Difference between revisions of "Integrating Climate Change into the ICZM planning process - Setting the Vision"

From MarineBiotech Infopages
Jump to: navigation, search
(Building consensus)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
priorities.
 
priorities.
 
In the area of climate change priorities will have to drawn from a range of possible actions. These can be classified as follows:
 
In the area of climate change priorities will have to drawn from a range of possible actions. These can be classified as follows:
 +
===Low regret or No-regrets measures===
 +
These are measures that can be introduced now to adapt to climate change, incurring no or little cost and generating a range of benefits. Examples include improvement in efficiency of water use, development of early warning systems that inform affected parties of extreme weather events, improved monitoring of climate data to better predict impacts under higher temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns. Also included in this category are measures to address the “adaptation deficit”<ref>For further discussion on the adaptation deficit see Parry, M. Et al. (2009) “Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates”, International Institute for Environment and Development and Grantham Institute for Climate Change, London.</ref>. An adaptation deficit arises when the current infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the present climatic variations (e.g. present flood defences are inadequate to cope with present flooding). Action to correct this situation can possibly be justified even without reference to future climate change (although it may still not be the top priority).
 +
 +
===Action Vs Postponement===
 +
The literature on adaptation notes the benefits in some cases of postponing decisions on, for example, the height of a sea defence, until more information is available on the likely risks. This can be done through an analytical method known as Real
 +
Options Analysis <ref>For an example of Real Options analysis see the assessment for the Thames defences, summarised in
 +
Ranger, N., Millner, A., Dietz, S., Fankhauser, S., Lopez, A. and Ruta, G. (2010) Adaptation in the UK: A Decision-Making Process, Policy Brief September 2010, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment & Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.</ref>.
 +
 +
---
 +
 +
<references/>

Revision as of 17:16, 30 October 2013


Introduction  


Establishment  


Analysis and Futures  


Setting the Vision  


Designing the Future  


Realising the Vision  


 


CC ICZM Process/EstablishmentCC ICZM Process/Analysis and FutureCC ICZM Process/Setting the visionCC ICZM Process/Designing the FutureCC ICZM Process/Realizing the VisionICZM pegaso 3 4.png
About this image

The aim of this stage is to engage the stakeholders in setting the priorities and agreeing on the key policies and measures that should be considered in the analysis stage.

Building consensus

The point of departure for this stage is the scoping report, which was prepared at the establishment stage and which identified the drivers and pressures and risks associated with the different areas of concern. This report is discussed with stakeholders and amended in the light of their reactions. In addition the stakeholder consultations are used to determine the priorities. In the area of climate change priorities will have to drawn from a range of possible actions. These can be classified as follows:

Low regret or No-regrets measures

These are measures that can be introduced now to adapt to climate change, incurring no or little cost and generating a range of benefits. Examples include improvement in efficiency of water use, development of early warning systems that inform affected parties of extreme weather events, improved monitoring of climate data to better predict impacts under higher temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns. Also included in this category are measures to address the “adaptation deficit”[1]. An adaptation deficit arises when the current infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the present climatic variations (e.g. present flood defences are inadequate to cope with present flooding). Action to correct this situation can possibly be justified even without reference to future climate change (although it may still not be the top priority).

Action Vs Postponement

The literature on adaptation notes the benefits in some cases of postponing decisions on, for example, the height of a sea defence, until more information is available on the likely risks. This can be done through an analytical method known as Real Options Analysis [2].

---

  1. For further discussion on the adaptation deficit see Parry, M. Et al. (2009) “Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates”, International Institute for Environment and Development and Grantham Institute for Climate Change, London.
  2. For an example of Real Options analysis see the assessment for the Thames defences, summarised in Ranger, N., Millner, A., Dietz, S., Fankhauser, S., Lopez, A. and Ruta, G. (2010) Adaptation in the UK: A Decision-Making Process, Policy Brief September 2010, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment & Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.