Richard J.T. Klein

Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits

Since the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), demand for knowledge regarding the planning and implementation of adaptation as a strategy for climate risk management has increased significantly (Preston et al., 2011a; Park et al., 2012). This chapter assesses recent literature on the opportunities that create enabling conditions for adaptation as well as the ancillary benefits that may arise from adaptive responses. It also assesses the literature on biophysical and socioeconomic constraints on adaptation and the potential for such constraints to pose limits to adaptation. Given the available evidence of observed and anticipated limits to adaptation, the chapter also discusses the ethical implications of adaptation limits and the literature on system transformational adaptation as a response to adaptation limits. To facilitate this assessment, this chapter provides an explicit framework for conceptualizing opportunities, constraints, and limits (Section 16.2). In this framework, the core concepts including definitions of adaptation, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity are consistent with those used previously in the AR4 (Adger et al., 2007). However, the material in this chapter should be considered in conjunction with that of complementary WGII AR5 chapters. These include Chapter 14 (Adaptation Needs and Options), Chapter 15 (Adaptation Planning and Implementation), and Chapter 17 (Economics of Adaptation). Material from other WGII AR5 chapters is also relevant to informing adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, particularly Chapter 2 (Foundations for Decision Making) and Chapter 19 (Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities). This chapter also synthesizes relevant material from each of the sectoral and regional chapters (Section 16.5). To enhance its policy relevance, this chapter takes as its entry point the perspective of actors as they consider adaptation response strategies over near, medium, and longer terms (Eisenack and Stecker, 2012; Dow et al., 2013a,b). Actors may be individuals, communities, organizations, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governmental agencies, or other entities responding to real or perceived climate-related stresses or opportunities as they pursue their objectives (Patt and Schroter, 2008; Blennow and Persson, 2009; Frank et al., 2011).

Development and climate change adaptation funding : coordination and integration

Within a few decades, tens of billions, and possibly over a hundred billion, dollars will be needed for climate change adaptation in developing countries. In recent international climate negotiations, US

Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalisation

100 billion per year by 2020 was pledged by developed countries for mitigation and adaptation. Even if this pledge is realized, it is not clear that it will generate sufficient funds to address the adaptation needs of developing countries. A majority of what has been identified as climate change adaptation needs could be considered as funding for basic development. In addition, a large share of current development assistance is spent on climate-sensitive projects. With the potential for funding of climate change adaptation to fall short of what is needed and for development funding to continue funding many climate-sensitive activities, coordination of the two funding streams may enable more effective support for both sustainable development and climate change adaptation. Preliminary steps to facilitate such coordination are part of the Cancun Agreements and initiatives by other organizations.

Perceptions of Risk and Limits to Climate Change Adaptation: Case Studies of Two Swedish Urban Regions

The purpose of this paper is to present a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change, to address the conceptual confusion around vulnerability and related concepts. The framework was developed using the method of formalisation – making structure explicit. While mathematics as a precise and general language revealed common structures in a large number of vulnerability definitions and assessments, the framework is here presented by diagrams for a non‐mathematical audience. Vulnerability, in ordinary language, is a measure of possible future harm. Scientific vulnerability definitions from the fields of climate change, poverty, and natural hazards share and refine this structure. While theoretical definitions remain vague, operational definitions, that is, methodologies for assessing vulnerability, occur in three distinct types: evaluate harm for projected future evolutions, evaluate the current capacity to reduce harm, or combine the two. The framework identifies a lack of systematic relationship between theoretical and operational definitions. While much conceptual literature tries to clarify vulnerability, formalisation is a new method in this interdisciplinary field. The resulting framework is an analytical tool which supports clear communication: it helps when making assumptions explicit. The mismatch between theoretical and operational definitions is not made explicit in previous work.

Private finance for adaptation: do private realities meet public ambitions?

This study analyzes processes of adaptation to climate change through participatory research in Sweden’s two largest cities, Stockholm and Gothenburg. Perceptions of climate risks and constraints to adaptation are discussed. Practitioners from the public and private sector have identified stakeholders who are, and who should be, giving attention to adaptation, including the risks and threats facing the regions and how and which factors hinder the implementation of adaptation. In this study, it is found that those issues where adaptation is considered most difficult are mainly related to response capacity.

Adaptation decision-making in the Nordic countries : assessing the potential for joint action

The private sector’s role in climate finance is increasingly subject to political and scientific debate. Yet there is poor empirical evidence of private engagement in adaptation and its potential contribution to the industrialised countries’ mobilisation of USD 100 billion of annual climate finance from 2020 onwards to support developing countries to address climate change. This paper analysed 101 case studies of private sector adaptation under the Private Sector Initiative (PSI) of the UNFCCC Nairobi work programme, and examined these against ten ‘adaptation finance criteria’ that were distilled from UN climate negotiation outcomes. Results show that private adaptation interventions complement public adaptation activities. Yet the ten adaptation finance criteria are not met, which demonstrates that the diplomatic UNFCCC conceptualisation of financing adaptation is dissonant from the private sector reality. For example, while the case studies’ investments are ‘new and additional’ to Official Development Assistance (ODA), their ‘predictability’ remains unclear. And despite some commitment for ‘up-scaling’, plans and associated costs for doing so remain undisclosed. Developed countries’ role in ‘mobilising’ private financial resources under the PSI seems limited. It is unrealistic to expect that the UNFCCC alters existing criteria to suit private initiatives, or that the private sector aligns its initiatives to meet existing criteria. This paper advocates monitoring and reporting only of those private investments that principally finance adaptation. This practical way forward would allow private finance to meet criteria such as predictability, transparency, and mobilisation, but would drastically reduce the amount of private investment that could contribute to reaching the USD 100 billion climate finance target.

Beyond headline mitigation numbers : we need more transparent and comparable NDCs to achieve the Paris Agreement on climate change

Abstract In a global context, the outlook for the Nordic region is relatively favourable, given its relatively stronger resiliency to climate change impacts in comparison to many other geo-political regions of the world. Overall, the projected climatic changes include increases in mean temperatures and in precipitation, although regional variations can be significant. The countries’ robust institutions and economies give them a strong capacity to adapt to these changes. Still, the need for adaptation to the changing climate has been and still is substantial, and in most of the region, there has been progress on the issue. This paper explores the potential for Nordic cooperation on adaptation; specifically, for the development of a regional adaptation strategy. In particular, it addresses two questions (1) What is the current state of adaptation in the Nordic countries? and (2) What are the potential benefits and weaknesses of a Nordic strategy for adaptation? In order to answer these two questions, this paper examines reviews the current national adaptation policies of each Nordic country and discusses the challenges facing a Nordic strategy and finally assesses the potential for common Nordic adaptation policy and further cooperation.

Limits to adaptation

Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) were key to reaching the Paris Agreement and will be instrumental in implementing it. Research was quick to identify the ‘headline numbers’ of NDCs: if these climate action plans were fully implemented, global mean warming by 2100 would be reduced from approximately 3.6 to 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels (Höhne et al. Climate Pol 17:1–17, 2016; Rogelj et al. Nature 534:631–639, 2016). However, beyond these headline mitigation numbers, NDCs are more difficult to analyse and compare. UN climate negotiations have so far provided limited guidance on NDC formulation, which has resulted in varying scopes and contents of NDCs, often lacking details concerning ambitions. If NDCs are to become the long-term instrument for international cooperation, negotiation, and ratcheting up of ambitions to address climate change, then they need to become more transparent and comparable, both with respect to mitigation goals, and to issues such as adaptation, finance, and the way in which NDCs are aligned with national policies. Our analysis of INDCs and NDCs (Once a party ratifies the Paris Agreement, it is invited to turn its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) into an NDC. We refer to results from our INDC analysis rather than our NDC analysis in this commentary unless otherwise stated.) shows that they omit important mitigation sectors, do not adequately provide details on costs and financing of implementation, and are poorly designed to meet assessment and review needs.