEFRA has been transparent in
highlighting the challenges and
limitations of the CCRA that could
impact the UK’s response to
climate risk through the NAP.
These limitations include:
•
It did not consider socioeconomic changes (e.g.,
demographics, technology,
economic growth), other than
population growth.
•
In took a quantitative
approach and therefore did
not fully consider risks that
may be significant but are not
easy to measure.
•
It gave little consideration to
adaptation activity or
capacity.
•
It focussed on risks based on
changes to the UK climate,
rather than considering the
broader impacts of global
climate change on the UK
(e.g. traded goods, supply
changes, migration, and
international relations).
DEFRA has commissioned the ASC
to produce a technical report that
will form the evidence based for the
second CCRA. We understand that
this is likely to include the following:
•
Update of the risk analysis
based on up-to-date climate
models;
•
Consideration of qualitative
information on risks through a
literature review of academic
papers;
•
Consideration of other socioeconomic drivers that impact
resilience / vulnerability; and
•
Analysis of risks based on
13
Activity
Description and
purpose
How is activity delivered?
Key outputs / benefits
Challenges
existing adaptation activities
and adaptation policy
scenarios.
The ASC is in the process of
appointing “chapter leads” from the
academic community (but not the
Committee itself) to develop each
section of the technical report.
National
Adaptation
Programme
ASC reports
on adaptation
progress
The NAP is the
Government’s
response to the CCRA
and forms the basis of
the UK Government’s
priorities and action
plans to improve its
resiliency to climate
change. It provides a
“snapshot” of the
actions that
Government, business
and society are taking
to adapt to climate
change and improve
resilience. The NAP is
updated in a five year
cycle, lagging the
CCRA by one year.
DEFRA led the development of the
NAP, for which it took the top 100
risks and opportunities identified in
the CCRA and developed objectives,
policies and actions to address
them. These objectives aim to
increase awareness, increase
resilience to current weather
extremes, take timely action and
address major evidence gaps.
A primary
responsibility of the
ASC, as an
independent body, is to
measure and report on
the progress of the UK
in adapting to climate
change. It will formally
The last three of the ASC’s annual
progress reports have been
prepared using a systematic
approach employing the ASC toolkit
to assess the adequacy and
availability of measurement
indicators for measuring adaptation
risk and progress across the key
DEFRA consulted extensively
through stakeholder roundtables to
develop the NAP. In developing the
NAP report DEFRA ran a series of
workshops that included
approximately 700 organizations
and held two informal
consultations.
14
The 2013 NAP identified 31 high
level objectives for Government
and various other organisations.
These objectives and actions were
divided into the seven chapters
(NAP themes) listed below:
•
Built environment;
•
Agriculture and forestry;
•
Infrastructure;
•
Healthy and resilient
communities;
•
Natural environment;
•
Business; and
•
Local government.
The chapters describe the most
significant actions that will be
taken to meet the objectives. The
economic annex to the NAP
contains a more detailed register
with over 370 specific actions,
together with owners and timings.
•
To date, ASC has published five
annual progress reports on the
state of climate adaptation in the
UK. These progress reports have
provided a “deep dive” into
specific adaptation topics, and
contain recommendations for
Government and other adaptation
•
•
•
•
The NAP objectives and
actions lack a spatial
dimension, meaning that the
ASC has had to define
measurable criteria itself to
assess adaptation progress.
Many of the NAP actions
reflect activity that is already
taking place, rather than
driving changes in activity.
The NAP objectives are
considered to be “high level”,
making progress against
them difficult to measure.
Local government issues are
different in nature to other
NAP themes, and do not
easily fit into an M&E
framework.
The lack of quantifiable
evidence in some areas limits
the degree to which current
vulnerabilities, future
changes in risk, and progress
in adaptation, can be
assessed.
Activity
Description and
purpose
report to Parliament in
2015 on the UK’s
adaptation progress
across each of the NAP
themes.
How is activity delivered?
Key outputs / benefits
NAP themes.
stakeholders on action that that
can be taken to reduce
vulnerability to climate change.
•
The progress reports will also
provide the evidence base for
ASC’s first statutory report in
2015 that consolidates
information across all NAP themes
in assessing the UK Government
and others’ progress in
implementing the NAP.
•
The annual reports have been
prepared to serve as input into the
first statutory report due to
Parliament in 2015.
For further information on the
ASC’s activities refer to section IV.
Challenges
The annual progress reports have
enabled the ASC to develop its
networks, build the evidence base
and trial its analytical approaches
in preparation for its first
statutory progress report to
Parliament in 2015.
Adaptation
Reporting
Power
ARP enables
Government to require
organisations (known
as “reporting
authorities”) that
provide public services
to prepare climate
change adaptation
reports on how they
are assessing and
acting on the risks and
opportunities from
climate change. It
therefore provides an
opportunity to gather
evidence on climate
risk, organisational
capacity, and activities
to build resilience from
In its first round of reporting,
DEFRA selected 91 organizations to
report that were primarily involved
in providing infrastructure related
to water, energy or transportation.
Invitations were also sent to a
broader group of organizations to
voluntary report.
The form of the reports were
dictated by statutory guidance in
Annex B of the CCA and included
information related to their
assessed risk and opportunities
from climate change, and related
action plan.
The ARP’s second cycle of reporting
15
In the first round of ARP, 91
infrastructure providers and 12
voluntary reporters published an
Adaptation Report. The Adaption
Reports provided a summary
outlining what their methodology
to climate change adaptation,
climate risks by business function,
assessed risks and opportunities,
priority areas for action and action
plans.
DEFRA prepared a summary
report of the results of their
evaluation of the Adaptation
Reports. Analysis by sector was
performed in the following areas:
•
Key climate change risks;
•
•
Progress reports focus on
specific NAP themes and do
not allow for year-over-year
comparisons of progress.
As there is no statutory
requirement for Government
to respond to
recommendations in the
annual progress update, it is
difficult to hold organisations
to account for implementing
the recommendations. The
Government will, however, be
required to respond to the
ASC’s statutory report in
2015.
The ARP focused mainly on
risks and an identification of
action plans, rather than
measurement of progress or
resilience.
The next round of ARP is
expected to be voluntary.
Although we understand that
engagement with
organisations so far has been
positive, there remains a risk
that organisations will not
provide reports.
Activity
Description and
purpose
a broad range of
organisations.
DEFRA has
responsibility on a fiveyearly basis to decide
whether or not to
exercise its ARP, and
justify this decision.
How is activity delivered?
Key outputs / benefits
will exist in voluntary form rather
than requiring mandatory
participation and will cover a wider
range of organizations. This
exercise will take the form of a
more open discussion with tailored
feedback given by DEFRA to
contributing organizations.
•
Areas of strength;
•
Areas of further research;
•
Emerging trends;
•
Barriers; and
•
Interdependencies.
In their briefing, DEFRA
commented that the ARP played a
role in developing capacity /
understanding of adaptation
issues in key infrastructure
sectors.
The reports also allowed the
Government to gain better
information on gap areas where
they and other partners (e.g.
research / scientific community)
may need to be involved.
The ARP was a catalyst for many
organizations to begin formally
considering their climate change
risks and adaptation responses,
including at the Board and
Management levels.
16
Challenges
The cycle of risk identification, planning, delivery and review in the UK
Figure 3 below shows the “cycle” of adaptation and reporting activities being undertaken in the UK. We
have excluded ARP from this cycle, as it is a distinct activity that is not directly linked with other
activities.
Figure 3: Cycle of adaptation and reporting activities in the UK
17
Timeline of adaptation reporting activities in the UK
The timeline below sets out the key adaptation activities in relation to climate change adaptation.
Figure 4: Timeline of adaptation reporting activities in the UK
18
Climate adaptation and M&E in the UK is dependent on a wide range of
organizations
There are a broad range of organizations that will be impacted by climate change and will, therefore,
play a role in delivering the UK’s approach to climate change adaptation. Many of these organizations
had already started to understand their own risks and opportunities relating to climate change prior to
the first CCRA and NAP, with expertise spread across networks of individuals in the public and private
sectors and the academic community.
In the table below we have set out some of the key adaptation stakeholders in the UK and have outlined
their main adaptation activities & responsibilities.
Organization
Role / responsibilities / activities
Government
Departments
Whilst DEFRA has cross-departmental responsibility for adaptation, other
government departments are responsible for ensuring that adaptation is
embedded in relevant policy areas. For example, adaptation issues have
been included in the Department for Transport’s assessment of the overall
resilience of the UK’s transport infrastructure. Adaptation is not therefore
as an issue to be addressed through the UK’s conventional “Green Book”
policy approach. For further details of the Green Book approach refer to
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat
a/file/220541/green_book_complete.pdf.
Whilst we have not focused on the level of resource within Government
dedicated to climate adaptation, we understand that within DEFRA a team of
approximately 40 individuals was required to deliver its obligations on
climate adaptation as set out in the CCA. Following the development of the
CCRA, NAP and ARP it has subsequently scaled its resources down.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency (EA), and its equivalent bodies in Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, have a critical role in climate adaptation that can be
divided into the following key areas:
•
•
Devolved
Administrations
The EA is responsible for flood and coastal erosion risk
management, and is the statutory regulator for a range of
environmental issues such as water abstraction. These issues are
directly related to the “cross-cutting” CCRA risks of flooding and
water availability. It therefore collects significant amounts of
primary data that are relevant to the M&E of adaptation progress,
for example through its National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA).
The EA operates the UK’s Climate Ready Support Service, which
offers advice and support to public, private and voluntary sectors to
help improve their resilience to climate change. It therefore has
significant knowledge of the “adaptive capacity” of organisations in
the UK.
In the UK many of the issues related to climate change adaptation, for
example planning and the natural environment, are “devolved” to the
governments in different parts of the country. The Scottish Government,
Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive are therefore responsible
19
Organization
Role / responsibilities / activities
for delivering similar assessment and action plans related to climate change
adaptation.
Local Government
Local government is responsible for delivering a range of services that are
impacted by climate risks, and plays a critical role in developing adaptive
capacity through the provision of advice. The NAP has a specific Local
Government theme that outlines the objectives and specific actions required
to adapt to climate change.
Whilst it is difficult to engage directly with individual authorities in relation
to adaptation progress, there are a range of networks and organizations
through which the ASC can work to obtain the information it needs on
indicators, NAP actions, capacity and decision-making. These include
• Climate UK and their network of Climate Change Partnerships
(CCPs), who provide local support to help businesses, councils,
communities and other organizations adapt to climate change.
• The Local Government Association’s (LGA) “Climate Local” initiative
offers guidance and tools to help build capacity on adaptation
among more than 60 councils.
• The Local Adaptation Advisory Panel (LAAP) for England provides
locally-tailored advice to central Government. It comprises a range
of councils and partners from across the country and works to
identify and share best practices.
Private Sector
The UK business community contributes to adaptation work across a range
of sectors; leading collaboration initiatives between industry and the UK
Government to more fully integrate risks from climate change into existing
business practices.
•
•
Met Office
The infrastructure sector has demonstrated some of the most fully
developed actions relating to climate adaptation, particularly within
the rail and electricity industries. Trade associations and regulators
within the transport and energy sectors have respectively managed
to produce a collective voice when raising climate adaptation
concerns and broadcasting the steps they’ve taken to assess their
resilience.
Business organizations primarily contribute via the Adaptation
Reporting Power, for which over 100 organizations reported their
current risks and activities relating to climate adaptation.
The Met Office is the UK’s national weather service, delivering climate
change forecasts and scientific evidence that underpins the UK’s climate risk
analysis and is critical to the ASC’s understanding of trends in climate
vulnerability. It also plays a key role in the development of adaptive capacity
through its collaboration with the EA Climate Ready Support Service in
establishing the Flood Forecasting Centre.
20
Organization
Role / responsibilities / activities
Academic Community
Academia primarily serves in a support capacity to industry and
Government through their technical expertise and awareness raising
capabilities.
• The Academic community has an overall role in contributing to the
global knowledge and expertise economy through various research
institutes and consortiums, such as UK Climate Impacts Programme
that develop, for example, climate change forecasts and risk models
to assess the impacts of climate change.
• Members of the academic community are appointed to the ASC to
oversee the delivery of its work. The ASC has also It has selected
nine lead contributors from academia to support the delivery of its
input into the second CCRA.
Adaptation in focus: Agriculture & Forestry and Infrastructure
As described earlier, the CCRA focussed on five key risk priority areas which were split into seven
different NAP themes in the Government’s last annual progress report. In conducting our research
analysis we focused on two of the seven NAP themes, namely Agriculture & Forestry and
Infrastructure, to provide examples of the level of depth and information provided in the CCRA and
NAP.
In the CCRA, the following priority risks and opportunities and trends to monitor were identified for the
two NAP themes.
CCRA risk / opportunity
Trend that needs monitoring
Agriculture and forestry
Potential for increased productivity
Reduced water availability
Climate impacts on agricultural soils
Heat stress to livestock
Increased flooding/waterlogging
Increased pests and pathogens
Realizing agricultural opportunities
Realizing forestry opportunities
Water use by agriculture sector
Water efficiency by agricultural sector
Vulnerability of agricultural soils
Soil conservation measures
Vulnerability of livestock production to heat stress
Measures to minimize heat stress
Vulnerability of agriculture to flooding/waterlogging
Flood and coastal erosion risk management
Vulnerability of pests and pathogens
21
CCRA risk / opportunity
Trend that needs monitoring
Infrastructure
Increased flooding/coastal erosion
Increased severe weather events
Reduced water availability/increased
water temperature
New infrastructure in flood risk areas
Flood and coastal erosion risk management
Vulnerability of infrastructure assets
Water use by energy sector
Water efficiency by energy sector
In NAP, the above CCRA risks and opportunities were condensed into focus areas and objectives, as
well as actions to address those priority risks. Furthermore, within the NAP chapter on Infrastructure,
these focus areas then addressed three distinct sectors: Energy, Transport and Water. For Agriculture
and Forestry, key case studies provide relevant contextual evidence.
See the table below for a summary of the Agriculture and Forestry, and Infrastructure NAP chapters,
as it is broken down into focus areas, objectives and commitments by different organizations to actions
to address priority. For a more detailed listing of action plans and accountabilities refer to the 2012
NAP report referenced in Appendix A.
22
NAP Focus Area
Example Actions
Objective
Agriculture and forestry
# 1 - Building resilience
in agriculture
through effective
water management
To increase the resilience of agriculture by
effectively managing the impact of volatility in the
occurrence and severity of rainfall events on water
availability, flooding, soil erosion and pollution due
to runoff (objective #15).
•
•
•
•
# 2 - Resilience in
forestry
To increase the resilience of the forestry sector by
increasing the level of management in England’s
woodlands and the uptake of adaptation good
practice in woodland creation and restocking
(objective #16).
•
•
•
# 3 - Resilience to pests
and disease
# 4 - Innovation and
evidence
To increase resilience to pests and disease to help
protect biodiversity, maintain agricultural and
forestry productivity and protect the UK’s ability to
export products (objective #17).
To embed climate change adaptation into
agriculture, horticulture and forestry research
programmes, in order to improve knowledge of
likely climate impacts and contribute to the
development and uptake of climate resilient crops,
tree and livestock species, as well as relevant
technologies (objective #18).
23
•
•
•
•
•
Build national awareness of the priorities for climate change
adaptation and disseminate tailored messages locally
EA Climate Ready Support Service to work with/in partnership
with the agriculture industry to develop and promote adaptation
activity as part of a network of demonstration farm activity
Embed adaptation into the Rural Development Programme for
England
Implementation of the Forestry Commission England’s Outline
Adaptation Plan as published in its Adaptation Reporting Power
Report
Promotion and development of guidance to underpin the UK
Forestry Standard Forests and Climate Change Guidelines
England Woodland and Timber Partnership to publish a Climate
Change Action Plan, including commitments from main partner
organizations
Improve the evidence base relating to impacts of climate change
on animal disease and press the European Union for a
harmonized approach to disease surveillance
Implementation of the research and evidence theme of the Tree
Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan
Review the extent to which current plant health protection
programmes integrate climate risk, establishing where further
evidence is required
Commitment to innovation and development of new technology,
and to overcome barriers to its uptake and drive sustained
growth through the Agri-Technology Strategy
Publication of the revised UK Science and Innovation Strategy for
British Forestry by Autumn 2013
All soils will be managed sustainably, and degradation threats
tackled successfully by 2030 as outlined in the government’s
statement of intention in the Natural Environment White Paper
NAP Focus Area
Example Actions
Objective
Infrastructure
# 1 - Infrastructure asset
management
To ensure infrastructure is located, planned,
designed and maintained to be resilient to climate
change, including increasingly extreme weather
events (objective #7).
Energy:
• New energy infrastructure will take account of climate change in
line with NPSs. Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC)
will review the adequacy of this policy to deal with the changing
climate.
Transport:
• Department of Transport to ensure climate resilience is
embedded in its Transport and Roads Strategies as well as
ensuring that climate change is part of the Aviation Policy
Framework
Water:
• Strategic Policy Statement and Social and Environment Guidance
setting direction on consideration of climate risks in the price
review process
•
# 2 - The regulatory
framework
To develop regulatory frameworks to support and
promote a resilient and adaptive infrastructure
sector (objective #8).
•
•
#3 – Local infrastructure
#4 - Infrastructure
interdependencies
and climate risk
To better understand the particular vulnerabilities
facing local infrastructure from extreme weather
and long term climate change to determine actions
to address the risks (objective #9).
To develop understanding and promote expertise in
managing interconnected and interdependent
services, to minimize the risks of cascade failures
which could be exacerbated by climate change and
identify how systems thinking can support this
objective (objective #10).
24
•
•
•
Ofgem will ensure adaptation principles are inherent in its
undertaking of its price review process and impact assessment
and decision making guidance
Ofwat and EA to provide guidance on the principles for resilience
planning and the Water Resource Management Planning Guide.
This will continue to set direction on climate resilience in the
regulated water sector
EA Climate Ready to support the LGA’s Climate Local initiative to
signpost advice, tools and examples that help councils to improve
the resilience of local transport infrastructure
Amongst a range of climate resilience activity, Transport for
London plans to carry out an extensive flood risk review for the
London Underground network, taking into account predicted
changes to rainfall patterns
Joint project looking at the risk of dependency of the energy
sector on water resources (EA/Energy UK)
EA Climate Ready guided activity including Infrastructure
Operators Adaptation Forum knowledge sharing and
understanding information and communication technology
related interdependencies
IV. Overview of the Adaptation SubCommittee
25
IV. Overview of the Adaptation Sub-Committee
Introduction
As has been outlined in section III, the ASC is responsible for assessing progress on climate adaptation
in the UK. As one of the key objectives of our research is to review the UK’s approach to M&E, we have
provided further details in this section on the structure and governance of the ASC, with a description
of the key activities it has undertaken in order to assess the UK’s adaptation progress. We also
highlight key challenges it has faced in delivering its objectives, and provide illustrative examples of
how this has worked in practice for the NAP themes of Agriculture and Forestry, and Infrastructure.
The ASC’s structure and governance
The diagram below outlines the structure of the ASC. A committee member has ownership of each NAP
theme, whilst an individual within the secretariat is responsible for developing relationships with third
parties, identifying data requirements and leading the analysis of adaptation progress.
The ASC is formally a sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the latter of which
has responsibility for assessing progress with mitigation. As a “Non-Departmental Public Body”, the
CCC (and therefore the ASC), is subject to a formal review of its delivery mechanisms and governance
arrangements every three years. The most recent of these “triennial reviews” was conducted in 2013.
Figure 5: ASC organization structure
26
Funding the ASC
The ASC receives annual funding of approximately £800,000 for its activities. DEFRA provides the
majority of this funding, and approves the ASC’s budgets on an annual basis according to its program
of work for the year. DEFRA’s funding of the ASC’s activities could be viewed as a risk to its
independence. However, we understand that, in practice, this has not been an issue as the ASC would
be able to raise any concerns publically should it encounter issues relating to the funding of its
activities. The ASC also receives funding for:
► Its advisory role, on a proportional basis (according to the respective populations) by England,
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and
► Its review of the progress of the Scottish Adaptation Programme from the Scottish Government.
Overview of the activities undertaken by the ASC to assess adaptation progress
The ASC’s principal objective is to assess the progress of the UK in responding to climate change. It has
developed its approach to achieve this objective over the past five years as reported in a publication of
annual progress reports providing “deep dives” into specific adaptation topics. The ASC will provide to
Parliament in 2015 a consolidated report across all NAP themes, and every second year thereafter.
This high level objective is delivered by assessing whether the actions set out in the NAP are being
delivered, and whether those actions are reducing vulnerability associated with a changing climate.
The ASC’s approach is, therefore, structured around the seven NAP themes. Based on its evaluation,
the ASC makes recommendations to Government on where further action may be necessary to reduce
vulnerability.
The principal activities undertaken by the ASC to deliver its objectives are outlined in Figure 6 below,
with further commentary on the following pages. We have presented this as a process flow; however,
this is a continuously evolving, highly iterative process that relies on feedback at all stages from
Committee members, data owners and other adaptation stakeholders. On the following pages we have
provided further information on each of these activities, including details of key challenges faced by
the ASC, and illustrative examples of measurement indicators from the NAP themes of Agriculture &
Forestry and Infrastructure.
27
Figure 6: Principal activities of the ASC
1.
Identifying the indicators needed to assess adaptation progress
The ASC’s approach to assessing progress in climate change adaptation is defined by the risks
identified in the CCRA and the objectives and actions set out in the NAP. Figure 7 shows the
relationship between the risks identified in the CCRA and the NAP themes. The ASC’s approach to
identifying indicators has focussed on those which enable it to understand whether adaptation activity
is impacting the vulnerability of the UK to climate change. Figure 7 also shows that increased flooding
and reduced water availability are “cross-cutting” risks that are applicable across all of the NAP
themes. The ASC, therefore, had a particular focus on understanding vulnerabilities associated with
these risks.
28
Figure 7: Extract from the ASC’s 2014 Progress Report showing how the risks identified in the
CCRA are relevant to the different NAP themes.
The ASC’s starting point was to identify the trends that would need to be monitored for each NAP
theme in order to understand how vulnerabilities relating to the risks in the CCRA are changing. It then
identified specific indicator sets that would help it to monitor those trends. The indicators identified by
the ASC can be grouped into the categories below, which are aligned with the definitions used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
1) Indicators of risk: measure changes in society’s exposure and vulnerability to weather events.
These indicators are a function of both climate change and socio-economic changes, and can be
sub-divided into indicators of climate hazard, exposure and vulnerability.
2) Indicators of adaptation action: measure outcomes of adaptation actions in terms of risk
reduction, rather than just the action itself. For example, the reduction in household water
consumption would be a preferable indicator to the number of households that have installed
water-efficient appliances.
3) Indicators of climate impact: measure the realized impacts of weather events on the economy,
society and environment, and can be seen as a net result of the risk factors and the effect of
adaptation actions. These are the most challenging indicators to identify and measure due to
difficulties in attributing impacts to climate change. We understand that the ASC plans to use
these indicators for “setting the context” across each of the NAP themes in its 2015 report.
29
Across each of the categories above, the ASC has sought “good quality” data sets that can be used to
measure progress by focussing on indicators that:
► Have a reliable time series, in order to distinguish long-term trends from year-to-year variability;
and
► Are spatially disaggregated, to identify hot-spots of risk and provide information relevant at the
local, as well as the national, level.
Whilst most of the data collected by the ASC is publically available, the majority of indicators are not
originally designed for the purpose of monitoring adaptation progress. Though it does not collect
primary data, the ASC has commissioned third parties to perform analysis on some of the data sets it
has collected to help build its understanding of climate resilience. For example, it has overlaid EA data
on flood risk with information on flood defences to give a better understanding of the “residual risk”
after adaptation activity.
Key challenges and considerations in identifying the indicators required to measure
adaptation progress
A. Data is only available for a limited proportion of the “desired” indicator list
The indicators initially identified by the ASC represent a “desired” list of metrics that would help it
to complete its assessment. However, the table below shows that “good” data (i.e., data that is
spatially complete and available for a suitable time series) is only available for 35% of the indicators
it has identified. It is important that the ASC is transparent about the limitations to its assessment,
and figure 8 provides an example of the disclosures it has made on data gaps and the implications
for its analysis.
Indicator type
72
72
57
Number of indicators
Indicators with
Indicators with
full data
partial data
available
available
42
12
21
28
10
9
211
100%
73
35%
Indicators
identified
Risk / vulnerability
Action
Realised impact /
opportunity
Total
Percentage
30
49
23%
Indicators with
no data available
18
33
38
89
42%
Figure 8: Extract from the ASC’s 2014 Progress Report providing an overview of the data
availability, and the implications for its ability to provide a full assessment of adaptation
progress.
B. “Process”, “capacity” and “decision-making” are all critical elements of good adaptation but are
challenging to measure
An understanding of the policies that are being developed to address climate adaptation, how
organisations are building their capabilities and understanding of risks, and how they are acting
based on that understanding is required to assess adaptation progress. These characteristics
represent adaptation inputs rather than outputs or outcomes, and are rarely quantified. Further
information on how the ASC has sought to overcome this challenge is provided in the next step.
31
Extract from the ASC’s 2014 Progress Report showing the ASC’s intentions for incorporating
process-based information, alongside its indicator set, into its analysis
“The actions in the NAP set out the measures that key actors, such as central and local government,
infrastructure operators, public health bodies and businesses, are taking to prepare for climate
change. We will review the progress being made in each case and assess the extent to which key
decision-makers are taking up low-regret adaptation measures and embedding climate change into
their long-term planning.
Reviewing delivery of the NAP actions will require those organisations with actions assigned to them
to provide evidence of whether they are complete, what has been achieved to date, and any further
steps planned. These updates will provide process-based indicators of whether planned policies and
milestones have been, or are on course to be, delivered. This will complement the evidence provided
by our outcome indicators.”
2.
Engaging with data owners and other adaptation stakeholders
The ASC is not responsible for delivering the actions in the NAP, and does not own the information or
data required to assess the NAP’s effectiveness. Furthermore, it does not have formal powers to
require organizations to provide it with information. Identifying data owners (e.g., other adaptation
stakeholders), and developing good relationships with them, has therefore been critical to the ASC’s
ability to fulfil its M&E obligations.
Between 2012 and 2014, the ASC has published Progress Reports on select adaptation issues. These
updates represent “deep dives” into adaptation topics and the ASC has used them as a means to
develop its networks; its understanding of data availability, limitations and assumptions; and its
analytical approach. The information reported in the progress updates will form the evidence base for
its 2015 report.
The majority of the ASC’s interactions with third parties are with the public sector entities that own the
actions in the NAP. The ASC has also sought information from the private sector, but has typically
focused on engaging with industry via regulators and trade associations rather than dealing directly
with individual companies. This approach, which mirrors the work of the EA’s Climate Ready service in
building adaptation capacity across the private sector, has enabled it to obtain data in a more
standardized format, and reduces the number of organizations it needs to engage with.
Whilst many organizations engage with the ASC on specific areas of interest within the NAP themes,
some government agencies have a much greater level of input across the NAP themes (e.g. DEFRA).
We understand that DEFRA has appointed a “single point of contact” within the organization through
which communications are channelled, enabling it to coordinate its interactions with the ASC more
effectively.
32
Key areas of interaction
On the following page we have outlined some of the key areas of interaction between the ASC and
adaptation stakeholders in the UK.
Interaction
Description
Developing networks
within the UK adaptation
community
The ASC has engaged widely as it has developed its M&E approach, with up
to 40 organizations providing input into the assessment of progress against
each NAP theme. This activity therefore represents an intensive area of
work, with the ASC attending meetings with organizations to:
• Keep up-to-date on adaptation activity and data availability;
• Develop understanding of assumptions and limitations relating to
data sets; and
• Seek feedback on its intended approaches to analysing data and
drawing conclusions.
Individuals in the Secretariat also participate in a number of working groups
on climate adaptation, such as the Adaptation Delivery Group and the NAP
Working Group on Biodiversity.
Formal interactions / data
requests
Interactions between the ASC and other organizations are not typically
governed by formal agreements relating to information provision.
However, the ASC has issued formal, public requests for information in two
key areas:
Updates on NAP actions
The ASC issued formal requests to Government departments and relevant
arms-length bodies to co-ordinate the collection of updates on NAP actions.
These requests are typically addressed from the ASC Chair to the senior
leadership of those agencies. In requesting a formal response from senior
leadership, the ASC encourages those organizations to give a high degree
of scrutiny to the data prior to its issue. The ASC has also formally
requested updates from other organizations that are responsible for NAP
actions, such as organizations that represent local government and private
companies.
Call for evidence / consultation on indicators
Further to the above, the ASC issued a formal “call for evidence” to support
the development of its statutory report in 2015. This call for evidence
outlined the ASC’s intended approach to developing its analysis for the
report, its plans for using existing data, and identified key data gaps. As a
result of this consultation, it was able to get constructive feedback from 21
organizations, including universities, government departments,
consultancies and trade associations on how to enhance the development
of its M&E approach, and identify data sets that it did not have prior
knowledge of.
Feedback on analysis and
draft report content
The ASC has taken an open approach to the development of its progress
reports. It has shared the outputs of its analysis with relevant organizations
prior to publication and sought feedback on the conclusions it has drawn.
33
Summary of key challenges and considerations in engaging with data owners and
other adaptation stakeholders
C. Understanding approaches to adaptation requires a good understanding of issues that are highly
technical and specialised
Any analysis conducted on the data sets obtained by the ASC requires a sound understanding of
definitions, assumptions and limitations relating to the way that the data is collected and
measured. We understand that the ASC has had to overcome nervousness by some organizations in
the way that information will be used to draw conclusions on adaptation progress, as well as
concerns that output / outcome based indicators do not fully capture the extent of adaptation
activity. This has been achieved through:
i. Intensive engagement with the organisations that own the data sets, as well as
participation in sector working groups on climate adaptation to build networks and
understanding of adaptation activity; and
ii. Being highly transparent about the way that information will be used to assess adaptation.
This includes ongoing dialogue with individual organisations, as well as the publication of
materials on the ASC’s website.
Questions posed to adaptation stakeholders in the ASC’s consultation and call for evidence
“1. Does our high-level summary of the CCRA risks and opportunities sufficiently cover those
relevant to each NAP chapter?
2. Are there any additional indicators that the ASC should be using to assess trends in the priority
CCRA risks and opportunities and, if so, which ones?
3. Are there any indicators in the ASC’s draft set that will not be useful for assessing trends in the
priority CCRA risks and opportunities and, if so, which ones?
4. Are there publically available datasets that could be used for those indicators classed as ‘amber’
and ‘red’?” [i.e., those indicators for which no data or data with incomplete spatial coverage or time
series]
Consultation document is available at: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/2014-07-18-ASC-NAP-report-call-for-evidence.pdf
34
D. The extent and diversity of adaptation in the private sector makes it difficult to obtain data that
provides a high level overview of progress
We understand that obtaining information from the private sector, in particular across the
Business, Infrastructure and Built Environment NAP themes, has a specific set of challenges,
including:
• Uncertainties relating to climate risks, together with the timescales in which these may be
realised, have limited the interest of organizations in adaptation. Whilst we have heard that the
introduction of Adaptation Reporting Power, as well as extreme weather events in 2013, have
raised the interest of organizations’ senior management in adaptation, this has not yet led to
changes in the nature and extent of data that is collected.
• Organisations do not collect some of the information that the ASC would like in order to make its
assessment, or are not able to disaggregate this information. For example:
o
Disruptions to services (e.g., energy, water, transport) are monitored, but the reasons for
those disruptions are not always captured; or
o
It is not typically possible to disaggregate spending on adaptation from other types of
capital expenditure.
• In the absence of specific regulation that defines how information should be collected on climate
adaptation there can be a lack of consistency in definitions and reporting approaches taken by
different organizations. Furthermore, organisations can be reluctant to share commercially
sensitive information relating to their risk management activities.
These issues limit the extent to which the ASC can assess adaptation progress, as illustrated by the
quote below from its 2014 Progress Update. Working with regulators and trade bodies, which
collect consistent information, and supplementing data with qualitative information on capacity and
decision-making, help the ASC to overcome these issues.
Whilst we understand that the ASC has not, to-date, had significant impacts on the nature and
extent of information on climate adaptation that is captured, it would be able to make
recommendations in relation to this issue in its statutory report in 2015 if it felt that this was
necessary.
Extract from the Business chapter of the ASC’s 2014 Progress Report
“Assessing the extent to which businesses are preparing for the risks from climate change is
challenging. Businesses are diverse organisations and publicly available data are limited. There are
4.3 million businesses located in England that are highly varied in terms of the goods they sell or
services they provide, their size, and their location.
This makes it difficult to draw general conclusions on the overall level of preparedness for climate
change. There are also gaps in the publicly available evidence on the actions being taken by
businesses. This may in part be due to commercial sensitivities. Some of these gaps are being
addressed through corporate disclosure initiatives such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, but these
cover a relatively small number of businesses in England at present.”
35
3.
Developing analysis and drawing conclusions on adaptation progress
The ASC’s approach to assessing the effectiveness of the UK’s response to climate change has evolved
during the course of its progress reports on specific adaptation topics. This is illustrated by the two
representations of its approach, extracted from its 2011 and 2012 reports, presented below.
Figure 9: The evolution of the ASC’s approach to monitoring adaptation progress.
2011 ASC Annual Progress Report
2012 ASC Annual Progress Report
36
Drawing conclusions for the 2015 Report
The ASC’s annual progress updates represent “deep dives” into specific topic areas that are related,
but not fully aligned, with the NAP themes. The ASC’s approach to reporting in 2015 to meet its
statutory obligations is currently in development. However, we understand that this report is expected
to be a “synthesis report” that covers all seven NAP themes and draws on the annual progress reports,
and the adaptation indicators it has developed, as part of the evidence base for its assessment.
We also understand that the objectives of the NAP are quite high level, and that it is difficult to
measure progress against those objectives. To assess the NAP’s effectiveness, the ASC anticipates
following the process set out in figure 10. This shows how, to overcome the issue of having objectives
for which it is difficult to measure progress, the ASC has identified a series of “controllable factors”
(which may be renamed “adaptation priorities” in the future), or specific activities / issues that can be
managed in order to build resilience to climate change. The ASC is currently in the process of
identifying 25-30 of these controllable factors across each of the NAP themes, and mapping its
indicators and relevant NAP actions onto each of these issues.
As an example, within the Agriculture & Forestry NAP theme the following controllable factors have
been selected as indictors of adaptation resiliency related to the availability of usable water:
• Water demand/abstraction for irrigation per year;
• Proportion of water abstracted for irrigation from catchments at risk of scarcity; and
• Uptake of water efficiency measures/on-farm water storage.
Additional examples of controllable factors that have been considered in the ASC’s analytical approach
are discussed in the Agriculture & Forestry case study on page 42.
Figure 10: The ASC’s anticipated approach to assessing adaptation progress in 2015.
37
Using data and qualitative information to form conclusions
The ASC’s analysis will focus on how well these controllable factors are being managed in order to
reduce vulnerability to climate change. The 120 outcome-based indicators for which full or partial data
is available will form part of this analysis, alongside the answers to key questions including:
►
►
►
►
Where needed, are plans and policies in place to reduce vulnerability?
Is progress being delivered on NAP actions?
Are actions delivering reductions in vulnerability?
What progress has been made, and what further action needs to be taken?
For the Progress Reports and the 2015 statutory report, the ASC has also analyzed decision-making to
assess whether current adaptation activity is sufficient to address climate risks, now and in the future.
This analysis of decision-making considers:
► Uptake of low-regret adaptation options that deliver benefits whatever future climate unfolds. The
ASC identifies low-regret adaptation options (which aren’t necessarily in the NAP), estimates the
current level of uptake and evaluates the potential scale of uptake that would be beneficial
nationally given future climate risks. Examples include property-level flood protection and water
efficiency measures.
► Whether decisions with long-lasting or systemic consequences take future climate change into
account. Whilst the ASC acknowledges that these decisions incorporate large uncertainties and
trade-offs between different objectives over time. In these instances low-regret options are not
always available. The ASC therefore considers how climate change is factored into strategic
decisions such as the location and design of new development, or the long-term planning of water
resources.
Summary of key challenges and considerations in developing analysis and drawing
conclusions on adaptation progress
E. Having clear, measurable objectives makes M&E assessment more straightforward
As we have stated above, many of the objectives of the NAP are high level, making it difficult to
measure progress against them. Furthermore, the lack of a spatial dimension to the NAP objectives
means it is not easy to define “where” adaptation actions should be taken. The ASC has developed
its analytical approach to overcome these issues by focussing on a) whether there is progress on
the NAP actions and b) whether those actions are reducing vulnerability to climate change. In order
to do so, it has:
• Incorporated its own spatial analysis into its assessment of adaptation progress. For example, by
looking at climate projections for specific locations.
• Developing an assessment framework that considers the “controllable factors” that can be
managed to reduce vulnerability.
• Considering qualitative issues such as capacity and decision-making in its analysis.
38
Extract from the ASC’s call for evidence that outline its planned approach to assessing
adaptation progress
“Reviewing progress will require updates being provided to the ASC from those organizations with
actions assigned to them in the NAP. These updates will complement our outcome indicators by
providing process-based markers of whether planned policies and milestones have been, or are on
course to be, delivered… As well as giving factual updates on progress, Government Departments
and other NAP owners may also wish to provide views on how effective their actions are being in
reducing risk, as well as highlighting any barriers that have prevented effective delivery.”
F. Assessment of adaptation requires careful consideration of how trends in indicators should be
interpreted
Drawing conclusions on individual data sets can be problematic, as each one only provides a partial
representation of adaptation progress and may also be linked with other indicators. Furthermore:
• Certain data trends can be interpreted in both positive and negative ways. For example, an
increase in the number of hosepipe bans could be seen as a negative trend in “realised
outcomes”, but could be seen as positive from an action / capacity perspective as it
demonstrates a response to changing climatic factors. The ASC’s consideration of controllable
factors, and its overall approach to assessing indicators at the aggregate (rather than individual)
level, is designed to overcome these issues.
• An understanding of the relative significance of, and links between, indicators is required to
understand adaptation progress. The ASC has stated that it will consider these issues in its
analysis for the 2015 report, as illustrated below by its response to concerns raised by
stakeholders during its call for evidence.
39
Extract from the ASC’s response to comments received from its call for evidence in relation to
the interpretation of adaptation indicators
Issue raised
Indicator categorization: it needs to be made
clearer whether each indicator is treated
equally, i.e. carries the same weight in any
evaluation or if any weighting measures may
influence an overall assessment
Perceived independence of indicators: the
indicators are presented as distinct and
separate entities. However, in many cases
these indicators are interconnected, overlap,
or have knock-on effects for the others. In
these cases, it is crucial to avoid doublecounting (or under-counting) of adaptation that
has taken place, as this can result in an overly
optimistic picture of the current state of
adaptation.
4.
Our response
Agreed, but this will be made clearer when we
interpret the indicators as part of our wider
evaluation of the NAP.
As above, our evaluation will combine the
trends we have identified from a wide variety
of indicators with other analysis on decision
making and the updates on NAP actions, so we
will not be assessing each indicator separately
or independently. Furthermore, our evaluation
will include analysis of whether the uptake of
low-regret adaption actions is in line with the
realistic potential based on cost-benefit
analysis, so should avoid painting an overly
optimistic picture.
Reporting to Parliament
The ASC’s Progress Reports have, to-date, focussed on identifying specific recommendations for
Government and other adaptation stakeholders on actions to improve climate resilience. As a politically
neutral organization, we understand that these recommendations are prepared based on its evaluation
of the effectiveness of policy in managing climate risks. For example, it would state that an action
would be required to reduce risk, or maintain a given level of risk. However, it would be the role of the
Government to decide whether or not a given level of risk is acceptable or not, and develop policies to
manage it.
During our interviews with stakeholders we have received favourable feedback from some
organizations on the practical, implementable nature of the recommendations the ASC has provided
relating to data provision and actions to improve climate resilience. Furthermore, submissions by
adaptation stakeholders to the EAC inquiry on climate change adaptation suggested broad support for
the ASC’s work, the outputs and recommendations from its reports and the level of rigour
demonstrated in its approach. However, the general consensus is that it will be difficult to understand
the impact that the ASC has had until:
► It publishes its 2015 report on the NAP’s effectiveness; and
► Its recommendations (and its work in the development of the next CCRA) feed into the next NAP.
40
Summary of key challenges and considerations in reporting to Government on
climate adaptation progress
G. As the ASC’s reports to-date does not form part of its statutory duties, and there are no formal
requirements for other organizations to respond to its findings, it is difficult to identify the
impact they have had on adaptation activity.
We have not seen evidence of the monitoring of the recommendations made by the ASC in its
progress updates during the course of our work. In addition, it has been suggested in submissions
to the EAC inquiry that recommendations made by the ASC in its 2011 and 2013 reports were
similar, and that this could imply that little action was taken or progress made between those
reports. The ASC’s recommendations and advice have not been statutory, which may explain this
issue. We understand that the statutory requirement for Government to respond to the 2015
report will encourage more visible, direct action.
41
Adaptation in Focus: Agriculture & Forestry
Identifying Indicators
The ASC’s 2013 Progress Report builds upon previous progress reports, which identified flood risk and
water availability as the two priority risks. These are cross-cutting risks that are relevant across each
NAP theme. The ASC extended its analysis in its 2013 report to the two opportunities and six “tier 2”
risks relating to ecosystem services:
Opportunities:
• Grow new food and non-food crops
• Potential for increased productivity
Risks:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduced water availability
Soil erosion and degradation
Coastal erosion
Heat stress to livestock
Increased flooding/waterlogging
Increased pests and pathogens
Using these risks as a reference point, the ASC identified a series of indicators to measure adaptation
progress in the sector by investigating the available data on vulnerability, adaptation action and
realised impacts. Illustrative examples are provided in the table below, together with commentary on
the data availability.
Indicator
Total water demand for irrigation
Indicator type
Vulnerability
Percentage of timber trees planted in
areas likely to be climatically suitable in
2050
Agriculture / timber losses from pests &
pathogens
Action
Realised impact
Commentary on data availability
Data is available from 1990-2010
from Cranfield University but is no
longer collected. It is not possible to
disaggregate water demand for
irrigation for catchments at risk of
water scarcity.
Data from 1974 onwards available
from the Forestry Commission
No data available
Stakeholder Engagement
The ASC has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on Agriculture & Forestry, including the
organisations in the table below to acquire data sets, indicator metrics and discuss report drafts.
42
Key organisations that have engaged with the ASC on Agriculture & Forestry
Agriculture & Horticulture
Development Board
Environment Agency
Forestry Commission
Natural England
National Farmers Union
Food & Environment Research
Agency (FERA)
National Trust
Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds
Soil Association
Selected examples of feedback on Agriculture & Forestry during the ASC’s call for evidence, that
illustrate inputs from stakeholders on its approach to assessing adaptation progress, include the
following:
•
•
•
“Total abstraction for agriculture will vary greatly between years reflecting annual variability in
rainfall. The indicator should be corrected to provide the equivalent total abstraction for
agriculture corrected for a dry year. Cranfield University has a methodology for that based on the
calculated soil moisture deficit at indicator locations. The indicator should also distinguish between
total used and total licensed.”
“Volume of abstraction for agriculture from catchments at risk of water scarcity could be easily
calculated in terms of ‘volumes of abstractions from catchments at different categories of water
availability’, using the 4 states already defined by the Environment Agency.”
“Focus is only on cropping and in particular the irrigated crop sector. Water is also vital for animal
health and welfare.”
Analysis and Reporting
The ASC’s analysis for its 2013 Progress Report identifies a series of recommended actions to help
improve resilience to climate change. Examples include the following:
•
•
“The Government should consider how to incentivise further uptake of low-regret measures; water
efficiency, on-farm water storage and soil conservation. These measures will help to manage the
risks to productive capacity and retain flexibility about the way land is used.”
o The ASC provides further detail on this recommendation in relation to reforming the water
abstraction regime and the use of the Common Agricultural Policy to incentivize uptake of
water and soil management activities.
“Increasing the diversity of tree species planted for timber production is beneficial in reducing the
risks of changing climatic suitability and pests and diseases. A greater proportion of woodland
needs to come into active management to increase the resilience of forests for timber production.”
o The ASC provides further detail on this recommendation by highlighting the improvements
in resilience made for forests in active management, in comparison with those that are not
managed or under-managed.
The table below provides an illustrative example of how the ASC currently intends to use its
“controllable factors” approach for its 2015 assessment to consider whether NAP actions, indicator
trends and issues relating to capacity and decision-making in its assessment of adaptation progress.
43
Controllable
factor
Management
of pests and
diseases
Example NAP actions and
owner from whom update is
required
• Implement Tree Health &
Plant Biosecurity Action
Plan (DEFRA, FERA,
Forestry Commission)
• Look at ways to prevent
new/emerging pests &
diseases (DEFRA)
• Review extent current
plant health protection
programmes integrate
climate risk (DEFRA)
Indicators
•
•
44
Uptake of
surveillance
measures
Uptake of actions
to minimise risk of
importing pests
and pathogens
Key questions for
decision-making
analysis
•
Is the level of
surveillance and
uptake of actions
to minimise risk
sufficient when
accounting for
impact of climate
change?
Adaptation in Focus: Infrastructure
Identifying Indicators
The ASC’s 2014 Progress Update explores adaptation progress for the four core areas of
infrastructure on which other types of infrastructure depend. These are energy, water, transport, and
information and communication technologies. Other types of infrastructure, including food, healthcare
and financial services, are not considered in the infrastructure NAP theme, though they are addressed
elsewhere within the NAP.
In the CCRA, the following 3 risks were
identified as having a pervasive impact on all
infrastructure types:
•
•
•
Increased flooding/coastal erosion
Increased severe weather events
Reduced water availability/increased
water temperature
Using these risks as a reference point, the ASC identified a series of indicators to measure adaptation
progress in the sector by investigating the available data on vulnerability, adaptation action and
realised impacts. A significant number or indicators were identified for this theme due to the diversity
in the types of infrastructure for which adaptation progress needs to be assessed. For example, specific
indicators are needed for the different transport sub-sectors of airports, ports, railways and roads.
45
Indicator
Number of rail and strategic road
structures (earthworks, bridges, tunnels,
culverts, sea walls) in poor condition
The following types of infrastructure
located in areas at high likelihood of
river/coastal flooding with site-level
protection measures:
Number of power stations /
generation capacity
- Number of electricity substations
- Number of clean/waste water
treatment works
- Length of rail network
- Number/proportion of airports,
data centres, ports, train
stations,
Annual number and length of delays to a)
rail b) road c) air d) port transport
caused by flooding
Indicator type
Risk
(vulnerability)
Commentary on data availability
Available annually for rail, not
available for roads
Action
Data availability varies across the
different infrastructure types. Many
of only have partial data, in particular
relation to protection measures
Realised impact
Data available for rail and strategic
road network only
-
For some of the infrastructure sectors, national data is readily available from regulators. For example:
•
•
Ofgem require electricity distribution network operators (DNOs) to report annually on their
flood resilience measures; and
The National Fault and Interruption Reporting Scheme (NaFIRS) requires DNOs to report
weather- or environment-related disruptions using standardized classifications.
Less regulated sectors such as ports do not collect the same level of data, meaning there are data gaps
that limit the ability of the ASC to fully measure climate adaptation progress.
Stakeholder Engagement
The ASC has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on Infrastructure, including the organisations
in the table below, to acquire data sets, indicator metrics and discuss report drafts.
Key organisations that have engaged with the ASC on Infrastructure
Airport Operators Association
National Grid
Ofgem
Energy Networks Association
Network Rail
Ofwat
Highways Agency
Ofcom
Water UK
46
Selected examples of feedback on Infrastructure during the ASC’s call for evidence, that illustrate
inputs from stakeholders on its approach to assessing adaptation progress, include the following:
•
•
•
“We should monitor the length of restrictions to public water supply, not just the number of
hosepipe bans or drought orders, as this will provide a more complete measure of realized impact.”
“There is no national register of the number of properties at risk of sewer flooding, only the number
that have experienced sewer flooding historically. We should instead monitor the number of
internal sewer flooding incidents caused by extreme weather (greater than 1 in 30 year return
period).”
“We should monitor disruption to shipping traffic from extreme weather. The Marine &
Coastguard Agency has shipping traffic data that can be used in conjunction with Met Office
weather statistics to determine dates, locations and times when ferries or other vessels (including
fishing vessels) have remained in port due to poor weather conditions at sea.”
Analysis and Reporting
The ASC’s 2014 Progress Report, while noting some progress in improving resilience and adapting to
climate risks, calls attention to the inconsistency, incompleteness and transparency issues shown by
the various approaches to assess risks from climate change among the infrastructure sectors. While
the heavily regulated industries such as electricity transmission and distribution and rail have
demonstrated consistent resilience planning approaches, ASC has suggested that Government should
seek to improve this system across both regulated and non-regulated sectors.
We understand that the ARP did not generate suitable indicators that the ASC could use in its
assessment of adaptation progress. However, it is anticipated that the ARP process helped to generate
interest and activity on climate adaptation across the organisations that were required to report, and
may therefore impact the ASC’s assessment of capacity and decision-making.
47
V. Key learnings and recommendations
for adopting the UK’s approach to
adaptation M&E in Canada
48
V. Key learnings and recommendations for adopting the
UK’s approach to adaptation M&E in Canada
Introduction
In the previous sections of the report we have outlined the UK’s approach to adaptation M&E, with a
particular focus on the role of the ASC in developing indicators, working with other adaptation
stakeholders, conducting analysis and reporting on its conclusions. We have also outlined some of the
principal challenges that the ASC and other organizations have had to overcome in the development of
the UK’s M&E approach.
We believe that there are a number of elements of the UK’s approach, and the way it has been
developed, that could be adopted in Canada. To consider the applicability of the UK’s approach and
identify specific recommendations that could be taken forward by the Measuring Progress Working
Group, we have considered the “current state” of climate adaptation activity in Canada as well as the
similarities and differences with the UK. In particular, this has included the following comparisons:
Area
Governance model, including
government structure, legislative
and regulatory environment
Canadian and UK comparison
•
•
•
Geographic similiarities and
differences
•
•
Climate change vulnerabilities and
opportunities
•
•
•
Data availability
•
•
The UK and Canada have a common parliamentary system
of government.
Canada has a Federal government model in which there
are two levels of government (Federal and
Provincial/Territorial); neither of which can change the
powers or create laws that affect the governing areas of
the other.
The UK has a unitary model in which the Federal
government grants powers to the local government, and
can enforce laws upon them.
The UK and Canada share many geographical similiarities
having both agricultural, forest and coastal regions.
Canada does differ from the UK in having a Northern
region, and a vast diversity of geographies across its land
mass (e.g. prairies and mountains).
All of the climate change priority areas identified by the
UK would have applicability to Canada, including the built
and natural environment.
In addition, Canada would probably add the impact on
Aboriginal groups as another priority area.
Within the Business risk area, as a resource-based country
Canada would have different sectors at-risk than the UK
(e.g. oil & gas, mining).
Due to the federal model, it is expected that there would
be greater difficulty in obtaining national data on priority
areas under joint Federal-Provincial jurisdiction (e.g.,
utilities, transportation, and healthcare).
The ASC has been developing and collecting measurement
data for over 3 years, which is ahead of efforts being
49
Area
Canadian and UK comparison
undertaken in Canada.
Pre-existing indicators that can be
leveraged for adaptation
•
•
Collaborative networks between
public and private institutions
•
Various initiatives are currently being undertaken by
federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada
to better understand their risks to climate change, and
develop appropriate action plans. However, there is no
comprehensive reporting mechanism or framework
available at the national level to measure progress on
adapting to climate change.
Similar to the UK, it is expected that once identified there
will be pre-existing indicators that can be leveraged for
adaptation. These are currently being researched by the
Adaptation Platform’s Measuring Progress Working Group.
There are many collaborative networks between public
and private institutions, including industry associations
that can be leveraged as necessary in Canada (similar to
the UK).
We have outlined below a series of key learnings from the UK’s experiences in developing its M&E
approach. For each of these observations, we have identified a series of recommendations as to how
the UK’s approach could be adopted in Canada, based on our understanding of the “current state” of its
adaptation activity.
1. Clear definition of adaptation responsibilities is an important prerequisite for adaptation M&E.
2. Effective adaptation M&E requires a structured understanding of climate risks and opportunities, as
well as clear objectives against which progress can be measured.
3. Independent monitoring of adaptation progress, supported by the expertise of the scientific
community, drives a more objective assessment of adaptation progress than could be delivered
from within government.
4. Identifying indicators and sourcing data requires extensive stakeholder participation.
5. Adaptation indicators, whilst important, represent only one component of adaptation M&E.
Key observations and recommendations
On the following pages we have provided an overview of the key learnings from the UK’s experiences in
monitoring climate adaptation progress, together with specific recommendations of how this approach
could be adopted in Canada.
Overview of UK’s approach
Recommendations for adopting the UK’s
approach in Canada
1. Clearly define responsibilities for climate change adaptation as a pre-requisite for assessing
adaptation progress
In the UK, specific responsibilities for
Assign formal responsibilities to
Government, its departments, and devolved
organizations with respect to adaptation
administrations in relation to climate change
activity and M&E. Where possible, it should
adaptation are clearly outlined. This includes
seek to embed adaptation within existing areas
policy and adaptation activity, as well as the
of policy. Responsibilities should also be
reporting and monitoring requirements related to assigned for monitoring the effectiveness of
the CCRA, NAP and ARP. Furthermore, the NAP
their adaptation activities.
50
sets out owners for each of the approximately
400 actions that the government believes are
necessary to help the UK to prepare for climate
change.
Although responsibilities for specific adaptation
actions have been assigned in the NAP, it is not
clear how accountability for each indicator will be
established and upheld. For example, how will the
M&E framework developed by the ASC be
employed to hold those responsible for adaptation
to account.
Responsibility for adaptation across the private
sector is less defined, although organizations in
regulated sectors (principally relating to
infrastructure) have participated in the ARP
process. This can make it more difficult to obtain
information on adaptation progress and to hold
organizations to account.
Develop a clear approach to working with the
private sector on climate change adaptation.
This should involve the identification of shared
areas of responsibility, and formal
partnerships to address joint risks.
Develop a reporting framework for
organizations in the private sector on
adaptation risks, priorities and progress.
These should be value add, and should
consider interdependencies. For example,
infrastructure shouldn’t just look at individual
sectors.
Develop a mechanism to hold adaptation
indicator owners accountable for progress
based on progress targets established for
each indicator. This could prove difficult due
limited historical performance information,
and the diversity in the organizations assigned
as data owners.
51
Overview of UK’s approach
Recommendations for adopting the UK’s
approach in Canada
2. A structured approach to climate adaptation supported by an understanding of risks and
opportunities, with clearly defined objectives against which progress can be measured, is
required for effective monitoring of progress.
The UK’s approach to climate adaptation, and
therefore its approach to M&E, is built on a clear
understanding of priority risks and opportunities.
The NAP identifies adaptation objectives and
specific actions to address those risks that help
define what “good” adaptation looks like, and
against which progress can be monitored.
The ASC has overlaid its own definition of “good
adaptation” on the NAP, by focussing on:
a) whether the actions in the NAP are being
delivered; and
b) whether those actions are helping the UK to
adapt to climate change.
Develop a robust, consistent approach to
identifying and prioritising its risks and
opportunities from climate change based on a
clear understanding of the latest climate
science and trends in socio-economic factors.
We anticipate that the priority risks may be
different across Canada’s different provinces
and territories. It should, therefore, consider
developing a national level “framework” that
could be applied to priority risks at the
Provincial / Territorial level.
Develop clear adaptation objectives that will
help it to manage priority risks. These
objectives should, where possible, be
This considers trends in indicators together with
measurable and focus on the issues that can be
an understanding of capacity and decision-making.
managed in order to reduce vulnerability.
Be transparent about the scope and
limitations of climate risk assessment, and of
any adaptation actions arising from it. It is
likely that any assessment of climate risks and
opportunities will rely on assumptions, such as
the extrapolation of data across different
geographies or sectors.
Further considerations
Canada could look to build on the UK’s
approach, for example by:
• Considering international risks and
opportunities from climate change, as the
UK is intending to do in its next CCRA;
• Incorporating a qualitative assessment of
climate risks into its assessment where
reliable data is not available; and
• Building a spatial dimension into its
programme of adaptation activity,
against which progress is measured.
52
Overview of UK’s approach
Recommendations for adopting the UK’s
approach in Canada
3. Independent monitoring of adaptation progress, supported by the expertise of the scientific
community, drives a more objective assessment of adaptation progress than could be delivered
from within government
During the course of our work we have
consistently heard that the ASC’s independence is
critical in enabling it to collate information from
the multitude of other organizations that have
information on adaptation progress, and provide
an objective assessment of adaptation. The
Government’s own stakeholder engagement has
found that independence and political impartiality
increase the credibility of the ASC’s advice. The
ASC’s freedom to develop its approach to M&E and
reporting overcomes potential issues that could
arise as a result of the funding arrangements for
its activities. We understand that the UK’s
approach is different from other countries, where
Government departments typically provide this
evaluation themselves, often with support from
members of the academic community within those
departments rather than independently of them.
M&E of adaptation should be carried out
independently of adaptation delivery. This will
build trust and creditability in the progress
updates, and enable Canada to use the M&E
process to hold those responsible for adapting
to climate change to account.
The ASC currently supported by corporate staff
and experts from the fields of climate change,
science and economics.
Leverage the expertise of its scientific
community in the development of its
adaptation and M&E approach. Expertise in
climate science, economic analysis, and the
specific issues that are impacted by Canada’s
climate risks, will be required to develop an
understanding of adaptation progress.
Adaptation M&E should report to senior levels
in government for maximum impact, and
observations and recommendations as a result
of M&E activity should be made public. In
Canada we understand that responsibility for
adaptation is likely to be owned jointly at the
Federal and Provincial / Territorial level.
53
Overview of UK’s approach
Recommendations for adopting the UK’s
approach in Canada
4. Indicator identification and sourcing data requires extensive stakeholder participation
The UK’s approach has focussed on identifying
existing data sets that can be used to build an
understanding of adaptation progress, rather than
collecting “new” primary data. However, as noted
in Section III.1.A there are a high number of
adaptation indicators with partial or no data.
Whilst the ASC has developed indicators that
combine existing data sets (and sampling of
information) with “desired” indicators, we have
not seen evidence of organizations collecting new
information for this purpose. We understand that
indicators of vulnerability have the most value in
understanding adaptation progress.
Give the organization charged with
independent M&E sufficient remit, time and
resources to work with all relevant
organizations. An independent body will, by
definition, not own the data and information
required to assess adaptation progress, and
will therefore require time to identify and
engage with relevant adaptation stakeholders.
The scale, diversity and complexity of adaptation
issues that the ASC is required to understand, as
well as its lack of ownership of any data on climate
adaptation progress, necessitates a significant
level of engagement with a wide range of
organizations. The ASC has spent five years
developing the networks and evidence base
required to make its 2015 assessment, building up
trust with stakeholders by being transparent about
how it intends to use data and other information.
Where the ASC requires information on specific
sectors, it has sought to work with regulators and
trade associations, rather than going directly to
individual organizations.
Those with responsibility for M&E should be
guided by data owners on how best to use the
data to assess adaptation progress.
Furthermore, data owners should be consulted
on proposed analytical approaches, and
conclusions should be validated with data
owners prior to the publication of M&E
findings.
Focus on outcome indicators, in particular
relating to climate change vulnerability, that
consider climatic and socio-economic factors.
However, this focus should not come at the
expense of collecting qualitative information
on process, capacity and decision-making.
Further considerations
If Canada is to require organizations to
develop / collect new primary data, it should
ensure that the benefits of collecting the data
are proportionate to the effort required to
collect it.
54
Overview of UK’s approach
Recommendations for adopting the UK’s
approach in Canada
5. Adaptation indicators, whilst important, represent only one component of adaptation of M&E,
and must be considered alongside qualitative information to fully assess progress.
Whilst the information provided by the indicators
is highly important in understanding adaptation
progress, a broader analysis is required for the
reasons outlined below:
Data is not available for all of the desired
indicators, but the lack of data does not
necessarily mean a lack of adaptation
activity;
• Information on decision-making, capacity
and progress against adaptation actions is
typically qualitative and cannot easily be
measured;
• There can be challenges in interpreting
indicators, for example in the attribution
of cause-and-effect; and
• Many of the indicators are linked, meaning
that judgement is needed to consider the
relative significance of the indicators and
the interdependencies between them.
If the ASC failed to consider the issues above, and
take a wider set of qualitative information into
account in its assessment of progress, the quality
of its analysis and the credibility of its
recommendations could be undermined.
•
Collect qualitative information alongside data
to monitor adaptation progress and help
address issues with the lack of data availability.
In particular, it should seek to understand
capacity, decision-making and progress on
specific adaptation activities across the
organizations that are likely to be impacted by
climate change.
Consider the relative significance, links and
interdependencies between adaptation
indicator sets, in any analysis / conclusions it
draws on adaptation progress.
Be transparent about any data deficiencies
and uncertainties in relation to adaptation
analysis, and of the implications of these
uncertainties on its recommendations.
The ASC’s approach to understanding
vulnerabilities and their “controllable factors”, and
understanding how well the controllable factors
impact those vulnerabilities, is designed to
overcome the issues above.
55
Appendices
56
Appendix A - List of documents reviewed
References
National Adaptation Programme:
Krebs, Lord John. November 5, 2012. Letter: Advice on the strategy for the second round Adaptation
Reporting Power. Available online:
http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws/ASC/Lord%20de%20Mauley%20(05Nov12).pdf
UK Government, House of Lords. July 1, 2013. Climate Change Act 2008 (c. 27). Available online:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. July 1, 2013. The National
Adaptation Programme: Making the country resilient to a changing climate. Available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209866/pb13
942-nap-20130701.pdf
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. July 1, 2013. The National
Adaptation Programme Report: Analytical Annex - Economics of the National Adaptation
Programme. Available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209867/pb13
942a-nap-annex-economics.pdf
Climate Change Risk Assessment:
Krebs, Lord John. June 24, 2013. Letter: Discussions for the second climate change risk
assessment. Available online: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/JohnKrebs-to-Colin-Church-24-June.pdf
Krebs, Lord John. December 19, 2012. Letter: Advice on preparing for the next Climate Change Risk
Assessment. Available online:
http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws/ASC/ASC%20to%20Prof%20Ian%20Boyd%20(19Dec12)%20Let
ter.pdf
Krebs, Lord John. January 7, 2009. Letter: Advice on evolving methodology for the Climate Change
Risk Assessment and Adaptation Economic Assessment. Available online:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/letter-advice-on-evolving-methology-for-the-climatechange-risk-assessment-and-adaptation-economic-assessment/
Krebs, Lord John. November 20, 2009. Letter: Advice on evolving methodology for the Climate
Change Risk Assessment and Adaptation Economic Assessment. Available online:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/letter-advice-on-evolving-methodology-for-the-climatechange-risk-assessment-and-adaptation-economic-assessment/
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. January 25, 2012. UK Climate
Change Risk Assessment: Government Report. Available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69487/pb136
98-climate-risk-assessment.pdf
57
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. April 23, 2012. The UK
Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012 Evidence Report (Amended). Available online:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed
=0&ProjectID=15747#RelatedDocuments
Watkiss,Paul and Hunt, Alistair. June 2012. Scoping Study: Reviewing the Coverage of
Economic Impacts in the CCRA. Available Online:
http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws/ASC/2012%20report/Filling%20the%20Gaps%20around%20the
%20CCRA%20Working%20Paper%20June%202012%20FINAL.pdf
Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Reports:
Adaptation Sub-Committee. July 8, 2014. Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy: ASC
progress report 2014. Available online: http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/managingclimate-risks-to-well-being-and-the-economy-asc-progress-report-2014/
Adaptation Sub-Committee. July 10, 2013. Managing the land in a changing climate – Adaptation SubCommittee progress report 2013. Available online:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/managing-the-land-in-a-changing-climate/
Adaptation Sub-Committee. July 11, 2012. Climate change – is the UK preparing for flooding and
water scarcity? (Adaptation Sub-Committee progress report 2012). Available online:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/climate-change-is-the-uk-preparing-for-flooding-andwater-scarcity-3rd-progress-report-2012/
Adaptation Sub-Committee. July 14, 2011. Adapting to climate change in the UK – Measuring progress
(Adaptation Sub-Committee progress report 2011). Available online:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/adapting-to-climate-change-in-the-uk-measuringprogress-2nd-progress-report-2011/
Adaptation Sub-Committee. September 16, 2010. How well prepared is the UK for climate change?
(Adaptation Sub-Committee progress report 2010). Available online:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/how-well-prepared-is-the-uk-for-climate-change/
AEA Technology Plc. July 4, 2012. Review of International Experience in Adaptation
Indicators (Adaption Sub-Committee Report). Available online:
http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws/ASC/2012%20report/AEA%20Global%20adaptation%20indicat
ors%20review%20-%20final.pdf
Krebs, Lord John. September 1, 2014. Letter: ASC submit evidence to Environmental Audit
Committee inquiry on adaptation. Available online: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/2014-08-27-ASC-submission-to-EAC-v2.pdf
The Committee on Climate Change. September 30, 2014. Consultation and Call for Evidence:
The Adaptation Sub-Committee’s approach to reporting on the National Adaptation Programme.
Available online: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014-07-18-ASCNAP-report-call-for-evidence.pdf
A link to the Adaptation Reports provided by 91 organizations in response to a request from
DEFRA as per the CCA is available online, as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adaptation-reporting-power-received-reports
58
Other Sources:
Department of Energy and Climate Change. January 6, 2014. Triennial Review of the Committee on
Climate Change. Available Online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270886/comm
ittee_climate_change_triennial_review_2013.pdf
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. July 1, 2013.
Adapting to Climate Change: Ensuring Progress in Key Sectors 2013 Strategy for exercising the
Adaptation Reporting Power and list of priority reporting authorities. Available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209875/pb13
945-arp-climate-change-20130701.pdf
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. July 1, 2013. Second round of
reporting under the Adaptation Reporting Power: List of organisations which were invited to
participate in the second round. Available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371561/arp2round-org-list.pdf
UK Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. July 1, 2013. Impact
Assessment on the 2013 Strategy for Exercising the Adaptation Reporting Power. Available
online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210510/annex
-a-ia-arp.pdf
59
Appendix B – Acronyms
Abbreviation
ARP
Adaptation Reporting Powers
ASC
Adaptation Sub-Committee
CCA
Climate Change Act 2008
CCC
Committee on Climate Change
CCRA
Climate Change Risk Assessment
CCPs
Climate Change Partnerships
DECC
Department of Energy and Climate Change
DEFRA
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DNOs
Distribution network operators
EA
Environment Agency
EAC
Environmental Audit Committee
EY
Ernst & Young LLP
FTE
Full-time equivalents
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LGA
Local Government Associations
LAAP
Local Adaptation Advisory Panel
M&E
Monitoring and evaluation of adaptation progress
NaFRA
National Flood Risk Assessment
NaFIRS
National Fault and Interruption Reporting Scheme
NAP
National Adaptation Program
NRCan
Natural Resources Canada
UK
United Kingdom
60
EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory
About EY
EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services.
Worldwide, our 152,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering
commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and
our wider communities achieve their potential.
For more information, please visit ey.com/ca
EY refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global
Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a
UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.
ey.com/ca
© 2014 Ernst & Young LLP. All Rights Reserved.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited.