California’s Adaptation to Climate ChangeA Task Force of the Pacific Council on International Policy

Dan Mazmanian, Task Force Director

Transatlantic Climate Bridge on Climate Change and Energy Free University of Berlin

Nov. 28-Dec. 5, 200911

2

The Challenge

3

The Response

Executive Order S-13-08, directing the Natural Resource Agency to bring together all relevant state agencies in drafting a climate change adaptation strategy that could carried out under the aegis of each of the contributing agency

The draft report can be viewed at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/

4

Why the Task Force?

The Task Force in view of the need to develop state policies and decision- making capabilities to govern , fund ,and implement a viable adaptation process over a multiple-decade timeframe

Considerations:•Science of climate change (what is known, how urgent?)

•Political and public policy context (AB32, recession, fiscal constraints, Resource’s Adaptation Strategy)

•Intended audience (policy opinion leaders, the public, candidates in the 2010 state elections, others)

Co-Chairs:William K. Reilly, Mason Willrich, Patrick Lavin  Members:Rafael Jose Aguilera Audrey Chang Cynthia L. Cory Bryant Danner Ron Gastelum T.J. Glauthier Lee K. Harrington Robert M. Hertzberg Winston H. Hickox Loren F. Kaye Kaylynn L. Kim Jane C.S. Long Sunne McPeak Michael J. RubioRebecca Shaw Dan Sperling Pete Wilson Diane Wittenberg Jim Wunderman

John E. Bryson, co-chair PCIP

Task Force members

6

Focus: Climate change threats, vulnerabilities, range of possible responses, implications for action

Goal: Develop an adaptation implementation strategy for California

Product: Recommendations that engage policy makers and the broad public (to be released disseminated in the spring of 2010)

The task force mission

Determining Threat &Targets Sub groups need to focus on both threats that are

near and long-term, most probable, and will have significant impact

Probability Resources RequiredLow High Certain Low High

Low

Devastating

Low

High

Impact

/Magnit

ude

Tim

ing/U

rgency

8

Increased sea-level rise of 17” by 2050 and 55” by 2070-2099 or higher depending on mitigation efforts

•Risks of Coastal Flooding in Low-Lying Areas:More People and Assets At RiskIncreased Risk of Inundation of Public Infrastructure Levees and Structures Requiring Retrofit

•Increased Erosion of Beaches, Cliffs and Dunes:Private Property and Structures at RiskBeach Recreation and Tourism –Decreased in Select AreasGreater Expenditures for Beach Maintenance

•Increased Saltwater Intrusion into Coastal Groundwater Resources:Agricultural Land degraded by Saltwater

•Coastal Wetlands Loss and Replacement

Climate change threat: sea-level rise

Population at Risk

• 480,000 people• 300,000 workers• Large numbers of

low-income people and communities of color

Property at Risk

• Some wetlands may become permanently inundated if sea levels rise faster than they can respond

• California has already lost 96% of its wetlands, at a great cost to the state

• Wetlands are vital for:• flood protection• water quality improvement• wildlife habitat• recreation• carbon sequestration

Image courtesy of BCDC

Wetlands and Sea Level Rise

13

Climate change threat: snowpack and precipitation

Precipitation variability with snowpack decrease up to 90% by 2099

•More Winter Precipitation Falling as Rain Instead of SnowIntense Rainfall Events - More Frequent and/or More Extensive Floods/Droughts - More Frequent and Persistent

•Decreasing Water Quality:Longer Low-flow ConditionsHigher Water TemperaturesHigher Contaminant Concentrations Increased Risks of Coastal

•Landscaped Areas and Natural Systems:Increased Irrigation NeedsIncreased Agr.Water Demands Due to a Longer Growing Season Increased Urban Water Use, at Possible Expense of Ag.Water

14

Climate change threat: forest firesand forest communities

Temperature rise of 4 – 9 degree F by 2100 with 200-300% increase in major forest fires by 2050

•Longer Dry Periods and Moisture DeficitsDrought ConditionsIncrease Wildfire RiskIncreased Flooding & Runoff - Increases Erosion and Nutrient Loss

• Enhanced and/or Decreased Forest Productivity:Tree MortalitySpecies Migration BarriersInvasive Species IncreasesPotential for Increased Growth from CO2

•Reduction in Ecosystem Goods and Services •Economic Losses

9

Sea Level Rise/Flood

Forest Fires

•threat 1-2 meter sea rise by 2099

•impactscommerce,transportation, communities, recreation,marine habitat, land use, etc.

•equity and justice•costs/benefits of action and inaction

•threatheat level rise of 4-10 degree F by 2100forest infestationextreme fires

• impactscommercecommunitiesrecreationhabitatforests

•equity and justice•costs/benefits of action and inaction

Water Supply

•threat reduced snowpackprecipitation variability

•impactsavailabilitydistributionstoragebaseline demandresilience agricultureurban

•equity and justice•costs/benefits of action and inaction

Three climate change effects facing California

Resistance

Resilience

Retreat

Sea Level Rise

Heat/Fire

• Sea walls

• Risk insurance, floating foundation; •land use management

• Move to higher ground

• Improved fire fighting capabilities

•Fire proof building standards;forestry practices, thinning • Move out of red zone

Focus/ Content

Str

uct

ure

of

Analy

sis

Teams will consider a range of actions that can be taken to address the hazard in a specific community

Water Supply

• New sources; desalination

• New irrigation systems, gray water, demand management,conservation

• NA

Analytical framework and case studies

Coastal & Bay Area community

Sierra foothills community

North Coast & Central Valley agr community

• Site selection (real data, treated as hypothetical)• Three scenarios for the threat will be presented (Low/Moderate/Severe)

• Develop implementation plans for each action around capacity gaps in governance and funding at the state and local levels

Establish Threat/Identify Vulnerability

Set Targets

Implementation Steps/ Identify Challenges

17

Select Actions

Develop Recommendations

Articulate general recommendations

•Planning targets selectedExamples:• Sea Level: 55”• Water Supply: consumption reduction of 50%• Fire: hold loss levels to late 20th century levels

Expert Expert/ Sub Team Leader

• Brainstorm possible actions• Narrow list based on qualitative analysis of urgency, expense, complexity, impact, etc. • Select 2-3 actions

• Develop case specific recommendations based on insights derived from the process

•Develop general recommendationsre: governance funding planning capacity building

Expert/Sub team leaders/ Sub team

Sub team leaders/ Sub team

Sub team leaders/ Sub team

Entire Task Force

Scenario building: 3 teams, six steps

18

Steps/Stages in developing the sub-group scenario

Threat: What is the nature of the climate change threat (characteristics, time horizon, breadth of effect, etc.)? The answer will be provide by our scientific experts

Vulnerability: How likely is someone, some place, to be adversely be affected by the threat? The answer will be provide by our experts and group facilitators

Response: Responses to the vulnerability will can conceivably range across the three R’s (Resist, Resilience, Retreat)The answer as to what is a “reasonable and prudent” response will

be discussed and decided by the members of the group

Strategy: What policies should be enacted and carried out in light of the responses identified?

The answer is to be discussed and decided by the members of the group

Is the action specific to the threat and vulnerability?

Can it be generalized across threats and vulnerabilies?

How high a priority should be given to the recommended action? Is it in response to an imminent threat (highly likely and relatively soon)? Does it require a longer time horizon?

Does the action represent a solution that increases adaptive capacity (resilience) while reducing long term costs? (co-benefits, loss avoided?)

Does the action address the 3E’s (economic growth, environmental protection, equity)?

Issues to consider in recommending action

20

Considerations for the TF reportGovernance issues to consider:

1. Does California need a comprehensive adaptation strategy?

1. Should outcomes-based goals (not just process goals) be required for whatever the strategy is adopted?

2. Where should be the locus of authority and responsibility for adaption actions be placed (local, regional, state)?

3. What should be government ‘s role versus that of for-profit and non-profit organizations?

4. Should comprehensive climate change planning be required at the local, county, regional and state level?

5. Should land uses, zoning and construction regulations be alignment with threat and vulnerability forecasts?

21

Considerations for the TF reportFunding considerations:

1. Who should pay for capacity building and adaptation planning, and how?

2. How can the costs of adaptation be turned into investments in the 21st century economy growth and more sustainable communities?

3. What role should risk-based climate change insurance play in anticipation of climate change effects at the residential, business, and community level?

4. Should a state/local disaster fund or “trust” be established in CA?

5. To what extent should adaptation funding be predicated on a beneficiaries pays principle (with some underwriting for least well off)?

22

Report dissemination and outreach activities

Determining target audience

Selection of media campaign manager/consultant

Material to be produced and medium (hard copy, electronic, interactive)

Policy audiences (TF members, director, others available as speakers)

Policymakers (face-to-face)

Candidates and campaign staffs