Mass-dependent contributions

Information and analysis functions:

These are publicly funded initiatives aimed at enhancing the understanding of phenomena (basic research) and how to deal with these (applied research) and at enhancing stakeholder understanding of the consequences of phenomena and the means of responding (education and awareness).

As stated in the introduction to this synthesis report, information on climate change impacts is abundant, with all levels of government, as well as research and training institutions, industry bodies and NGOs involved in the production and analysis of information related to climate impacts and adaptation. This includes information on the impacts of climate change, guidance material in the form of best practice manuals, tools, information networks, courses and workshops. Many specific examples of such material are provided and discussed in the various case studies.

What becomes clear in these is that governments also have a role in developing guidance to improve the quality and consistency of information. (We refer to the forthcoming report from the NCCARF Leading Adaptation Pathways project.)

While information abounds, local information on climate impacts is often lacking, is not publically available or is not used (Wenger et al. 2012). Of greater concern perhaps is that those in positions needing to access this information often do not have the time to do so and may proceed with activities based on poorly conceived foundations. Alternatively, these positions may rely on external support (i.e.

researchers, consultants etc.) to undertake analysis of options based on available information but as a result may not have built any organisational capacity to become self-reliant in information seeking and interpretation. In other words, decision-makers may be no better off at knowing how to make decisions under uncertainty.

Climate adaptation issues pose particular problems for providing accurate, policy-relevant information for decision-making, with the issue of uncertainty being most prominent. Three major sources of uncertainty are discussed in Case study 3 and previously in this synthesis report: Future emissions of greenhouse gas emissions (‘policy uncertainty’); Scientific uncertainty (‘epistemic uncertainty’); Natural variability (‘aleatory uncertainty’) (Hallegatte et al. 2012: 8). These three uncertainties combined make it all the more difficult for decision-makers to assess investments for long term climate resilience. As such, the information and analysis function of government in the arena of climate change adaptation becomes one not only of information and analysis provider, but potentially also information and analysis interpreter. That is, in environments of decision-making uncertainty, there is a need for information providers and decision-makers to work closely together to interpret options, steps, feedback and further options in the context of adaptive management.

The importance of information and uncertainty in adaptation policy is heightened by the fourth domain of uncertainty: that associated with the likely efficacy of policy interventions.

The City of Melbourne case study provides a good example of how decision-makers can work alongside information providers to not only gain access to information but to gain a richer understanding of the content of the information. Here, a close relationship has evolved between CoM staff and adaptation researchers associated with the Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility Institute. In effect, the NCCARF initiative was intended to support these kinds of collaborations, where research and decision-making imperatives are closely aligned. It is apparent that the volume of adaptation research resulting from the NCCARF initiative places Australia in a leading position, however the application and impact of this knowledge is a matter yet to be determined. Such processes not only provide researchers with insights into real world decision making dilemmas, but ensure a legacy of stronger capacity within organisations to identify and assess adaptation options. In many ways, this is nothing more than a form of action research within a policy context.

Such relationships should be encouraged across Australia between local councils / other critical adaptation organisations and their (preferably) locally situated research institutions.

Another issue that is problematic in climate adaptation information relates to a spatial scale misalignment between what can be provided by climate models and what is needed by decision-makers. This is discussed in the flooding, water/energy and finance market case studies in particular. For example, in the case of floods, it was observed that municipal boundaries do not coincide with catchment boundaries, resulting in flood studies that are done on an individual town or locality scale (QFCI 2012: 55). Yet flood management is most effective on a catchment scale, which raises the issue of whether systems for mapping are fit for purpose. Better management outcomes could be achieved if local flood studies were designed to

‘nest’ within an overall catchment study.

The consequence of the scale issue is essentially an absence of knowledge at the scale at which decisions are made: most notably, the local scale. For example, the need to downscale climate change flood information to catchment level has been identified as a key issue by the Productivity Commission’s report on barriers to effective climate change adaptation (Productivity Commission 2012). Even at local scales, however, the problem is exacerbated by the myriad end-user decision makers that need information, any information, no matter how coarse. The large number of end-users makes identifying, funding and disseminating information extremely difficult. Other questions surface about proprietary rights and competitive advantage when information is generated with co-funding from the private sector.

(We note the data resolution and access issues that are currently being addressed by the Commonwealth-funded Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network in the urban space.) These complex issues reinforce the need for new approaches to

information generation and sharing in the context of adaptation, and reinforces the need for transforming the government’s funding role (in research or information provision) into something more akin to collaboration broker, where partnerships in knowledge generation, information provision and on-ground implementation are intimately connected and the enabling resources negotiated among collaborators.

NCCARF’s emphasis on the involvement of local councils, state governments, emergency management organisations and other end users in the planning and operationalisation of research goes some way to filling this role, but falls short in that it sets an albeit imprecise demarcation line between research/planning and implementation/monitoring/learning. With the first phase of NCCARF drawing to an end, and discussions still in process over any second phase and the relative roles of the Commonwealth, State and Territory, and local governments, as well as key business partners, research institutes and the private sector more broadly, there is an emerging basis for a more sophisticated approach to building adaptive capacity that can potentially deal with the uncertainties of climate change discussed previously. This would require, however, NCCARF managers to evolve from program and project managers to negotiators of collaborations. It would also require more flexible forms of investment extending beyond the traditional research contract paradigm.

Nationally, the CSIRO is a critically important organisation in the climate adaptation arena. With its research endeavours crossing so many sectors of society and disciplinary fields of expertise, the organisation should be well placed to identify adaptation synergies, antagonisms and trade-offs that may not be intuitively obvious to some other research organisations or decision-makers with much narrower remits.

Identification and understanding of these synergies, antagonisms and trade-offs are of acute relevance in framing national and state-wide adaptation policies. They could also be of tremendous use to local governments in adaptation strategy formulation, and while some of these or their combination may be unique to specific regions or councils, there is a need for the more common or generic ones to be documented and shared. The Productivity Commission saw the importance of this kind of integrating role in the context of the food/water/energy relationship when reviewing the rural R&D Corporation model (Productivity Commission 2010). The challenge for CSIRO in contributing to national climate adaptation capacity is ensuring that its privileged and important helicopter view of synergies, antagonisms and trade-offs is not undermined by diluting its human capacity across too many and more narrowly defined research activities. Quite rightly CSIRO recognises the value of continued interaction and engagement with stakeholders and other research (CSIRO 2012:

297), and an important contribution it can make in these interactions is to ensure that the challenges of dealing with complexity are not overlooked in favour of seeking simple and potentially maladaptive solutions.

Other specific climate adaptation research is undertaken by the Bureau of Meteorology and Geoscience Australia. Clearly both departments are integral to the

development of Australian climate models, and recent initiatives have seen the two agencies committed to developing national, natural hazard risk assessments through open-access databases. Such repositories of information are important means of providing quicker access to relevant information without costly and time consuming searches, particularly if they included the outputs of highly dispersed research agencies. It is safe to assume that some of the research funded through the ARC and the NHMRC is relevant to climate adaptation, but it is not easily accessible and discernible from the two organisations’ websites. More such repositories, possibly within a common framework, would be of value not just to those undertaking research, but also to those in planning, monitoring, emergency management and education institutions to name a few. (Again, the discussions of information portals by the NCCARF Leading Adaptation Practices project applies.)

In an age of litigation, the perception of liability can be a significant barrier to the provision of risk information and its incorporation into planning schemes by local government. Councils can be exposed to compensation claims if land is ‘down-zoned’, subjecting it to flood controls and reducing land value. Councils are also liable for losses if they provide flood advice, act or fail to act in respect to flood-prone land (QFCI 2012: 128). This issue is also identified by Gibbs and Hill, who note that some states such as Queensland have greater legal provision for compensation than others for councils wishing to apply development controls (Gibbs and Hill 2011).

Some sources suggest a potential liability for the quality and accuracy of flood information (Trowbridge, Minto et al. 2011: 70). In one case reported by the QFCI, a council decided not to provide any information on historic or current flooding unless an application was made under freedom of information legislation (QFCI 2012: 130).

A recent paper finds that the liability risk of providing flood risk information is vastly overstated and there are “no cases where anyone has successfully sued a council for releasing up to date, accurate hazard information”. Rather, councils face liability for not supplying information about known risks (Eburn and Handmer 2012).