2

Cross-Scale Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation

in Local Government, Australia

Workshop Two Report

30 APRIL 2012 PREPARED FOR: National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF)

AUTHORS Jade Herriman

Natasha Kuruppu Anna Gero

Pierre Mukheibir

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES II

CROSS-SCALE BARRIERS TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AUSTRALIA WORKSHOP TWO

UTS:INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES 30 APRIL 2012 ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) was established by the University of Technology, Sydney in 1996 to work with industry, government and the community to develop sustainable futures through research and consultancy. Our mission is to create change toward sustainable futures that protect and enhance the environment, human well-being and social equity. We seek to adopt an inter-disciplinary approach to our work and engage our partner organisations in a collaborative process that emphasises strategic decision-making. For further information visit: www.isf.uts.edu.au Research team: Anna Gero, Natasha Kuruppu, Pierre Mukheibir, Jade Herriman

COLLABORATORS Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government (ACELG) For further information visit: http://www.acelg.org.au/ Research team: Stefanie Pillora ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was carried out with financial support from the Australian Government (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for any information or advice contained herein. The research team would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the workshop participants and speakers. CITATION Please cite this report as: Herriman J, Kuruppu N, Gero A, & Mukheibir P, 2012 Cross-Scale Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in Local Government, Australia Workshop Two Report, [prepared for NCCARF] Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123 Broadway, NSW, 2007 www.isf.edu.au UTS

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES III


CONTENTS: CONTENTS:.............................................................................................................................................III1 BACKRGOUND.................................................................................................................................12 WORKSHOPAIMS............................................................................................................................13 WORKSHOPPROCESS......................................................................................................................2

3.1 WORKSHOPPRESENTATIONS...................................................................................................................23.2 WORKSHOPACTIVITIES..........................................................................................................................3

3.2.1 Activity1:Understandingtheproblem........................................................................................33.2.2 Activity2a:Clarifythecausesofthebarriers..............................................................................33.2.3 Activity2b:Describingapreferredfuture...................................................................................33.2.4 Activity3:Strategiesandactions................................................................................................3

4 OUTPUTS.........................................................................................................................................44.1 UNDERSTANDINGTHEPROBLEM..............................................................................................................44.2 POORLEADERSHIPFROMHIGHERTIERSOFGOVERNMENT.............................................................................5

4.2.1 ClarifyingtheCauses...................................................................................................................54.2.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture..............................................................................................64.2.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses..............................................................................6

4.3 LACKOFINFORMATIONANDKNOWLEDGE..................................................................................................74.3.1 ClarifyingtheCauses...................................................................................................................74.3.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture..............................................................................................84.3.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses..............................................................................8

4.4 LACKOFPROBLEMDEFINITIONANDPLANNING............................................................................................94.4.1 ClarifyingtheCauses.................................................................................................................104.4.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture............................................................................................104.4.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses............................................................................10

4.5 LIMITEDFUNDINGTOPLANANDIMPLEMENTRESPONSES............................................................................124.5.1 ClarifyingtheCauses.................................................................................................................124.5.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture............................................................................................134.5.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses............................................................................14

4.6 LIMITEDCOOPERATIVEGOVERNANCE.....................................................................................................164.6.1 ClarifyingtheCauses.................................................................................................................164.6.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture............................................................................................164.6.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses............................................................................17

5 SUMMARY&NEXTSTEPS..............................................................................................................196 WORKSHOPFEEDBACKANDEVALUATION.....................................................................................21

APPENDIXA:LISTOFATTENDEES........................................................................................................................22APPENDIXB:BRIEFINGNOTE.............................................................................................................................23APPENDIXC:CASESTUDIES...............................................................................................................................291. LAKEMACQUARIE...................................................................................................................................292. WESTERNAUSTRALIA..............................................................................................................................293. CAIRNS..................................................................................................................................................294. TASMANIA.............................................................................................................................................295. PENRITH................................................................................................................................................29APPENDIXD:ACTIVITY1RESPONSES...................................................................................................................40APPENDIXE:EVALUATIONFORM........................................................................................................................43APPENDIXF:RESPONSESTOEVALUATIONFORM...................................................................................................44

1


INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

1 BACKRGOUND Local Governments across Australia are confronted with an ever increasing exposure to climate change impacts from drought to flooding, sea level rise and heat-waves. However, even with best intentions there are significant barriers that restrict or prevent good adaptation planning and management in the local government context. To build on the good work that is being done, this project aims to identify what these barriers are, based on strong stakeholder informed knowledge, and to suggest ways to enable effective climate change adaptation in local government. The overall objective of this study is to synthesise a set of critical barriers to adaptation planning and implementation by local government in Australia thereby defining the adaptation interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of local government services. The research involves the following methods:

Desktop analysis of regulatory framework around adaptation planning and key adaptation programmes in Australia and a synthesis of common barriers to adaptation experienced in Australia and overseas

Key informant interviews with national stakeholders involved in adaptation planning 5 case studies from Local Councils in NSW and other states demonstrating how

particular barriers have been overcome Three workshops with various stakeholders which include:

o Workshop 1 (January 2012): Identify critical barriers and causes with Local Government representatives in NSW

o Workshop 2 (April 2012): Re-prioritse barriers and identify methods of overcoming barriers with multi-level stakeholders

o Workshop 3 (May 2012): Gain consensus and barriers and causes from national stakeholders and examine the feasibility of some of the practical actions identified in workshop 2.

This independent research project is funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) and being undertaken by The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Key advice will be provided to the project by the Australian Centre for Excellence for Local Government based at UTS.

2 WORKSHOP AIMS The overarching objective of this study is to identify cross-scale barriers that limit planned adaptation to climate change impacts within local government (LG), thereby defining the adaptation capacity interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of LG services. The first workshop aimed to synthesise a set of critical barriers to three key phases of the adaptation process, namely, understanding, planning and implementation, and to identify the processes that gave rise to these barriers. The focus of the second workshop was to validate the cross-scale barriers and underlying causes identified in workshop one and identify practical actions that could be undertaken to overcome the barriers.

2



3 WORKSHOP PROCESS Invitations to the workshop were sent to representatives from various Local, State and Federal government agencies in New South Wales and Canberra. The second workshop was attended by 17 participants (see Appendix A). Prior to the workshop participants were sent a short briefing note outlining the activities of the workshop (refer to Appendix B).

3.1 WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS Workshop participants heard presentations from the research team on the background to the research, the expected outcomes and the progress to date, as well as some findings from the five case studies (these are provided in Appendix C). The presentation on the case studies highlighted that the key cross-scale barriers are not endemic to New South Wales alone but are experienced nationally during adaptation planning efforts (Table 1). The workshop concluded with a presentation by Dr David Rissik, Co-Director of NCCARF who show-cased some of the other adaptation projects NCCARF is funding and touched on some the policy implications of these studies.

Table 1: Summary of Case Studies and overlapping cross-scale barriers

Cross Scale Barriers:

Case Study 1

Lake Macquarie

Case Study 2

WA

Case Study 3 Cairns

Case Study 4

Tasmania

Case Study 5 Penrith

Lack of political leadership from higher tiers of government - i.e. no champions X X

Lack of evidence and data related to climate change vulnerability X X

Spatial scale of the problem - the issues are global and multi-level X X X X

High uncertainty associated with large time scale and extreme variability X X X X

Lack of guidance frameworks (related to regulation, legislation and methodology) X X X X

Poor definition of the problems and therefore difficulty in identifying options X X X

Historically entrenched development, infrastructure, cultural values and education

X X X

Difficulty in balancing long-term and short-term priorities X X X X

Lack Council funding and low staff capacity to plan and implement responses

X X X X

Lack of local political will and social licence for change X X

Lack of knowledge of climate impacts, tools and monitoring X X X

3



3.2 WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES The following section outlines the set of group activities undertaken by participants during Workshop 2. The activities were divided into three general sessions. Five groups comprising 4-5 participants representing different agencies were seated in separate tables according to the five thematic barriers that were identified in Workshop 1 which include:

1. Poor leadership from higher tiers of government 2. Lack of information and knowledge 3. Lack of problem definition and planning 4. Limited funding to plan and implement responses 5. Limited co-operative governance

Apart from the first activity, all workshop activities required participants to work in groups. At the end of the last activity of the workshop (i.e., activity 3) participants were given an opportunity to move around to each of the other tables and contribute to the outputs of that particular table (i.e., world caf style). This ensured that each participant had an opportunity to examine all five thematic barriers.

3.2.1 ACTIVITY 1: UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM As means to get the participants to begin to engage with the content of the meeting, and to ensure that their key cross-scale barrier was captured, each participant was requested to write down a cross-scale barrier, its causes and processes to overcome it which they perceived as significant from their own experience in working with local government in adaptation planning.

3.2.2 ACTIVITY 2A: CLARIFY THE CAUSES OF THE BARRIERS In this activity, participants were encouraged to familiarise themselves with the barrier assigned to their table, confirm whether they perceived this to be a key barrier and review the underlying causes of the barrier as identified in Workshop 1. Participants were then asked to include additional causes contributing to the barrier that may have been overlooked, particularly from their own agencys experience with working across different tiers of government in adaptation planning.

3.2.3 ACTIVITY 2B: DESCRIBING A PREFERRED FUTURE This activity began with participants being asked to reflect on a time when the particular barrier on their table was overcome in a different context other than climate adaptation planning and to identify processes that made it work. Participants were then asked to imagine a positive future in relation to the barrier on their table and then characterise what elements would be different in the imagined future (i.e., what would work differently and what would local governments be doing differently if the barrier was absent?).

3.2.4 ACTIVITY 3: STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS The final task of the workshop began with participants being asked to imagine that the preferred future they described in Activity 2B had been achieved, and then work backwards to identify the key changes that would have needed to be made along the way. Participants were asked to describe in detail how these strategies will be implemented, by whom and over what timeframe and what would stand in the way.

4



4 OUTPUTS The outputs for the above activities have been recorded against each of the key barriers.

4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM As described in Section 3, participants were asked to individually describe what they perceived to be the most significant cross-scale barrier to adaptation planning and implementation by local government (see Table 2). Responses varied somewhat, however most related to issues of governance, and absence of leadership and political support with mixed messages adding to the confusion of responsibility. Limited cooperative governance in terms of a coordinated approach via consistent frameworks was also raised, with some participants noting the confusing and crowded landscape surrounding adaptation planning and implementation at the local government level. Results from Activity 1 are presented in Appendix D.

Table 2: Summary of individual responses Key cross-scale constraint

Key cause of constraint Potential solution to overcome constraint

Poor understanding of CC threats. Lack of acceptance of a range of and flexibility in options to adaptively manage

Poor communication of CC science

Perceptions of uncertain scientific data, conflicting data and projected impacts, results in tentative decision making.

Concerted and coordinated education across scales and scale specific Flexible tools for locally specific plans Sharing of knowledge and experiences

Poor leadership & support

Vested interests Short political cycles Lack of support for tough

decisions Lack of consensus in community

about the reality of CC

Clearer statements at the state level Stronger role played by regional coordinating bodies for encouraging broad local action between LGAs

Poor integration of adaptation across all tiers of government, including a crowded and confusing landscape

Poor collaboration Constitutional barriers no

federal head of power to mandate or nationally consistent planning code

CC cuts across all sectors and tiers

Absence of strategic and coordinated approach to funding adaptation priorities

Building regional partnerships and regional statutory planning regimes & frameworks

Poor planning & strategic land use has implications for insurance claims, drop in land values and the potential for maladaptation

Inconsistent approach Short term planning Pressures from developers and

other tiers of government Well resourced obstructive

vested interests Legacy issues of past planners

decisions

Enforcement of existing planning policies an regional frameworks Overall national strategy, that identifies highest risk areas and ensures Federal, State and LGAs have detailed mapping and identify solutions.

5



4.2 POOR LEADERSHIP FROM HIGHER TIERS OF GOVERNMENT

Participants in this group represented State agencies, academic institutions and the private sector, each bringing interesting experiences of adaptation planning with Local Government.

4.2.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES The groups discussion of causes of the cross-scale barrier resulted in the group agreeing that the causes presented in Workshop 1 as being the most significant. Additional causes were identified but they linked closely with the causes raised in the previous workshop, as illustrated in the table below. Participants acknowledged that a significant underlying cause is the lack of direct contact/communication between Federal Government and Local Government. They believed that addressing this would result in Local Governments interests being better understood by Federal Government and allow for improved strategic funding and planning of national priorities. They emphasised that Local Government required a larger/stronger voice in certain forums, rather than being overridden by the State Government. According to participants, the funding that is sent out from the Federal to Local Government is very piecemeal due to the limited interaction between the two. Federal Government is thus mainly informed by the State whereby very little reflects the LG needs; this is also due to the legal status of Local Government which is accountable to the State. This issue was also connected to the fact that there exists increased expectations of Local Government as they are responsible for implementing many of State policies/strategies. However when it comes to climate adaptation, respondents felt that there is little statutory protection of Local Government activities/initiatives (e.g., no Sea Level Rise policies that set levels at the State level which Local Government can adopt to support their adaptation planning decisions). Respondents also believed that adaptation was occurring because of the passion of a few people at the State level in which adaptation was seen as something like giving in (i.e., mitigation was not working at different levels). This has led to less impetus for adaptation leadership at the State level. Causes raised at Workshop 1 Additional / related causes raised at

Workshop 2 No Statutory obligations

- No statutory protections for Local Government (e.g., in terms of liability)

Lack of ownership of the implications of CC impacts

Short political timeframes, agendas and cycles which do not coincide with planning time frames, reluctance to make long term decisions

- Limited emphasis on political constraints

Lack of incentives to do now rather defer cost to future office bearers or other arms of governance

No acknowledgement that the issues cut across all tiers of government

-Lack of direct contact between Federal and Local Governments - No guidance from other levels of government which is flexible enough to allow Council to use judgement and apply local knowledge, but rigorous enough to provide back-up and support to decision makers.

6



4.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE In this activity, participants considered the example of disaster/emergency management in the State when reflecting on a different context in which poor leadership from above was overcome. In such a context they acknowledged the presence of particular enabling factors which included: greater collaborative planning between the three tiers of government, the targeted partnerships in dealing with the extreme event and the way in which resources are used effectively to avoid doubling up. With regard to the barrier discussed within Group 1, the following characteristics were suggested as being important if the barrier was to be overcome in the preferred future:

o A less hierarchical level of governance but one that promotes collaborative planning between the three tiers of government during the adaptation planning stages

o Use of targeted partnerships for implementation through regional and or shared impacts

o A more effective use of resources, work is not doubled up allowing for more funding to be freed up for new work

o Better regulation office for adaptation in which adaptation expertise and information is centralised

o An environment in which stakeholders at every level of governance are equal to avoid labels as us and them

o Good information/knowledge sharing; this will include other stakeholders including private organisations and communities e.g., currently there is a national database for floods which anyone can access.

o A future in which many State agencies see adaptation as a core business area e.g., Rail Corp sees how trains are impacted by climate change

o An improved regulatory information office (e.g., the NSW Office of the Environment and Heritage) specific for adaptation to build better personal relationships

o Improved building codes and planning laws that prohibit land being released in inappropriate areas e.g., in Gold Coast there is a lot of development in high risk areas.

o Adaptation Plans/strategies need mechanisms for maintaining agendas beyond the three year political lifespan and carrying on promises in the Plans/strategies e.g., NSW MetroPlan goes up to 2030.

4.2.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES To realise the future described above, participants reflected upon the processes and actions needed to reach this ideal future. Brainstorming of practical actions, key stakeholders / agents of change, timings and hurdles also occurred, and revealed the following: Enabler Practicalactions Whowilldrive

thechange?Requiredtimeframe

Whatcouldgetintheway?

Collaborativeplanningbetweenthreelevelsofgovernment

EstablishlocalgovernmentnetworkwithallCouncilsrepresentedtoadegree

establishsamekindofnetworkforstateagenciesandforFederalagenciesTHEN

establishanintergovernmental

Sixmonthsuntilscopingmeetingandoneyearuntilitisfullyfunctional

Federallevele.g.,DCCEE

Toomuchtalking,bureaucracyleadingtolimitedrealactionLackofdefinedpurposeandoutcomesInsufficientbuyinfromallplayersContinuedneglectofdisengagedorunderresourced

7



forumwithafewrepresentativesfromeachnetwork.SameCommonwealthrepresentativetositoneveryStatesforum.

veryimportantthatLocalGovernmentisofequalstatusintheprocess

potentialforfocussingonparticularimpactsorchallenges

Councils/agenciesLackofresourcestoparticipateandtoimplementactionswhichcomeoutofthenetwork

ABetterAdaptationOfficetofacilitateknowledgesharingandfunding.Emphasisonbestpractice.

Defineinformation/expertisegap

impactsrisk/vulnerabilityassessment

actionidentification optionsassessment monitoringandevaluation

publicationslibrary/database

directoryserviceforadaptationtofindrelevantstaffindifferentagencies/Councilsetc.

Startimmediatelyoninformationidentificationandgathering.Allowoneyearsfortheportalisupandrunning.

OfficeoftheEnvironmentandHeritage(ImpactsandAdaptationSection)

HierarchicalprocessesAgenciesunwillingtoshareinformationLackofawareness,inadequatecommunicationLimitedengagementfromFederallevel.

4.3 LACK OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE Participants in this group represented local government, and academic and research institutions, each bringing interesting experiences of adaptation planning with Local Government.

4.3.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES The groups discussion of causes of this challenges resulted in additional causes being discussed. These have been able to be linked to causes raised at the previous workshop, as illustrated in the following table. Causes raised at Workshop 1 Additional / related causes raised at

Workshop 2 No long term investment in the collection of data Poor data sharing Poor knowledge sharing:

Limited flows between private industries, councils and agencies. Informal networks too adhoc Power games between universities and agencies

Inconsistency of the available data and climate projections lack of certainty of the data and availability of the latest data.

8



Scale of the problem has not been made relevant at the local government level

Framing/Packaging of key information: Greater public acceptance of variability as compared with adaptation.

Misinformation by the media and strong industry lobby groups

This is a new issue for some government officials Sceptics in some councils Inadequate training for engineers, planners and councillors

Practitioners dont even know what further key information is required.

Decision makers need to take stronger leads in clarifying how their decisions are made (eg using available data) what are the info needs?

Too many stakeholder, not enough key decision makers to define or delineate priority information needs/concerns

4.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE Participants envisioned themselves in a future where the barrier and the causes mentioned above were absent. The group use the introduction of fluoride into potable water, as well as immunisation drives, to better understand how to overcome knowledge barriers. With fluoride there was an initial resistance, and with immunisation, the administration was firstly voluntary and later mandatory. With regard to the barrier discussed in this group, the following characteristics were suggested as being important:

o Improved hazard maps showing extreme weather impacts from 2000 onwards. o Governments at all tiers agree on priority data sets, of national interest, that all

parties can consistently work with. o Improved knowledge bases support the quality of decision-making i.e. the

knowledge provided is more strategic. o All stakeholders have a clearer understanding of their knowledge needs, and which

providers meet these needs. o Evidence bases are more robust with regard to the value of adaptation interventions. o Evidence for business/investment decisions is supported by Monitoring and

Evaluation criteria. This has led to clarified accountability criteria.




Improvedhazardmaps

Nationallyprioritizedusingconsistentmethodologies

Startmappinginmostvulnerableregions

consolidatetheexistinginformation.

setnationalstandards

DCCEE&COAGClimateChangeCouncil

Start now!CapturecurrentLaNinaevents

Otherbudgetingprioritieseg.BiodiversityconservationVestedinterestscompetingforscaresresourcesLackofcontinuityofexistingprograms

9



Improvedevidenceforbusiness/investmentdecisions

Monetaryvalueofadaptationoptions&interventionsrecorded(acknowledgethatengineeringoptionsarenotalwaysthebest)

EstablishM&Ecriteria

Clarifytheaccountabilityof/fordecisionmakerstoachievemorerigorindecisionmaking

Determineminimumtypes,scale,specificityofinformationrequirementsunderlyingdecisions

Treasury&productivityCommission.AustralianEvaluationSocietyEngineersAustralia,StandardsAustralia

VestedinterestandpoliticsPrecedentsinplanningdecisionsbyLand&EnvironmentcourtinotherStates.

Moreemphasisonstrategicleveldecisionmaking

Getbeyondfragmenteddecisionmakingthroughacommitmenttoregionalstrategicplanning.

COAG ShorttermismPoliticalcyclesConsultantsmanufacturingconsent

Stakeholdersgainclearerunderstandingofknowledgeneedsandsources.

Knowledgeprovidersmeettheneedstoguidedecisions

governmentarrangementsareclarifiedtoassistdecisions

institutionalcapacityinitiatives

Professional&industrialassociations

VestedinterestsDiversityofknowledgeneedsgreaterthanthecommonground

In understanding the types of information needed for decision making, there is a need to get beyond the known unknowns and identify the unknown unknowns, i.e. making sense of future uncertainty. It was noted that Geoscience Australia have recently been awarded 3 yr project to undertake a flood map exercise across Australia ($12 Mil).

4.4 LACK OF PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PLANNING The four participants in Group 3 Lack of problem definition and planning were from local and state government organisations, as well as a representative from NCCARF. The group members all contributed to robust discussion around this theme.

10



4.4.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES The groups discussion of causes of this challenges resulted in additional causes being discussed. These have been able to be linked to causes raised at the previous workshop, as illustrated in the following table. Causes raised at Workshop 1 Additional / related causes raised at

Workshop 2 Lack of guidance and consistent frameworks planning and regulatory.

Lack of policy behind climate change initiatives for councils and state government

Unclear whos role it is to plan Lack of a clear message to community on action required for CCA Difficulties in defining the extent of problem and agreeing on a starting point

Legal responsibilities unclear Lack of mandate (legal, political responsibility) especially in relation to appropriate zoning to incorporate climate change Lack of shared understanding especially within community, of work being done of climate change

An additional point of discussion centred around obtaining buy-in from local community, and the lack of buy-in at the moment contributed to this barrier.

4.4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE Participants envisioned themselves in a future where the barrier was absent. Given the creative nature of this exercise, one participant suggested using the example of addressing the HIV/AIDS issue as it emerged in the 1980s. This issue was relevant given the concerted efforts made to address the problem, with community consensus now agreeing on the nature of the problem and how to treat it. With regard to the barrier discussed within Group 4, the following characteristics suggested as being important:

o Consistent framework at state and national level and applied / adopted to the local government level

o Community informed of adaptation need, action etc. and demand action o The need to adapt is the norm o Clear legal responsibilities exist / are in place o Mandatory adoption of adaptation in all aspects of community and government

decision making and also business e.g. insurance etc. o Social justice intervention by government to those most needy (in relation to

climate change) o Future planning in vulnerable areas not allowed o Economically feasible retreat plans o Better information and understanding on climate change impacts o Adaptive planning, robust and flexible system o Climate change integrated into councils mainstream activities, not necessarily a

separate portfolio or activity (e.g. project planning and implementation, operations etc.).

4.4.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES To realise the future described above, participants reflected upon the processes and actions needed to reach this ideal future. Brainstorming of practical actions, key stakeholders / agents of change, timings and hurdles also occurred, and revealed the following:

11



Enabler Practicalactions Whowilldrivethechange?

Requiredtimeframe


Consistentframeworkatstateandnationallevel(legislation)

Legislativereformprocess,creatingnewlegislation

Reachingpoliticalconsensusacrossalllevelsofgovernment

RedefiningtheroleofCOAG

Communityviaelectedmembersofgovernment(alllevels)

10yearsminimum Politicaltimeframes(alllevels)

Communityconsensusontheneedtoactandasharedunderstandingoftheseriousnessofclimatechange

Educationofclimatechangeimpactsandadaptationwidespreadacrosscommunity

Coordinatededucationcampaignstargetingallsectorsofsociety

Scientists,faithleaders,throughmedia,communitychampions,government(coordinatedmessage)

Immediately(ongoing)

PoliticalagendaBenignclimateDistractingstressors

Adaptationmainstreaming

Flexibilitywithingovernment(adaptiveplanning)

Incorporatinguncertaintyinplanningandoperation

Collaborationbetweensectorsandwithinorganisations

Stateandlocalgovernmentsandindustrybodies

Immediately(ongoing)

AsaboveLackofcoordinationacrosssections/functions/departments

Makingadaptationfairandequitable

Participatorydecisionmaking(genuineengagementandcommunityparticipation,accountableetc)

AdaptationWatchdog,ensuringeconomic,social,culturalequityinadaptationdecisionmaking

Politicians(tosetupindependentbody)

510years PoliticalinterestLobbygroupsConservativegovernment

Participants agreed that Community Consensus on the issue and the need to respond would need to occur first, to ensure the other steps could then follow successfully. This would then be followed simultaneously by the other steps, as traction across all sectors of the community would be driving the change. Regarding the development of a consistent framework, although specifics of what this involves were limited, participants were keen to see both carrot and stick mechanisms

12



driving the changes again assisted by the community consensus described above. The role of COAG was also discussed, with some participants wishing to see COAG play a greater role in better coordinating climate adaptation actions across the states. The issue of institutional flexibility was also discussed, specifically related to mainstreaming of adaptation. This idea stemmed from the need to incorporate climate adaptation considerations into governance structures and be able to adjust the ways in which organisations operate to allow for gradual and discreet changes resulting from climate change, either directly or indirectly. The concept of an Adaptation Watchdog received much discussion amongst the group and agreed to be an interesting and potentially useful idea. This independent body would act like the Productivity Commission / IPART and ensure climate adaptation activities were socially, culturally and economically fair and equitable, and aligned with best-practice. Participants agreed that government and politicians would need to get behind it to give it regulatory teeth, however this was believed to be a difficult task given the divided support (or lack thereof) for climate change initiatives across the two sides of government. Participants acknowledged that the Watchdog idea was ambitious especially given that there remains uncertainty related to what the best approach to adaptation would look like.

4.5 LIMITED FUNDING TO PLAN AND IMPLEMENT RESPONSES

Participants at this table included representatives from local government, IPART and insurance industry staff. State government (planning) and NCCARF staff also participated in ideas about actions.

4.5.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES Various participants suggested that limited funds for climate change adaptation in local government may be caused by the following phenomenon outlined in the table below. Interesting discussions also occurred around the need for state government endorsement for rate rises or special levies to be set. A representative from the Insurance industry suggested that this needs to be federal government funded. Participants also acknowledged that there is fierce community opposition currently to rate rises. A view was expressed that federal government uses contingency funding rather than dedicated line items in budgets to pay for emergency response it was proposed that this maybe a deliberate strategy to hide the cost of such events, but that it skews investment towards response rather than investing in long term mitigation / adaptation Ageing infrastructure gains resident attention at the local scale as they often have an immediate safety issue associated with them, taking priority over long term considerations or new infrastructure. Causes raised at Workshop 1 Additional / related causes raised at

Workshop 2 Prioritisation of funds at different tiers of government, due to competing priorities, which is exacerbated by short versus long term agendas

Lack of adaptation specific dedicated funding, govt funding to support long term adaptation on needs. Funding should be allocated on a priority basis federally, based on the return of investment

13



The link between local government and federal government the indirect channels of connection was raised, as an issue for councils to gain access to federal funds Adaptation work often needs larger pools of money that arent available within councils own discretionary income

Funding constraints at local government level for large capital adaptation projects, partly due to rate capping at state level.

Small councils more grant dependent with limited capacity to raise revenue from own sources Potential constraints on recovering costs from private beneficiaries-special levies/ infrastructure charges.-political community constraints

Limited funding for R&D and pilots cost of already sunk capital in existing infrastructure that is now viewed as vulnerable under CC impacts.

Balance between funding for mitigating/ preparing for risks/ hazards/ compared to recovery money-no systematic cost/benefit analysis

Lack of information on the costs and benefits of doing nothing. There is also a need to look at the costs and benefits of preparedness vs recovery

4.5.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE Participants envisioned themselves in a future where the barrier was absent and considered a number of examples: Federal government taking action currently on disability insurance, this could be

mimicked in action on adaptation. Disability support/insurance Maternity leave -in child care, maternity leave that government has developed national

frameworks, that industry can then also contribute to. Carbon tax mitigation With regard to the barrier discussed within this group, the following characteristics were suggested as being important if the barrier was to be overcome in the preferred future:

o Leadership from Fed or State/Territory government o Clear specification of problem & objectives o Rigorous cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates a net community benefit o A systematic process in place to identify the risks. o Recognise/identify urgent/high priority adaptation needs o Consider climate change risks within already well-established processes & funding

arrangements-as many climate change risks are increases on existing climate variability therefore not always a need to label it as adaptation per se. (May help to overcome scepticism/ political pushback).

o The idea that we may need national prioritisation of different geographical areas for adaptation work to take place.

o Government outlining uniform minimum standards e.g. building standards for flood zones

o An important element of a preferred future would be pulling the issue apart to identify which climate change impacts are urgent, and what is not urgent (eg what needs action to begin this year, what can wait sea level rise for example, may be an incremental impact that can be tackled gradually, not immediately, in some areas). Perhaps also identifying which localities are more urgent, whereas others can be tackled over time.

14



A question was raised whether there could be a benefit in the future in not calling things adaptation but instead risk or climate risk/ extreme events/ hazards etc. An example was given of Newcastle City Council that refers to ocean flooding rather than sea level rise. It was suggested that this language may help overcome the barrier of lack of funding, by avoiding political polarization about whether to fund adaptation work, especially in councils where there is lack of agreement about the impacts or causes of climate change. It may also help overcome community concerns about the idea of adaptation (where this exists) and perhaps help to demonstrate that this is a continuation of existing work, and should fit within existing areas of responsibility rather than being a new area of work. This language shift may also help open up other sources of funding for example, it was suggested that the existing Regional Development Australia Fund should be able to be used for climate change adaptation, even though adaptation benefits are not currently one of their selection criteria for allocating funds. A further question was raised on the sustainability of high risk local government areas if some areas require large investment to address adaptation needs, do these costs outweigh the benefits of staying there? A discussion ensued about the decision to stay or go and also about the need for prioritising areas to invest adaptation funding in. For example areas where more people wish to live in the future. Participants mentioned the need to engage the community in this decision making, and also the complexity of involving community values in the decision making process beyond just financial costs and benefits.

4.5.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES To realise the future described above, participants reflected upon the processes and actions needed to reach this ideal future. Brainstorming of practical actions, key stakeholders / agents of change, timings and hurdles also occurred, and revealed the following: Enabler Practicalactions Whowill

drivethechange?

Requiredtimeframe


Higherpenetrationofinsurance

Privateinsurancetoreducecostsforcouncilsafteranaturaldisaster/legitimateriskmanagement/preventativemeasurecanreducepremiums

InsurancecompState/fed/localGovernment

Startingnow:5to10years

Note:Participantswereunsurewhetherthiswouldhelpornot.Itmightmeanlessrelianceoncouncilservicesinrecovery.Thiscouldalsoberelevantforbusinessesthatgobuste.g.afterflooding

GeneratingmoreincomeStatepolicyprovidesthemechanism.Currentlyrestrictionsonthisforratesandspeciallevies

Specialleviestorecovercostsofadaptation.e.g.coastalinfrastructureworks

Stategovapprovalforlocalgovtstoraisefundsindependently

Stateandlocalgovt

ASAP Stategovtconcernaboutuncontrolledraterises&councilsmisallocating$.Needtoexplainclearlytocommunitywhatitsfor,benefits

Futurefundforadaptation

Fed&State/Territorygovlocalgovtcontributions

ASAP Innovativepublic/private

Fed,State,Local

ASAP Costofhavingenoughmoney

15



financingoptions1.HECStypeschemeforfundingrelocationand/orprotectionworks)2.Loansubsidiesforlocalgovtinfrastructure

GovernmentPrivatefinancesector

availabletomeetneed

RecognitionofLocalGovtinconstitution

Directfundingfromfeds

Landswaps MoreeffectiveuseofGovtfunds

Rationalizing/bringingtogethersmallpotsofmoneyintoabiggerfund

EnsuringRegionalDevelopmentAgencyfundingincludesclimateadaptationcriteria

Trackingwherewearecurrentlyspendingmoneynowtoserviceourvaluesandeconomy?doesthisneedtochangewithclimatechangewerenotcurrentlytrackinghowwearespending,whatwearespendingon.

Bettertrackingofmoneyinlocalgovt.,whatarewespendingtodeliverthevaluesthecommunityexpects?

Focusonreallocationratherthannewmoney,(e.g.focusonpublicgoodslikewidthofbeachratherthanseawallsforprivateproperty)

Treasuries CommunitymisconceptionaboutCC&adaptation/lackofsupportforspendingonadaptationactionsMoreneeded:educationofactualimpacts(i.e.whatdoesbuildingaseawallactuallymeanforthebenefitofovercomingofmisconceptionsincommunity)

NewFundsLinkupwithcarbontaxe.g.take5%&investinadaptationBanktransactionfeesVerysmallamountwhichhaslowindividualimpactbutlargecumulativeeffectbetterunderstandingaboutwhentoinvestcostofdelay

Couldpossiblybeviajurisdictions(liketheGST)orcompetitivegrant

From the above table, suggestions for future actions can be broadly be grouped around three actions which tackle:

16



Additional sourcing of funds A need to look at different sources of funding including developer contributions. For example, in Pittwater Council, a participant highlighted that they use a special levy for coastal areas to fund infrastructure; that is, applying the levy to only a small portion of the local government area, those people who are seen to benefit most from the investment. This was suggested as a possible source of additional funding. It was also noted if coastal properties reflected the risk we wouldnt need the levy.

Prioritizing funds Suggestion about values based discussion with community

Shifting costs from local government to others Insurance was discussed as a mechanism to reduce council expenditure in disaster recovery. This included both encouraging private landholders to get adequately insured, and using the insurance premium pricing to create a price signal which encourages design and building that reduces risk. An example was given about premiums that are linked to floor height in flood prone areas, where higher floors incur lower premiums. Another element of using insurance that was discussed is the role of more fine grained geographically sensitive premiums which again provide a price signal about the most vulnerable areas. A participant commented that in Warringah Council, the council does not pay for seawalls to protect individual private homes. The policy states that there must be a public good associated with seawall construction, otherwise the landowner is expected to pay themselves. This was suggested as a policy that could be extended if it is not already widespread in coastal councils.

4.6 LIMITED CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE Participants in this groups represented Local Government and State agencies.

4.6.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES In examining the causes, participant agreed that some of the current communication channels across the scales are working well: e.g. between State Planning departments and council planners/plans. Causes raised at Workshop 1 Additional / related causes raised at

Workshop 2 Poor communication between tiers of government

Lack of mechanism for interdisciplinary communication (silos at all levels)

Inconsistent messages

Vulnerability to political priorities/messages that undermine clear and consistent communication -change in NSW state government resulted in the undermining of established policy and programs (e.g., Metropolitan Plan had clear messages about adaptation but since new govt in March, now it is uncertain.

Local decisions over-ridden by higher tiers Status of local Govt in broader scale decisions Lack of frameworks beyond election cycles

4.6.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE In reflection on an example in which limited co-operative governance has been overcome, participants discussed the issue of water pollution and management of water quality in rivers and waterways. In this context, participants mentioned that many examples of effective cross sectoral collaboration were to be found in which positive contributing factors include

17



follow through legislation, funding, education and mechanisms for interagency work (e.g., Catchment Management Authorities). Other key factors included:

broad community support visibility of the issue/direct impact on amenity A government in NSW committing serious funds Policy staff, scientists in State govt

In visioning a future in which this barrier was absent, participants highlighted the need for the following elements:

o Absence of politicisation of climate science and policy/ bi-partisan support o Public statements of commitment from state premiers o Local efforts would be coordinated and collectively effective o Continuity of adaptation implementation (not subject to political cycles) o Long term investment in capacity building of whole sector




WorkableandprovenInteragencymechanisms(Crossjurisdictional)e.g.localgovtandplanningMinisterscounciltoshapenationalplanningframework

- Investigateexistingoralternatemechanisms/groups

- Takeadvantageofinformalnetworksacrossgovernments

NCCARF(ALGA)

Shortterm

AchievingconsensusPoliticization

Effectiveregionalmechanisms/groups(e.gROCs,RDAs,CMAs)

- LookatlearningsfromregionalapproachessuchasSouthEastQLD,nowastatutoryplan

Researchbodieswithregionalfocus(e.g.newregionalAustraliaInstitute)

Shortterm

Scaleneedstoberighttogetconsistencyofissues/risksFearofamalgamation

Clarityaroundrolesandresponsibilities

- Protocolsforcollaborativegovernance

StatesPreviousdepartments(orequivalent

Medium fearofsharingpower/lossof100%controlCommunityapathy.IssuesfocusedinteractionDifferentunderstandingsofFeds/States/Localgovtscando

Recognitionthat - Investigate Premiers Medium Confusionbetween

18



climatechangeisnotjustanEnvironmentalissue,throughwidescalecommunityeducation/literacyaboutclimateadaptation

whereclimatechangeshouldsitforeffectiveactione.g.planning,environment,finance.

- Easilyaccessibleinformation.

- AlternativestoJohnLaws/corecurriculumbeyondscience

Communitychampions,includingbusinesspeople

mitigation/adaptationandneedforcleverlanguageComplexitye.g.weather/climate/variableimpacts/timescalesNovisibleclimatechangeimpactsCommercialinterestscontrollingmedia/talkback

19



5 SUMMARY & NEXT STEPS The workshop process delivered a rich list of practical actions and the processes needed to be adopted to move towards a multi-governance system that alleviates to some extent the underlying causes of the key barriers identified in Workshop 1. There were overlaps between some of the practical actions to overcome multiple barriers from the various participants who engaged in the workshop. This demonstrates the significance multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration when addressing cross-scale challenges to adaptation planning. A summary of the proposed actions to overcome cross-scale barriers are provided in the following table (no priority has been assigned to them). Enabler PracticalactionsPoorleadershipfromhighertiersofgovernmentCollaborativeplanningbetweenthreelevelsofgovernment

EstablishlocalgovernmentnetworkwithallCouncilsrepresentedtoadegree

establishsamekindofnetworkforStateandFederalagenciesTHEN

establishanintergovernmentalforumwithafewrepresentativesfromeachnetwork.SameCommonwealthrepresentativetositoneveryStatesforum.

veryimportantthatLocalGovernmentisofequalstatusintheprocess

potentialforfocussingonparticularimpactsorchallengesABetterAdaptationOfficetofacilitateknowledgesharingandfunding.Emphasisonbestpractice.

Defineinformation/expertisegap impactsrisk/vulnerabilityassessment optionsassessment monitoringandevaluation publicationslibrary/database directoryserviceforadaptationtofindrelevantstaffindifferentagencies/Councilsetc.

LackofinformationandknowledgeImprovedhazardmaps Nationallyprioritizedusingconsistentmethodologies

Startmappinginmostvulnerableregions consolidatetheexistinginformation. setnationalstandards

Improvedevidenceforbusiness/investmentdecisions

Monetaryvalueofadaptationoptions&interventionsrecorded(acknowledgethatengineeringoptionsarenotalwaysthebest)

EstablishM&Ecriteria Clarifytheaccountabilityof/fordecisionmakerstoachievemorerigorindecisionmaking

Determineminimumtypes,scale,specificityofinformationrequirementsunderlyingdecisions

Moreemphasisonstrategicleveldecisionmaking

Getbeyondfragmenteddecisionmakingthroughacommitmenttoregionalstrategicplanning.

Stakeholdersgainclearerunderstandingofknowledgeneedsandsources.

Knowledgeprovidersmeettheneedstoguidedecisions governmentarrangementsareclarifiedtoassistdecisions institutionalcapacityinitiatives

LackofproblemdefinitionandplanningConsistentframeworkatstateandnationallevel(legislation)

Legislativereformprocess,creatingnewlegislation Reachingpoliticalconsensusacrossalllevelsofgovernment RedefiningtheroleofCOAG

Communityconsensusontheneedtoactandasharedunderstandingofthe

Educationofclimatechangeimpactsandadaptationwidespreadacrosscommunity

20



seriousnessofclimatechange Coordinatededucationcampaignstargetingallsectorsofsociety

Adaptationmainstreaming Flexibilitywithingovernment(adaptiveplanning) Incorporatinguncertaintyinplanningandoperation Collaborationbetweensectorsandwithinorganisations

Makingadaptationfairandequitable Participatory decisionmaking(genuineengagementandcommunityparticipation,accountableetc)

AdaptationWatchdog,ensuringeconomic,social,culturalequityinadaptationdecisionmaking

Limited funding to plan and implement responses Higherpenetrationofinsurance Privateinsurancetoreducecostsforcouncilsafteranatural

disaster/legitimateriskmanagement/preventativemeasurecanreducepremiums

GeneratingmoreincomeStatepolicyprovidesthemechanism.Currentlyrestrictionsonthisforratesandspeciallevies

Specialleviestorecovercostsofadaptation.e.g.coastalinfrastructureworks

StategovapprovalforlocalgovtstoraisefundsindependentlyFuturefundforadaptation Fed&State/TerritorygovlocalgovtcontributionsRecognitionofLocalGovtinconstitution DirectfundingfromfedsMoreeffectiveuseofGovtfunds Rationalizing/bringingtogethersmallpotsofmoneyintoa

biggerfund EnsuringRegionalDevelopmentAgencyfundingincludesclimateadaptationcriteria

Trackingwherewearecurrentlyspendingmoneynowtoserviceourvaluesandeconomy?

Bettertrackingofmoneyinlocalgovt.,whatarewespendingtodeliverthevaluesthecommunityexpects?

Focusonreallocationratherthannewmoney,(e.g.focusonpublicgoodslikewidthofbeachratherthanseawallsforprivateproperty)

NewFundsLinkupwithcarbontaxe.g.take5%&investinadaptationBank transaction fees - very small levywhichhaslowindividualimpact but large cumulative effect

Couldpossiblybeviajurisdictions(liketheGST)orcompetitivegrant

LimitedcooperativegovernanceWorkableandprovenInteragencymechanisms(Crossjurisdictional)e.g.localgovtandplanningMinisterscounciltoshapenationalplanningframework

- Investigateexistingoralternatemechanisms/groups- Takeadvantageofinformalnetworksacrossgovernments

Effectiveregionalmechanisms/groups(e.gROCs,RDAs,CMAs)

- LookatlearningsfromregionalapproachessuchasSouthEastQLD,nowastatutoryplan

Clarityaroundrolesandresponsibilities - ProtocolsforcollaborativegovernanceRecognitionthatclimatechangeisnotjustanEnvironmentalissue,throughwidescalecommunityeducation/literacyaboutclimateadaptation

- Investigatewhereclimatechangeshouldsitforeffectiveactione.g.planning,environment,finance.

- Easilyaccessibleinformation.- AlternativestoJohnLaws/corecurriculumbeyondscience

Participants were engaged actively and were interested to learn more about approaches that other organisations were taking in overcoming cross-scale barriers to other challenges encountered within their respective agencies. In evaluating the workshop participants were appreciative of the opportunity to take timeout to reflect on a future that was barrier free and also network with peers and other organisations; suggesting that information exchange may be an important mechanism for addressing some of the knowledge gaps and co-ordination challenges in the sector.

21



A few participants questioned whether adaptation should be seen as a separate issue or be mainstreamed into existing plans and strategies of Local Government if we are to overcome some of the cross-scale barriers. Other participants emphasised the need provide greater clarity around each barrier (e.g., what does poor leadership from above really mean) and noted that there has been significant work already done in this space by Local Government to alleviate some of the underlying causes. The next workshop will include a broad range of participants from other states in Australia representing the three tiers of government. It will also include some of the participants who have been involved in both workshops 1 and 2. The results from workshop 2 and key informant interviews that have been undertaken by the research team with national stakeholders will be used to guide the methodology and structure of workshop 3. The aim of workshop 3 will be to examine whether the practical actions identified in workshop 2 can be up-scaled to other states, test the feasibility and impact of these actions and gain consensus on a useful process to demonstrated the barriers and actions.

6 WORKSHOP FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION The workshop concluded with participants completing a workshop evaluation form (see Appendix E). The evaluation form asked participants to rate various elements of the day. The ,majority of the respondents thought the workshop was very useful for connecting with peers working on similar issues, hearing about new resources and research that might help with their work, and for discussing, reflecting and learning. Additional questions and their responses can be found in Appendix F. Specific feedback received related to Workshop 2 included: What would you most like to see emerge as a result of this project? with responses including:

It would be good to see an active response to the findings and suggestions of this study - instead of another project which isn't effectively utilised

Stronger cross-governmental commitment to CCA. Ambitious? Impetus to resolve the challenges transmitted to decision makers Solutions, evidence to "empower" change and actual effective adaptation

Additional feedback in our question asking Any suggestions for next time? included:

More time workshopping ideas Some "nut-shell" descriptions of key findings from the 5 case studies (provide basis

for reflection by other LG practitioners on their contexts and needs) No - it was really well run Format for workshop was excellent - broader representation of agencies would have

been good, understand that is a bit out of control of the organisers though!

22



APPENDIX A: LIST OF ATTENDEES Name Role Organisation1 PhilipBooth ResearchAssociate UNSW/ACCARNSI2 PaulHackney SeniorProjectOfficer EnvironmentalOutcomes ParramattaCityCouncil3 CarmelHamilton SustainabilityCoordinator PenrithCityCouncil4 GeoffEvans EnvironmentalSecurityCoordinator LakeMacquarieCityCouncil5 KarenDouglas SustainabilityOfficer WyongShireCouncil6 BobWebb VisitingFellow ANU7 KatieO'Neal ANCORSClusterResearchAssistant UniversityofWollongong8 JenniferHearn ClimateChangeImpacts&Adaptation OEH9 GeorgeKaragiannakis HeadofGovernment&IndustryRelations InsuranceAustraliaGroup(IAG)10 BrookeO'Rourke InsuranceAustraliaGroup(IAG)11 GregGreene TeamLeader,LandUsePlanning SydneyCatchmentAuthority12 DavidRissik DeputyDirector(GeneralManager) NCCARF13 FrankStadler ResearchCoordinator NCCARF14 DavidMitchell PlanningOfficer NSWDepartmentofPlanning&Infrastructure15 AmandaNeirinckx NSWDepartmentofPlanning&Infrastructure16 AnaMarkulev SeniorResearchEconomist ProductivityCommission17 GeoffWithycombe ChiefExecutiveOfficer SydneyCoastalCouncilsGroup

23



APPENDIX B: BRIEFING NOTE

Crossscalebarrierstoclimateadaptationinlocalgovernment,Australia

Workshop2AgendaandBackgroundDocument:

This workshop background reading pack is for confirmed participants of the research workshop being held on Tuesday 3rd April 2012 by the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF). It contains venue and event details, a workshop overview, and more details about each of the workshop activities. Participants of the workshop will be acknowledged in the final report, which will be sent to all interested participants. We look forward to seeing you on the day.

Eventandvenuedetails When: Tuesday, 3rd April 2012

Registration at 9am for 9:30am start, close by 1pm (followed by a light lunch)

Where: University of Technology Sydney: Aerial Function Centre Wattle Room Level 7, Building 10

235 Jones St, Ultimo

Getting there: UTS is a 7 minute walk from Central Station. Limited metered street

parking is available near to UTS. Contact details: anna.geromailto:@uts.edu.au or (02) 9514 4605 or 0402 227 662 on

the day. Make your valuable input on the critical barriers to adaptation planning by local government in Australia. Prior to the workshop, we ask you to familiarise yourself with the cross-scale barriers and causes identified in Workshop 1 (see Table 1) and think about how you can contribute to each of the group activities mentioned below.

24



WorkshopoverviewScopeandformat

The day will feature a presentation on a set of national case studies which show-case the processes adopted by various Local Councils in overcoming some of the critical cross-scale barriers identified in Workshop 1.

The workshop will involve participants from local government and key stakeholders from government and non-government agencies who work closely with local government in adaptation planning.

The workshop will be future focused in identifying a set of practical strategies that would alleviate the 5 key barriers identified in Workshop 1 to adaptation planning and implementation by local government in New South Wales.

The day will conclude with a presentation from NCCARF related to how the research links with other NCCARF projects and how the results from the workshop and research will be used to inform policy.

Session1SettingthesceneThe session will commence with an introduction and background to the research, including a discussion on the research results to date. A presentation on a set of nationally focused case studies examining the processes of overcoming the cross-scale adaptation barriers will follow. The session will conclude with an explanation of activities that are to follow. Session2WorkshopActivitiesThe session will involve mostly working in small groups to undertake the following activities relevant to the research objectives:

1. Stakeholder perspective on understanding the problem > Identifying a key cross-scale barrier, its causes and strategies to overcomes it

through each participants experience in working on adaptation planning with local government.

> 2. Describing a future

> a) Discussing a specific barrier and reviewing the underlying cross-scale causes identified in Workshop 1 (Table 1). Examining whether additional causes may be significant contributors.

> b) Beginning to imagine a positive future in relation to this barrier how would things operate if the barrier was absent? Imagining a time when this issue was overcome in another topic or sector what did that look like?

> 3. Identifying Enablers -Working back from the preferred future, discussing the

enablers that would alleviate the barriers and move the situation into the one described for the future. This will focus on identifying practical actions.

25



ProjectBackground 1) What is this research about? Local Governments across Australia are confronted with an ever increasing exposure to climate change impacts from drought to flooding, sea level rise and heatwaves. However, even with best intentions there are significant barriers that restrict or prevent good adaptation planning and management in the local government context. To build on the good work that is being done, this project aims to identify what these barriers are based on strong stake-holder informed knowledge and to suggest ways to enable effective climate change adaptation in local government. The overall objective of this study is to synthesise a set of critical barriers to adaptation planning and implementation by local government in Australia thereby defining the adaptation interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of local government services. Specifically, the study aims to address the following objectives: a) Identify the mechanisms to cope with climate variability at the Local Government level

which provide a proxy to identify limitations to respond to climate change impacts b) Identify the underlying processes and structures that gives rise to these barriers, for

example, process and governance structures, and how do actors and the context of the system of concern contribute to the barriers?

c) Suggest options of how barriers will be overcome through end-user engagement, thereby defining the adaptation capacity interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of Local Government services

2) Why is this research important Research to date has identified common barriers to adaptation planning within Local Government in Australia which include leadership, competing priorities, planning process, information constraints and institutional constraints (Measham et al., 2011). Similar insights are drawn from international studies (Dessai S, Lu X, 2005). Although these studies have recognised the cross-scale integration and collaboration needs, many of these studies have focused largely on local government itself and internal barriers, rather than understanding the broader multi-governance system and cross-scale barriers that shape adaptation responses at the Local Government scale. 3) What data collection methods does this research adopt? The research involves the following methods:

Desktop analysis of regulatory framework around adaptation planning and key adaptation programmes in Australia, synthesise of common barriers to adaptation experienced in Australia and overseas

Key informant interviews with national stakeholders involved in adaptation planning 5-8 case studies from Local Councils in NSW and other states demonstrating how

particular barriers have been overcome Three workshops with various stakeholders which include:

- Workshop 1 (January 2012): Identify critical barriers and causes with Local Government representatives in NSW - Workshop 2 (April 2012): Re-prioritse barriers and identify methods of overcoming barriers with multi-level stakeholders - Workshop 3 (May 2012): Gain consensus and barriers and causes from national stakeholders.

26



4) What theories is this research adopting? The research will be guided by theories related to multi-level governance and Earth Systems Governance. Theories from multi-level governance are used to describe the management of collective issues, the various stakeholders involved and the processes used to influence adaptation actions and outcomes (van de Meene et al., 2011). It emphasises the significance of cross-scale (both horizontal and vertical) interactions among structures and processes across multiple spatial scales. Multi-level governance literature which has its roots in the political sciences was developed to capture the networked and multi-scale jurisdictional nature of policy making and demonstrate that the outcomes at the local level are shaped by institutions at multiple levels (Smith, 2007; Bisaro et al., 2010). 5) What conceptual framework guides the research methodology? The work by Moser and Ekstrom (2010) provides a useful diagnostic framework for characterising and organising barriers at different phases of the adaptation process across space and time and locates possible points of intervention to overcome a given barrier (see Figure 1). Moreover, it questions how best to support adaptation at all levels of decision-making; and thereby improve the allocation of resources and strategically design processes to address the barriers. 6) Who is carrying out the research? This independent research project is funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) and being undertaken by The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Key advice will be provided to the project by the Australian Centre for Excellence Local Government based at UTS. ISF was established as a flagship research institute of the University of Technology, Sydney in 1996. Their mission is to create change towards sustainable futures through independent, project-based research. More information about ISF can be found by visiting our website: http://www.isf.uts.edu.au 7) What if I require further information? If you would like any further information please feel free to email Dr Pierre Mukheibir at ISF on [email protected] or call him on 9514 4962.

27



Table 1: Cross scale barriers and their underlying causes: priorities from w/shop 1

Understanding Planning Implementation 1) Poor leadership from above (Cross cutting) No Statutory obligations Lack of ownership of the implications of CC impacts Short political timeframes, agendas and cycles which do not coincide with

planning time frames, reluctance to make long term decisions Lack of incentives to do now rather defer cost to future office bearers or other

arms of governance No acknowledgement that the issues cut across all tiers of government 2) Limited co-operative governance (Cross cutting) Poor communication between tiers of government Inconsistent messages Local decisions over-ridden by higher tiers 3) Lack of information and knowledge No investment in the

collection of data over the long term

Poor data sharing Inconsistency of the

available data and climate projections lack of certainty of the data and availability of the latest data.

Scale of the problem has not been made relevant at the local government level

Misinformation by the media and strong industry lobby groups

New issue for some Skeptics in some

councils In adequate training for

engineers, planners and councilors

4) Lack of definition of problem and planning Lack of guidance and

consistent frameworks planning and regulatory.

Unclear whos role it is to plan

Legal responsibilities unclear

5) Limited funding Prioritization of funds

at different tiers of government, due to competing priorities, which is exacerbated by short vs long term agendas

Funding constraints at local government level for large capital adaptation projects, partly due to rate capping at state level.

Limited funding for RD and pilots

cost of already sunk capital in existing infrastructure that is now viewed as vulnerable under CC impacts.

28



Figure 1: Conceptual framework for examining cross-scale barriers ( adapted from Moser & Ekstrom 2010)

Identifying and characterising barriers according the phases of adaptation (i.e., understanding, planning & implementation)

Influenced by the broader context

Points of intervention

Locating points of intervention

Workshop

1

Workshop

2

29



APPENDIX C: CASE STUDIES

1. Lake Macquarie 2. Western Australia 3. Cairns 4. Tasmania 5. Penrith

30



CaseStudy1:LakeMacquarieCityCouncilBriefdescriptionoftheImpactsandresponses:TheCityofLakeMacquarieisaLocalGovernmentArealocatedinthesouthernsuburbsofNewcastleinNSW.Itspopulationof200,000residesontheshoresofLakeMacquariewhichisalargecoastallakecovering112km2(1).Assessmentoftheimpactsofsealevelrise(SLR)indicated9800propertiestobeatriskofinundationorfloodingwitha0.9mriseinsealevel2,whichistheprojectedincreasein2100andthebenchmarkusedintheNSWStateGovernmentsSeaLevelRisePolicy3.TheNSWGovernmentbenchmarkisfora0.4mriseinmeanseallevelby20503.LakeMacquarieCityCouncil(LMCC)isbeginningtoplanforfuturerisknowtoavoidsignificantlossesinyearstocome.LMCCrespondedearlybyadoptingitsSeaLevelRisePolicyandActionPlanin2008,andalsointegratingSLRconcernsacrossitsplanningportfolio.State:NSWStageintheprocess:

Understanding Planning ImplementationBarriersencountered:

Lackofpoliticalleadershipfromhighertiersofgovernmenti.e.nochampions Lackofevidenceanddatarelatedtoclimatechangevulnerability Spatialscaleoftheproblemtheissuesareglobalandmultilevel XHighuncertaintyassociatedwithlargetimescaleandextremevariability XLackofguidanceframeworks(relatedtoregulation,legislationandmethodology) Poordefinitionoftheproblemsandthereforedifficultyinidentifyingoptions XHistoricallyentrencheddevelopment,infrastructure,culturalvaluesandeducation XDifficultyinbalancinglongtermandshorttermpriorities XLackCouncilfundingandlowstaffcapacitytoplanandimplementresponses Lackoflocalpoliticalwillandsociallicenceforchange Lackofknowledgeofclimateimpacts,toolsandmonitoring

Causesacrosslevelsofgovernment:ThesignificantprogressLMCChasmadeinitsresponsetoclimatechangeimpacts,particularlySLR,hasnotcomewithoutchallenges.AttheFederal,StateandLocalGovernmentlevel,SLRregulationsarecontainedinnumerouspoliciesandguidelines1,presentingahighlycomplexlegislativelandscapewithinwhichtooperate.WhiletheNSWcoastalplanningandprotectionlegislationandguidelineshaveassistedbyidentifyingplanninglevelsforSLRadaptation,LMCCnotesthatTheexperienceinLakeMacquarieshowstheNSWplanningframeworkcanbeasignificantbarriertogoodadaptation.4StandardplanninginstrumentssuchasLocalEnvironmentalPlan(LEP)templateshavepresentedbarrierstoLMCCbylackingflexibilitytoincluderisks,complexityanduniqueneedsassociatedwithSLRandcoastalzonemanagement.AttheStatelevel,intentionstoreduceunnecessarybureaucracyhaveresultedintheState 1 Giles, G. and Stevens, H. (2011) Sometimes I wonder how we keep from going under: Planning for sea level rise in established communities. Paper presented at Coastal Conference, 8-11 November 2011, Tweed Heads NSW. 2 NSW Department of Planning (2008) High resolution terrain mapping of the NSW Central and Hunter Coasts for assessments of potential climate change impacts. Sydney: NSW Department of Planning 3 DECC (2009) NSW Sea level policy rise statement. Sydney. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change 4 Giles and Stevens (2011), p9

31



EnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(SEPP)forExemptandComplyingDevelopmentwhichremovestheneedforDevelopmentApplicationsforlowhazardareas.5LMCCnotestheneedforlocalgovernmenttoensurethisdoesnotundermineitsabilitytocontroldevelopmentandimposerestrictionsondevelopmentrelatingtoSLR1.Causesofadditionalcrossscalebarriersrelatetofinancialchallengesfacedbylocalgovernmentsasaresultofratecappingandcostshiftingofgovernmentbudgets,withlocalgovernmentnowpayingforservicespreviouslycoveredbyStategovernment1.Thisrelatestochallengesassociatedwithtimescales,giventhemostsevereSLRimpactsaremostlikelytomanifestpost2050.Planningandfinancialallocationsatthesetimescalescanbedifficulttojustifygivenshorttermpressuresandneedswithinlocalgovernments.TimescalechallengesalsorelatetotheplanninghorizonsofCouncil,andtheneedtobalancedevelopmentopportunitieswithsafeguardingcurrentandfuturedevelopmentagainstprojectedclimatechangeimpacts.UncertaintyrelatingtoexactSLRprojectionshasledtomediareportsthathavehighlightedthediscrepancybetweenhistoricSLRandprojectedSLR6.TheNSWStateGovernmentisreviewingitsSLRPolicy,whichmaycomplicateLMCCsabilitytoenforceitslocalapproachtoSLR.Overcomingthebarriers:LMCCwasabletoovercomethecomplexityofthelegislativelandscapebystrategicallyensuringcomplianceagainstrelevantlegislativeinstruments.Forexample,limitationsofLEPswereovercomebyengagingaflexibleapproachandworkingwitharangeofplanningtemplatestoensureSLRrequirementswereincluded.Morespecifically,giventhelimitationsofthestandardLEPtemplate(e.g.itremovescoastaldevelopmentzones),LMCCusedtheE3EnvironmentalManagementZonetemplatetoensureinclusionofthecoastalzone.Thiswasnotconsideredcompletelysatisfactorygiventhelattersexclusionoftheuniquenatureofthecoastalzone.1LMCCisalsoactivelyengagedacrossanumberofclimatechangeadaptationprojects,includingwiththeHunter&CentralCoastRegionalEnvironmentalManagementStrategy(HCCREMS)inaDepartmentofClimateChangeCaseandEnergyEfficiencyfundedprojecttodevelopadecisionmakingframeworkfocusingonvulnerablecoastalcommunities.LMCCisalsoundertakingcoastalhazardsassessmentsandrelatedcoastalplanning.Otherinternalprojectsincludeasoftengineeringproject(AdaptationbyDesign)andlocalareaplansforvulnerableareasdevelopedinconsultationwithresidentsandinfrastructureagencies.Othercomments:LMCChasbeensubjecttopoliticalbacklashbyanetworkoflocalresidentswhohavechallengedthescientificandpolicybasisforCouncilsSLRpolicy.AlocaldeveloperhasthreatenedtosueCouncilandhassponsoredapublicmeetingaddressedbyscientistswhochallengeconventionalclimatescience,somewithlinkagestowellfundedclimatechangescepticorganisationsintheUS.7Thesechallenges,andCouncilsdefenseofitspolicies,havebeenprominentlycoveredintheNewcastleandSydneyMorningHeraldnewspapersandhighlighthowlocalissuesandchallengesmayhaveglobalinteractions.8AcknowledgementsResearcherswouldliketothankSustainabilityandIntegratedPlanningstaffatLakeMacquarieCityCouncilfortheirtimeincontributingtothiscasestudy.

5 DCCEE (2011) Climate Change risks to coastal buildings and infrastructure a supplement to the First Pass National Assessment. Canberra Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 6 See Newcastle Herald, 06/03/2012 Developer may sue to trigger rethink on sea level rises. 7 See Sydney Morning Herald, 16/02/2012 Scientist accepts cash for climate 8 See Newcastle Herald, 19/03/2012 Mayor draws line over sea level rise attacks.

32



CaseStudy2:WesternAustralia:PeronNaturalistePartnershipBriefdescriptionoftheImpactsandresponses:ObservedchangesinweatherpatternsandclimatechangeprojectionsforthesouthwestofWesternAustraliaarewelldocumented,andthereisahighdegreeofconsensusamongsttheglobalclimatemodelsthattherelativelyabruptrecentreductioninrainfallintheregionisaresultofanthropogenicclimatechange9.Sealevelriseintheregionispredictedtobehigherthantheglobalaverage,withobservationaltrendsindicatinganincreaseof7.4mm/yrbetween19902010,comparedtoaglobalaverageof3.1mm/yrbetween1993200310.Inresponsetotheseandotherclimatechangeprojectionsforthearea,andcoupledwiththeregionsinherentvulnerabilitytoerosionandinundation,ninelocalgovernments11betweenCapePeronandCapeNaturalistehaverespondedcollectivelyviaaregionalapproachcalledthePeronNaturalistePartnership(PNP).ThePNPscurrentproject,DevelopingFlexibleAdaptationPathwaysforthePeronNaturalisteCoastalRegionofWesternAustralia20112012hasreceivedstateandfederalsupport(viatheCoastalAdaptationDecisionsPathwaysProject(CAP)12)toprovideaneconomicassessmentofregionaladaptationresponses,andtodemonstratesuchoptionsatthelocalscale.State:WAStageintheprocess:(shadeblock)

Understanding Planning ImplementationBarriersencountered:

Lackofpoliticalleadershipfromhighertiersofgovernmenti.e.nochampions XLackofevidenceanddatarelatedtoclimatechangevulnerability Spatialscaleoftheproblemtheissuesareglobalandmultilevel Highuncertaintyassociatedwithlargetimescaleandextremevariability Lackofguidanceframeworks(relatedtoregulation,legislationandmethodology) XPoordefinitionoftheproblemsandthereforedifficultyinidentifyingoptions Historicallyentrencheddevelopment,infrastructure,culturalvaluesandeducation Difficultyinbalancinglongtermandshorttermpriorities XLackCouncilfundingandlowstaffcapacitytoplanandimplementresponses XLackoflocalpoliticalwillandsociallicenceforchange XLackofknowledgeofclimateimpacts,toolsandmonitoring X

Crossscalecauses:Localgovernmentsarefacedwitharangeofissuesrequiringintervention,withadaptingtoclimatechangeemerg

2

Documents

Transcript of 2