Richenda ConnellUK Climate Impacts Programme

Tools for climate risk management: The UKCIP climate adaptation risk

framework and the UKCIP adaptation wizard

SICCIA, Eibsee Hotel, Grainau, Germany, 30 June 2004

Outline

• Introduction to UKCIP, studies & partnerships• UKCIP/Environment Agency climate adaptation risk

management framework: How it works & key principles• Semi-fictional case study: Application of framework to a water

resources decision• Prototype UKCIP adaptation wizard

UKCIP provides a bridge between decision-makers and climate scientists

• ‘The UK Climate Impacts Programme helps organisations assess how they might be affected by climate change, so they can prepare for its impacts’

• UKCIP: – promotes stakeholder-led, problem-oriented research – provides core tools (CC scenarios etc)– provides guidance/advice for partnerships and studies– encourages integrated approaches

• Set up in 1997 • Funded by UK Government Department for Environment, Food & Rural

Affairs (Defra)• Based at University of Oxford

Note: UKCIP set up for climate change; just beginning to consider ‘climate risks’ more generally

UKCIP includes regional & sectoral studies & partnerships

AgricultureBuilt environmentBusinessGardens Health Local authoritiesMarine biodiversity Nature conservationREGIS (integrated)Water demand

Three Devolved Administrations: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

Nine English Regions

Regional: Sectoral:

Regional studies provide overview of a range of possible climate impacts. Studies now complete for whole of UK

Impact study findings are integrated in key regional planning

documents…

UKCIP02 climate change scenarios

‘London’s warming’

scoping study

The London Plan (spatial development strategy for Greater

London)

Impact study findings are integrated in key regional planning

documents…“The Mayor will and boroughs should assess and develop policies for the likely impacts of climate change on London identified in the work of the London Climate Change Partnership. Policies will be developed in conjunction with the Partnership and addressed in the first review of the London Plan.”

(London Plan, 2004)

..but most UK decision-makers have not yet made adaptation decisions

• Is adaptation needed?

• If adaptation is (perhaps) needed:

– How much adaptation?– Choice of adaptation measures?– When to adapt?

UKCIP/EA report provides a decision-making framework for managing climate risks

• Framework describes process for appraisal and management of risks and uncertainties

• Similar to others used for corporate risk management – recognisable to decision-makers

• Enables climate risks to be ‘mainstreamed’ within existing processes

A framework to support good decision-making in the face of climate risk

Background to problem

Climate sensitive?

– Adaptation, influenced, constraining?

Type of decision?

Stakeholders?

Timescales?

Stage 1: Identify problem and objectives

Need to take a balanced approach to managing climate and non-climate risks

1

Case study: Identify problem and objectives

• Silver Birches is a large tree growing business in East of England

• Currently relies on mains water to irrigate pot-grown trees

• Managing Director is worried about risk of water supply being cut off – even though this has not happened before

• This is a climate adaptation problem

1

Decision-maker’s objectives

Success criteria

Legislative requirements or guidance

Attitudes to risk - optimistic, precautionary (‘risk averse’), etc

Resources

Stage 2: Establish decision making criteria

Receptors and exposure units

Risk assessment endpoints

Assessment period

Project management issues

Define what makes the correct decision

• Need operational criteria for risk assessment and options appraisal

• Take account of defined thresholds and risk attitude (optimistic, precautionary/risk averse, least regret)

2

• Objective: “Business to survive and prosper for next 20 years”

• Criteria: Options will be judged against ability to provide secure water supply for next 20 years – consultant to define criteria

• Risk attitude: M.D. is very risk averse to water supply loss – trees die in 15 days

• Other criteria: Cost, practicality, reliability, feasibility, water quality, flexibility, contingency planning, response of employees, implications for neighbours

Case study: Establish decision making criteria

2

12 month total precipitation for calendar year

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Calendar year

Tota

l pre

cip

itat

ion

(m

m)

391 mm =driest year on record (1963-2002)

Trigger level = 411 mm or 5% above driest year on record

Case study: Establish decision making criteriaConsultant’s recommended trigger point:

5% above lowest 12 month precipitation on record

• Identify and characterize:

– climate and non-climate risk factors (climate variables)

– pathways and receptors

• Screen and prioritize risks

• Describe uncertainties

– reducible v. irreducible

– explicit assumptions

Stage 3: Assess risk

Give appropriate attention to all risks & uncertainties

3

• Climate variables: Which characteristics are important? – magnitude, direction, averaging period, statistical basis. How may these change?

• Info on low probability / high consequence events may be most uncertain – but risk assessment may show these are highest risk

• Uncertainty in non-climate risks & impact models may be of greater significance than uncertainties over climate hazards

• Thresholds-based approach may help focus attention on critical uncertainties

Tools for identifying and describing uncertainty should be more widely used

(Walker et al. (2003). Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4,(1), 5-17.)

Case study: Assess risk Influence diagram

Case study: Assess risk SDSM M-H emissions scenario simulated rainfall 2003-2023

   

  Running 12 month total rainfall 2003-2023

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700Ja

n-0

3

Jan

-04

Jan

-05

Jan

-06

Jan

-07

Jan

-08

Jan

-09

Jan

-10

Jan

-11

Jan

-12

Jan

-13

Jan

-14

Jan

-15

Jan

-16

Jan

-17

Jan

-18

Jan

-19

Jan

-20

Jan

-21

Jan

-22

Jan

-23

Date

To

tal r

ain

fall

(mm

) fo

r p

rev

iou

s 1

2 m

on

ths

Trigger level = 411 mm or 5% above driest year on record (1963 – 2002)

• Types of option (Do nothing?)

• Generic adaptation strategies

• No/low regret options

• Flexible options ‘adaptive management’

• Delay decisions

Stage 4: Identify options

Generic climate risk management options• Use of risk-based policy and project appraisal

process and techniques

• Delay and buy-time

• Research

• Monitoring - system performance - climate impact monitoring

• Information supply, education, awareness raising

• Contingency planning–- low probability, high consequence events–- strategic planning response

Proactive

Proactive

Proactive or Strategic

ProactiveReactive

Proactive orReactive

Strategic

Generic climate risk management optionsProactive

Proactive

Proactive or Reactive

ProactiveReactive

Proactive orReactive

Proactive, Strategic

• Diversification or bet-hedging– Technical or policy

• Insurance – financial

• Defend and manage

• Change of use – planning response +/- technical measures

• Retreat and abandon – strategic planning response

• Safety factors, climate headroom, buffering measures

– technical and regulatory response

Adaptive management is recommended when dealing with uncertainty

• Useful for decision-makers to keep open / increase options that allow climate adaptation in future, when need for adaptation and performance of different measures is less uncertain

• Circular, iterative framework promotes adaptive management• Avoid implementing adaptation constraining decisions

45

Case study: Identify options

•Do nothing•Diversify water supply / investigate other water supply options•Try contract with water supply company to guarantee minimum supply•Move or change business•Change crop type•Contract out tree growing•Water recycling•Joint venture with neighbours to develop alternative supplies•Insurance

Mains water supply to trees

Do nothing: Current management practice

Adaptation option 1: Infrastructural strategy

Build reservoir & abstract 7,200m3 per month from drain to reservoirKeep reservoir half full (18,000 m3) in case water supply is cut during drought event

Mains water supply to trees

Drain to reservoir

Reservoir to trees

half full (18,000 m3)

Adaptation option 2: Informational strategy Build reservoir & abstract 7,200m3 per month from drain to reservoirUse all available reservoir storage - do not reserve any capacityMonitor rainfall against 411mm trigger levelWhen trigger reached, immediately buy enough supply from mains supplier to meet needs for next 2 months

Mains water supply to trees

Drain to reservoir

Reservoir to treesMains water supply to reservoir

• Assess performance against decision-making criteria

• Sensitivity of options to uncertainty

• Implementation risks

Stage 5: Appraise options

Stage 5: Appraise Options Performance of infrastructural strategy

   

 

 Performance of infrastructural strategy during 2019-20 drought event

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

May

-19

Jun-

19

Jul-1

9

Aug

-19

Sep

-19

Oct

-19

Nov

-19

Dec

-19

Jan-

20

Feb

-20

Mar

-20

Apr

-20

May

-20

Date

Wat

er a

vaila

ble

/req

uir

ed (

cub

ic m

etre

s)

Monthlyirrigationrequirement

Wateravailable inreservoir (orfrommains/drain)

   

Assume mains water supply cut 1 September

Reservoir storage for use during drought event/ mains supply cut off

Runs out of water in May

Stage 5: Appraise Options Performance of informational strategy

   

Performance of informational strategy during 2019-2020 drought event

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

May

-19

Jun-

19

Jul-1

9

Aug

-19

Sep

-19

Oct

-19

Nov

-19

Dec

-19

Jan-

20

Feb

-20

Mar

-20

Apr

-20

May

-20

Jun-

20

Date

Wat

er a

vaila

ble

/req

uir

ed (

cub

ic m

etre

s)

Monthlyirrigationrequirement

Wateravailable inreservoir (orfrommains/drain)

Rainfall trigger reached

Assume mains water supply cut 1 September

£153,000 cheaper than infrastructural strategy over 20 yrs

Runs out of water in June

• Preferred option?

• Appropriate problem definition and decision criteria?

• Decision robust to uncertainty?

• Confirm attitude to climate risks

Stage 6: Make decision

Decision risks - Under-adaptation

Actual importance of factors

Perceived importance of factors

None Moderate Large

None

Moderate

Large

Significance of non-climate risk factors

Sig

nif

ican

ce o

f c l

ima t

e ri

sk f

a ct o

r s

Under-adaptation

Significance of non-climate risk factors

Decision risks - Over-adaptation

Perceived importance of factors

Actual importance of factors

None Moderate Large

None

Moderate

Large

Significance of non-climate risk factors

Sig

nif

ican

ce o

f c l

ima t

e ri

sk f

a ct o

r s

Over-adaptation

• Both reservoir management options do well, but fail eventually during very prolonged drought

• But informational strategy has cost benefit

• Other considerations:

– Building reservoir will require abstraction licence

– Use of reservoir will have implications for others

• Other options that could be explored include:

– Build a bigger reservoir

– Contract with water company

• Note: Not all uncertainties addressed

Case study: Make decision

Stage 7/8: Implement decision/Monitor, evaluate review

• M.D. should monitor

– 12-month running total rainfall (informational strategy)

– Use of mains water supply

– Business growth

– Number of trees

– New information on climate risks

– Water company supply agreements and pricing policy

Case study: Implement decision/Monitor, evaluate review

Applications of the framework thus far

• ‘Designing for thermal comfort in a 21st century climate’ (Ove Arup & Partners, funded by Department of Trade and Industry)

• ‘The Planning Response to Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice’ (CAG consultants & Oxford Brookes University for Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

• ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners’ (Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, UKCIP et al)

• ‘Climate change and tourism in the Northwest’ (Ongoing) (University of Manchester & Tyndall Centre for Northwest Climate Group)

• Next: Developing framework for application by companies & investors (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change with UKCIP, Environment Agency)

Lessons learned so far from application of risk framework

• Decision-making including climate risks is complex, even for relatively simple problems!

• Using a structured framework helps

• Structuring the problem and choosing decision-making criteria (stages 1 & 2) are essential, often not given enough attention

• Decision-maker’s attitude to risks is instrumental re. identifying and choosing between options

• Process of working through framework throws up new ideas – early stages may need revisiting

UKCIP adaptation wizard

• Aims to help decision-makers move through a process from simple understanding of climate risks, to integration of these risks into decision-making, making use of all UKCIP tools and resources

• Draws heavily on risk framework, but less comprehensive • Web-based • Prototype version available at www.ukcip.org.uk/wizard• Comments welcome!

Four levels of entry

Level Start at this step if you …

Scoping impacts ..are beginning to think about climate risks for the first time and are unsure whether they are important

Quantifying risks ..have already identified most important climate risks & are beginning to consider them in more detail, to work out whether you need to adapt

Decision-making & action planning

..have already assessed risks and identified that you need to adapt

Adaptation strategy review

..already have an adaptation strategy, developed through a risk-based assessment, and want to check if it needs modifying

Layout of each level

Principles of good climate adaptation

Conclusions and recommendations - 1

• Emphasis on understanding climate variability

• Decision-maker’s problem and objectives are central to understanding adaptation problem

• Hierarchical/tiered/iterative approach is useful

• Importance of climate risk benchmarks (tolerable risk)

• Essential to understand attitude to risk (tolerable risk)

Resources

www.ukcip.org.uk

Prototype wizard www.ukcip.org.uk/wizard