SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo

IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report

•
•
B
Biva Chapagain
1  sur  95
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
SYMPOSIUM REPORT Climate Change and Impact Assessment Special Symposium Washington, D.C. • November 15-16, 2010
IN MEMORY This report is published in memory of Gene Owens, who contributed significantly to the success of the Symposium and the production of this report. Gene was an active member of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), and served as Co-Chair of IAIA’s Washington Area Branch since 2008. Throughout his long career in international development and environmental economics and management, he was a strong proponent of improving awareness of the value of environmental assessment -- and building the capacity of organizations worldwide to do it well. We remember and appreciate his professional contributions and his persistent joy in working with all of us in IAIA.
International Association for Impact Assessment SYMPOSIUM REPORT Climate Change and Impact Assessment Special Symposium Washington, D.C. • November 15-16, 2010
Table of Contents 1 Abbreviations and Acronyms 2 Introduction 4 Summary of Key Themes 5 Daily Agenda 8 Keynote Addresses 10 Risk in the Context of Climate Change 10 The Human Response to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture 16 Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 17 Part 1: Aalborg in Brief - Report on the October Meeting 17 Part 2: Panel on Climate Change and Impact Assessment 19 Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 23 Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 27 Multilateral Development Banks: Emerging Standards and New Guidance for EIA 27 National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – North America 30 National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – Beyond North America 34 Bilateral Donors: New Guidance for EIA 41 Track B – Applying Impact Assessment to Private and Public Decision-Making 46 OECD DAC Panel on SEA and Climate Change 46 Insuring Against Climate Change 51 EIA as an Input to Climate Change Adaptation Planning 53 Special Topics in EIA and Climate Change Decision-Making 56 Track C – EIA Practice: Assessing Risk and Vulnerability to Climate Change 59 Tools, Methods and Information Resources 59 Disaster Management, Rapid Environmental Assessment Response and Climate Change 66 SEA and Cumulative Impacts: Case Studies 68 Summary and Recommendations to IAIA 71 Symposium Keynote Speakers 73 Symposium Chairs, Panelists and Speakers 75 Symposium Committee and Contributors 88 Symposium Host, Sponsors and Supporters 89
Abbreviations and Acronyms 2 °C Degree Celsius ADB Asian Development Bank ARIA Rapid Institutional Analysis for Adaptation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCPL Climate Change Program Loan CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEA Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEA Country Environmental Analysis CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CIAM Capacity for Impact Assessment and Management CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network CO2 Carbon Dioxide CP4D Climate Proofing for Development CPWC Co-operative Programme on Water and Climate DAC Development Assistance Committee DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DFID Department of International Development DOT Department of Transportation EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank ELCI Environmental Liaison Centre International EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPOC Environment Policy Committee ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Ex-Im Bank Export-Import Bank GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GTZ German Development Corporation IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IBHS Institute of Building and Home Safety IDB Inter-American Development Bank IEG Independent Evaluation Group IEMA Institute for Environment Management and Assessment IFC International Finance Corporation IFI International Financial Institution IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
? 3 INECE International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement InVEST Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency km Kilometer kWh Kilo-Watt Hour m3 /sec Meter cubic per second mm Millimeter MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MDB Multilateral Development Bank MW Mega Watts NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NC Nature Conservancy NCEA Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC Natural Environment Research Council NGO Nongovernmental Organization NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NPSSI National Program of Small Scale Irrigation NWT North West Territory OECD Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development OPCQC Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy ppm Parts per million PPP Policies, Plans and Programs PPPP Policies, Plans, Program and Projects REA Rapid Environmental Assessment SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UEA University of East Anglia UK United Kingdom UKCIP United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development VINTE Viviendas Integrales WAB Washington Area Branch WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wildlife Fund
Introduction 4 The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) organized a 2-day Symposium on Climate Change and Impact Assessment in Washington, DC. The Symposium, held on November 15-16, 2010 and hosted by the World Bank, attracted 180 impact assessment and climate change professionals from multilateral development banks (MDBs), bilateral development institutions, as well as impact assessment and climate change practitioners from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America. The Symposium was the second event organized by IAIA that provided a forum for impact assessment practitioners and climate change professionals to share experiences and insights from their respective specialties. The first event, hosted by Aalborg University in Denmark (October 25-26, 2010), brought together 133 delegates primarily from across Europe. The purpose of the Symposium was to foster mutual collaboration between experts and professionals from two complementary communities – climate change and impact assessment. Additionally, it focused on how development banks and bilateral institutions are incorporating impact assessment processes into their climate change strategies, and what impact assessment practitioners need to know to better apply their expertise to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Symposium set out to explore the following questions: What effects will climate change have on the feasibility, viability and long-term sustainability of policies, plans, programs and projects? Will climate change exacerbate the impacts of a project? To what degree does a project, program, policy or intervention promote reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? How can flexibility in responding to the impacts of climate change be assured through impact assessment? How can impact assessment apply climate change projections to site-specific projects? What tools does impact assessment offer for understanding and assessing risk and responding to climate change? This report presents a summary of the main points raised during the Symposium from keynote addresses, plenary discussions, and presentations in three concurrent sessions: emerging standards and guidance for assessment of climate change impacts; applying impact assessment to private and public decision-making; and environmental impact assessment practice – assessing risk and vulnerability to climate change. For further details, readers are invited to visit the IAIA’s Symposium website, which includes a set of key background documents, presentations and abstracts delivered by the majority of the speakers and keynoters, and YouTube videos for all sessions.
Summary of Key Themes 5 This section provides a summary of the key themes that emerged from the Symposium’s discussions and presentations. Integration of Climate Change with Other Environmental Issues. Climate change cannot be considered in isolation from other global and regional environmental issues. In addition to being a development issue, a food security issue and an inter- and intra-generational equity issue, climate change can adversely affect the economy and the ability of governments to alleviate poverty. Thus, climate change has to be integrated with other environmental issues such as biodiversity, forestry, water, desertification, air quality and stratospheric ozone depletion. Integration of Climate Change Assessment into Impact Assessment Processes. The impact assessment community is under increasing pressure to act now and promote the use of broader principles of sustainability assessment to better understand the true impacts of policies, plans, programs and projects (PPPP) on the environment, in particular from GHG emissions; and of the environment on PPPP by incorporating climate change analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Since SEA offers a much wider view of the changes society may need to make to mitigate and adapt to climate change, SEA can play a critical role in climate change adaptation and mitigation, particularly when it brings together environmental and social issues and is carried out before project-level assessments. Further guidance is needed to incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation into EIA/SEA. Improvements to EIA/SEA to Realize Their Potential. Although the rigorous and standardized processes of EIA/SEA are able to incorporate and address climate change, some improvements can be made to allow these tools to realize their full potential in contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, namely: harmonizing the growing number of protocols for analyzing and incorporating climate change considerations into impact assessment processes; developing procedures to harmonize the climate-related data gathered as part of the EIA/SEA with information gathered via other sources; giving due consideration to the use of worst-case scenario analysis; emphasizing the use of monitoring systems, and allowing for their adaptation, including review of EIA conclusions, as mitigation commitments and adaptation programs are implemented, given the uncertainty about climate change; and giving due consideration to the impacts of climate change on water resources, water demand and water consumption. Improved Tools for Risk Assessment. When making use of climate change scenarios, impact assessment practitioners need to take adequate account of the uncertainties associated with climate change and plan for robustness through adaptive management. Practitioners should use risk management frameworks in order to understand the implications of climate change impacts and uncertainties in relation to planning, investment and operation decisions. Various alternative and well-established criteria and approaches are available for decision-making in such situations, such as minimizing maximum adverse effect, and minimizing maximum regret, among others. Adaptive management, in turn, requires building flexibility into the project regarding future changes. Improved Procedures and Tools. For the MDBs and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to play a significant role in shaping climate change policy and addressing climate change impacts, they should update their environmental assessment policies, develop new tools to enable better assessment of climate impacts on financial performance of investments, and enhance existing mechanisms to share lessons learned.
Summary of Key Themes 6 Improved Climate Projections at Required Level of Specificity. Systematic consideration of climate change requires the availability of specific scenarios of climate change at regional and local levels that are credible and accepted by stakeholders, which to date are available only in a small number of countries. That said, lack of country-specific climate change scenarios should not be a deterrent to incorporating adaptation and mitigation considerations into programs and projects. There are simple rules of thumb and tools available to the impact assessment community to engage in dialogue and help influence decisions, such as those developed by the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) and summarized in Box 1. Private Sector Outreach on Value of SEA. While SEA has been used as a public sector tool, new ways need to be found to promote its use within the financing and private sectors as well. A significant amount of capacity building has to take place in the private sector for companies to understand the impacts of climate change – what happens to ecosystem services and the implications Box 1: Simple Approach for Incorporating Climate Change into Impact Assessment The overall approach adopted by the NCEA for incorporating climate change into impact assessment includes three phases: screening climate change risk, since climate is not always relevant; climate change risks and options assessment; and climate sensitivity analysis. For the screening phase, the NCEA has assembled a list to guide EIA practitioners to decide if mitigation is relevant to their projects, which includes industrial activities, power stations, and infrastructure projects; agricultural projects including greenhouses; housing projects; waste processing; groundwater abstraction and airports. No similar list is available to decide if adaptation is relevant. In this case, it is necessary to look at the following aspects: what local climate change is expected, what is the vulnerability of the area, what is the vulnerability of the project, and how the short-term costs to adapt compare to the long-term damage caused by climate change. If there is a big difference between the two, then adaptation is important. For the climate change risks and options assessment, a distinction is made between mitigation and adaptation. When mitigation is considered important, the impact assessment practitioner needs to follow these three steps: first, describe the expected GHG emission level and the measures included to reduce it; second, describe the options to improve energy efficiency in the project; and third, describe (and quantify) how the project contributes to national mitigation goals. When adaptation is important, the steps to follow include: first, try to make the project more resistant – to withstand extreme circumstances; second, try to make the project more resilient – to recover quickly once extreme circumstances return to normal; and third, make the project more adaptable and flexible when the extent and speed of climate change is uncertain. For the climate sensitivity analysis phase, the impact assessment practitioner needs to consider different climate scenarios and whether the project can survive under such scenarios. Once this is done, measures that are good ideas in any of these scenarios – “no regrets” need to be identified; and finally, impact assessment practitioners need to define back-up measures – what to do in the worst case.
7 for their business and surrounding communities – so they become more receptive to the value of and need for SEA. Improved Public Access to Climate Information. In many countries there is not much information on the climatology of the region and often where it does exist it is not available to a wide range of stakeholders. Substantial and long-term investments are needed to provide climate-related information and establish mechanisms to make that information accessible to the public. Climate- related information needs to be posted online in a searchable way, linked with geographic information systems (GIS). Integrating Climate Change Considerations into the Life-Cycle of Infrastructure Investments. Presenting technical opinions on future climate impacts in formats that are familiar and accessible to decision-makers has a great potential to influence the EIA processes for adapting the life-cycle of infrastructure investments interest to address climate change. Improved Communication. Effective communication mechanisms between the scientific community and impact assessment practitioners need to be put in place so that climate change information can be judiciously incorporated into EIA/SEA. Similarly, continuous communication between impact assessment practitioners, sector experts, social experts and climate experts is needed so that relevant information can be incorporated into their respective sectors.
Daily Agenda 8 9:00 Opening and Keynote Address Organizers’ Welcome with Remarks and Housekeeping Host’s Welcome and Introduction of Keynote Speaker Keynote Address: Risks in the Context of Climate Change 10:15 Coffee Break 11:00 Plenary I - Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? Part 1: Aalborg in Brief – Videolink Report on the October Meeting Part 2: Panel on Climate Change and Impact Assessment 13:00 Lunch 14:00 Concurrent Sessions I (A) Multilateral Development Banks: Emerging Standards and New Guidance for EIA Strategic Implications of Climate Change for Institutional Investors European Investment Bank World Bank European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Asian Development Bank Inter-American Development Bank (B) OECD DAC Panel on Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change Climate Change and Adaptation Mainstreaming The Aalborg Lessons: Available Guidance and Practice in Using SEA for Climate Issues in Developing Countries Climate Change Policy Making and SEA in Indonesia Adaptation Tools in an SEA in Mali SEA, Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change in Malawi (C) Tools, Methods and Information Resources (Part 1) Addressing Climate Change Uncertainties in Project EIA Climate Change and Ecosystem Services Geographic Information Systems World Bank Group Climate Change Portal Lessons from and for Evaluation 15:15 Coffee Break 15:45 Concurrent Sessions II (A) National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – North America US Climate Change and National Environmental Policy Act Canada Climate Change and Environmental Assessment Proposed Climate Change Law in Mexico (B) Insuring Against Climate Change (C) Tools, Methods and Information Resources (Part 2) EIA of Coal-Fired Power Plants EIA of Low-Income Housing Sector in Mexico Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans and Projects Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Mega-Cities 17:15 First Day’s Summary and Review 18:00 Reception Monday 15th November
9 8:30 Announcements 8:45 Plenary II: EIA, Climate Change and the Private Sector Keynote Address: The Human Response to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture Hydro-Québec’s Experience in Adapting to Climate Change MacKenzie Valley Gas Pipeline - Sustainability Assessment Climate Change Adaptation Decisions in the Private Sector – The Role of EIA 10:15 Coffee Break 10:45 Concurrent Sessions III (A) National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – Beyond North America Incorporating Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in EIA: Opportunities and Challenges (B) EIA as an Input to Climate Change Adaptation Planning National Policy Frameworks on Adaptation: A Survey Participatory Climate Vulnerability Assessment Practical Measures for Adapting Infrastructure to Climate Impacts A Review of the Use of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Measures in EIA in Western Australia (C) Disaster Management, Rapid Environmental Assessment Response and Climate Change Impact of Climate Variability and Change on Vulnerable Populations World Wildlife Fund Experience in Disaster Management and Climate Change 12:15 Lunch 13:15 Concurrent Sessions IV (A) Bilateral Donors: New Guidance for EIAs Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Greenhouse Gas Policy United States Export-Import Bank: New Requirements for High Carbon Intensity Projects Millennium Challenge Corporation: Challenges and Opportunities (B) Special Topics in EIA and Climate Change Decision-Making Health Impact Assessment in Climate Change Decision-Making Assessing Displacement/ Resettlement Due to Climate Change Adaptation Projects Biodiversity Assessment and Climate Change (C) SEA and Cumulative Impacts: Case Studies Cumulative Impact Assessment SEA Approaches in the Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change Program: Case of the State of Michoacán, Mexico Climate Change and Country Environmental Analysis: Case of Indonesia An Innovative Approach to Preparing a Sub-National Climate Change Action Plan: Case of Orissa State, India 14:45 Coffee Break 15:15 Second Day’s Summary and Review 16:30 Discussion and Next Steps 18:00 Symposium Ends Tuesday 16th November
Keynote Addresses 10 Risk in the Context of Climate Change In the opening Keynote Address, Prof. Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor at the United Kingdom (UK) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Strategic Director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) made it clear that climate change cannot be considered in isolation from other global and regional environmental issues, that the impacts of climate change are predominantly negative and primarily affect developing countries and poor people, that human-induced climate change should be viewed as a risk management issue, and that there is an urgency to act now. In his introductory remarks, Prof. Watson made one central point: climate change cannot be seen as an environmental issue alone. He indicated that climate change is also a development issue and a food security issue as it adversely affects the economy and the ability to alleviate poverty, and can affect security from the personal to the regional levels. He added that climate change is also an inter-and intra- generational equity issue and that we cannot think of climate change in isolation from other environmental issues such as biodiversity, forestry, water, desertification, air quality and stratospheric ozone depletion. He contended that unless we can get the international conventions to work in an integrated fashion, we will find solutions that could be potentially good for climate change but bad for biodiversity or land degradation. He emphasized the need to understand the inter-linkages in a scientific manner but also to understand the policy inter-linkages among all the various issues. Within this context, Prof. Watson stressed the importance of looking at the risks posed by climate change. He said that risks are difficult to compare because of their diverse and dispersed nature, data inequality and scarcity, subjectivity and values, and uncertainty, among other factors. When we look at the risks of climate change, he argued, we need to look at the social, economic and environmental implications and their absolute and relative impacts as well as how climate change is affecting various issues from several perspectives. He provided a very interesting framework on how to look at risks in terms of the social, economic and environmental implications (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Strategic Risk Appraisal Framework
11 With regard to current knowledge of the climate system, Prof. Watson explained that the fundamental point is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere by increasing GHG emissions. He noted that over the last 100 years we have seen increases in temperature, changing precipitation patterns (spatially and temporally), many more heavy precipitation events and far fewer light precipitation events, more floods and droughts, and more extreme events (more categories 4 and 5 and fewer categories 1, 2 and 3). He stated that one can say with a 95 percent confidence level that most of the observed changes in the past 50-60 years are due to human activities. Prof. Watson then elaborated on likely future climate scenarios and noted that they will depend on various factors including human behavior. He showed that the 10 theoretical global models of surface temperature do not project a uniform warming of the earth. For the low and medium emission scenarios, he said, the high latitudes will warm more than the tropics. He noted, however, that for the period 2020-2029, all models look identical, and therefore, what is going to happen before 2030 is irrelevant in terms of the GHG emission scenario (see Figure 2). He underscored the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report finding that we cannot affect the earth’s climate for the next three decades. With regard to precipitation, he noted that it is more difficult to predict – while the models show that it is driest in the subtropics of both hemispheres, much more variability is observed elsewhere. Figure 2: Projected Temperature Changes in the 21st Century In reviewing the impacts of climate change, Prof. Watson stressed that any warming in the tropics and subtropics will be accompanied by decreased agricultural activity. In the temperate regions, he said, we will observe increased agricultural activity for the next 1-2 decades. This will pose a big problem for food security. He also noted that we will observe a decrease in water availability and water quality in arid and semi-arid areas and increased flooding in almost all regions. He emphasized that we could lose key
Keynote Addresses 12 ecosystem services that are critical for human well-being and the economy. Adverse effects to human health and human settlements caused by flooding and coastal erosion, he said, will pose a huge challenge to human security. Climate change, Prof. Watson stressed, should not be looked at in isolation from other drivers but in the context of all other pressures on food, water and biodiversity. To illustrate this point, he referred to food and water security. In terms of food security, he said, we have not been successful. He noted that the problem of undernourished people has nothing to do with food production but with the institutional and policy environment for rural development in developing countries. This, he noted, is leading to significant environmental degradation, increased GHG (about 15 percent of GHG comes from the agriculture sector, about 15 percent from forestry and 70 percent from the way we produce and use energy). He also noted that we are losing biodiversity due to agricultural practices. The challenge lies in the fact that the demand for food will almost double by 25-50 years, thus, there is a need to increase the nutritional value of the food that is produced. Water security, Prof. Watson said, is linked to water scarcity, which is growing. By 2025, he noted, more than half of the world’s population is projected to live under conditions of severe water stress. Human- induced climate change is projected to decrease water quality and availability in many arid and semi-arid regions and to increase the threats posed by floods and droughts in most parts of the world. He emphasized that water stress will increase independent of climate change (see Figure 3). Figure 3: Water Stress Will Increase Independent of Climate Change Prof. Watson then referred to biodiversity, which is a major issue as well. In the millennium ecosystem assessment, he said, a series of ecosystems was examined and the impacts of five of the major drivers including habitat change, climate change, over-exploitation, pollution, and invasive species were
13 evaluated. He noted that for most of the ecosystems, climate change was a moderately important driver. In future, however, it will be an important driver of change in almost every ecosystem – climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems are unavoidable. He emphasized that biodiversity has a huge amount of market and non-market economic value. While biodiversity and climate change are inextricably linked, he noted, there are no linkages between the respective international conventions. In undertaking an EIA, Prof. Watson recommended that one ask the following questions: what happens to the genetic species at the ecosystem level? how does it affect the ecosystem services? what are the implications for human well-being, recognizing that some issues have market value and others do not? He cautioned that one needs to be very careful not to double count. Prof. Watson also stressed that climate change is an inter- and intra-generational equity issue – climate change can adversely affect developing countries and poor people in those countries as well as future generations. He acknowledged that at the moment there is no definitive answer to the question of whether climate change will spread conflict and cause migration. He noted, however, that climate change may possibly displace people – climate change coupled with other stresses could result in regional conflict and migration depending on the social, economic and political circumstances. In undertaking an EIA, he recommended that one think about the larger portfolio of issues associated with this rather than trying to do any quantitative evaluation of migration and/or regional conflict. Definition of risks, Prof. Watson said, should be informed by scientific knowledge. He argued that in Copenhagen, we should have tried to limit climate change from 2 degrees Celsius (°C) to 3°C; the higher the temperatures, the greater the negative effects of climate change. Right now, he noted, there are limited hopes to stabilize it at 2°C above pre-industrial levels – it is more likely the world will experience an increase of 3–4°C, since we are on our way to global GHG emission concentrations of 550-650 parts per million (ppm) (see Figure 4). His recommendation when doing an EIA is to look at the impacts of 2°C, but also at the impacts of a global increase of 3– 4°C and apply probability. Mitigating climate change, Prof. Watson said, will require technological transformation, putting a price on carbon and mobilizing behavioral change. He cited among the potential technological options the efficient production and use of energy, a fuel shift – coal to gas, renewable energy and fuels, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage, and nuclear. He noted that potential technological options will also have to be placed in the right policy and behavior frameworks. He stressed the need to protect forests and peat lands. He said we need to sustainably manage our forests and wetlands, adopt more sustainable agricultural practices and restore degraded wetlands. When referring to the price of carbon needed to stimulate adoption of mitigation measures, he suggested looking at various sectors and different prices. Countries are employing risk assessment methodologies to define climate projections, and Prof. Watson explained the approach being used in the UK. He stressed that one cannot think of climate singularly. In the UK, he said, 3 emission scenarios are considered – low, medium and high. He added that the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model has been run 400 times changing 1-2 parameters at a time to account for uncertainties in key processes and the results are combined with other Global Circulation Model results to produce probabilistic temperature and precipitation projections at 25 kilometer (km) resolution for every decade in the 21st Century. He stressed that when dealing with climate change one has to think of probability distributions at the spatial scale.
Keynote Addresses 14 Figure 4: What Level of Temperature Change to Consider? Prof. Watson concluded by saying that we need a legally binding long-term equity agreement to reduce the risk of climate change; we need a radical transformation in our policies, practices and technologies; we need the public and private sectors to work together; and we need advances in science and technology. He noted that cost-effective and equitable solutions exist. In his view, he said, there is no dichotomy between economic growth and reducing the threats of climate change. Not addressing the risk posed by climate change now, he said, will lead to high economic losses. In reality, he said at the end, we are short on action. General Discussion. Several points were touched on during the general discussion session, which are summarized below. What is the role of SEA in climate change adaptation and mitigation? Prof. Watson said that SEA can play a critical role, particularly when it brings together environmental and social issues. He noted, however, that the SEA needs to be carried out before one starts doing project by project assessment. How much climate change can the world take? Current climate projections have taken into account plausible changes in regional economic growth, Prof. Watson said. Projections have considered that there will be strong economic growth mostly in underdeveloped countries and a series of choices in the socio-political process and in technology have also been made. Future climate projections have to be done once again, incorporating policy choices. He noted that current climate projections have not included the rate of growth China is experiencing now, for example. According to Prof. Watson, we should not be so worried about the energy sector, since energy could be produced and used with zero emissions, but should focus on how to reduce emissions from the agriculture sector, since we need to double food production to feed the world. He advocated for a sustainable food production and consumption system
15 that takes into account the full life-cycle. He believes that we could have a world with a high standard of living but we have to produce and use materials in a more sensible way than we are doing today, especially in terms of the waste that currently is generated in Europe and North America. Will the findings of the next IPCC report inspire action? Prof. Watson responded that he could not pre-judge the findings of the next report, but what he could say was that the information since the last IPCC report only strengthens the case for human-induced climate change and there is nothing in the literature that would undermine the conclusions of the 4th IPPC report. Until the United States (US) starts to take this issue seriously and move forward, it will be very hard to see China, Brazil or South Africa making a radical change, Prof. Watson commented. He then noted that China is trying to do a lot – it is committed to renewable energy and energy efficiency standards in transportation, but it has a huge demand for energy to fuel its economic growth. In his view, we need a consortium of different interest groups that wants to move the climate change agenda forward. When we will see more confident climate projections? Prof. Watson noted that there are two facts that underpin a projection – uncertainty in the emission scenario and uncertainty in understanding the climate system. Climate sensitivity is still a factor of 3. In the UK to address the uncertainty, they are doing probabilistic distribution scenarios. He noted that at present there is a significant body of research on climate change, which we hope will result in more confident projections. How has population figured in the models? Prof. Watson responded that the projections assume that by 2050 there will be around 9.0-9.5 billion people and that by 2100, the population will have stabilized between 9.5 and 10 billion. He argued that while demographic trends are important, age distribution, family size, urban and rural distribution, the availability to purchase and what to purchase are also important factors. He noted that the ability to purchase and what to purchase may be a much bigger threat – particularly when the ability to purchase goes up in the poorest areas. He holds that climate change is a consumption issue rather than a demographic one.
Keynote Addresses 16 The Human Response to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture In discussing the developments over recent years that could be considered as setbacks to the progress on climate change policy in Copenhagen, Mr. Ralph Torrie, President of Torrie Smith Associates, said they could in fact create space for reconsideration of the current development paradigm, which is based on fossil fuel energy intensive growth. He believes we cannot simply respond with the same kind of market mechanisms we employed during the oil shock of the seventies – such mechanisms are not enough to promote the kind of transformational change we need. In the keynote address to the second Plenary Session on EIA, Climate Change and the Private Sector, Mr. Torrie described the threat climate change presents to energy and land use patterns, reviewed the responses applied so far, explored the reasons they have failed and suggested scenarios for how public policy and business strategies may evolve in the decades ahead. Mr. Torrie provided a broad overview based on his experiences over many years in major environmental reviews and outlined the three most important things that have happened recently in climate change: first, the hardening of the climate sciences; second, the failure of the US to achieve a reversal in climate change policy; and third, the failure in Copenhagen to achieve a binding agreement on emission reduction. Despite this bleak outlook, Mr. Torrie noted that at the global level there is awareness of the need to reconsider frameworks and approaches to human response to climate change. His core message was that climate change represents a challenge to the longstanding model of economic growth as the key to development. The first signs of limits on growth were the oil price shocks in the 1970s. While energy productivity has been steadily improving (beginning even before the oil price shocks), climate change is among several indicators of emerging limits, calling into question whether socio-economic development can continue on the basis of “remedial approaches,” or whether adjustments to the prevailing fossil fuel production and consumption paradigm are needed. Mr. Torrie noted that the electric utility industry understands the situation and is “coming to the table” to work out solutions, only to find declining public concern and support for action even as the science becomes more conclusive on the risks of inaction. He also noted that the problem for business is the need for certainty, consistency and fairness in the rules as the basis for investments, and when seeking solutions to climate change and the challenge of sustainability. He concluded by saying that one needs to look beyond the fuel-electricity commodity marketplace and replace the remedial approaches with new transformational approaches in which sustainability is integrated into technology design, economic development and human endeavor.
Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 17 Part 1: Aalborg in Brief – Report on the October Meeting During Part 1 of the first Plenary Session, Ms. Lone Kørnøv, Director of the Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment at Aalborg University, Mr. Martin Lehmann, Deputy Head of the Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment at Aalborg University and Mr. Rob Verheem, Deputy Director of the NCEA, spoke about the increasing pressure on the impact assessment community to act now to move forward towards impact assessment and climate change integration and to ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation aspects are factored into programs, plans and projects. Ms. Kørnøv presented the key messages from the Special Symposium on Climate Change and Impact Assessment that took place on October 25 and 26, 2010, in Aalborg, Denmark. Noting the increasing pressure on the impact assessment community to act, she observed further that there is no room for bystanders and that adapting and controlling the currently uncontrolled high emission-based economy may be a matter of sheer survival. She indicated that the purpose of the Aalborg Symposium was to bring reflective and responsive thinking into focus and to explore twelve topics: water and climate change; climate change in professional impact assessment practice; social impact assessment; landscapes and ecosystems services; urban and regional strategies for climate change; health impact assessment; scenarios and future thinking; impact assessment of climate change and infrastructure; waste management strategies; carbon calculators; climate change and development cooperation; and decision-making and governance. Ms. Kørnøv cited seven conclusions that are emerging from the field of practice: (i) no common standards exist; (ii) exploratory work is going on; (iii) different approaches are used in different sectors; (iv) a partial overview of what is happening was assembled in Aalborg; (v) impact assessment has a role to play; (vi) impact assessment represents a significant opportunity to ensure that climate change objectives are effectively factored into public plans as they are prepared; and (vii) reflective impact assessment practice is necessary and urgent. With regard to adaptation, Ms. Kørnøv indicated that it raises different questions and offers different challenges than those associated with mitigation and is currently handled differently in impact assessment practice. Adaptation requires a more holistic perspective comprising both mitigation and adaptation. She noted, however, that there are synergies and trade-offs involved and that according to Mr. Vaidotas Kuodys, Director General for Climate Action in the European Commission, climate change adaptation is a “new concept for the EIA/SEA Directive.” Ms. Kørnøv warned that some in the impact assessment community are avoiding uncertainty. Practitioners are employing strategies that ignore or postpone the handling of uncertainty. She cited Mr. Viriato Soromenho-Marques, who said that “Certainty is for kids – not mature scientists,” and made reference to Mr. Eric Berlow’s remarks, who said that “We need to zoom out and embrace complexity and pass the discomfort period.” She also noted that while there seems to be plenty of guidance on how to integrate climate change into impact assessment, planning and decision-making, at present there is limited experience with the practical application of available guidance. The character of climate change, with its long-term perspective and high uncertainty, might involve guidance other than that currently available. Ms. Kørnøv addressed the need to pay close attention to the social dimensions of climate change adaption and mitigation. She cited the remarks of Lord Nicholas Stern: “The social side of it and the way we work
Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 18 together as communities – the way we understand things is absolutely fundamental.” She added that IAIA can play a role as a hub for communication and maintaining dialogue with climate change experts. Ms. Kørnøv concluded by recommending the following three critical steps in the way forward: (i) ensure a holistic perspective comprising mitigation and adaptation, climate change impacts and other environmental and social objectives, and synergies and trade-offs between them; (ii) acknowledge uncertainty and ensure openness and transparency; and (iii) be proactive by identifying decisions and policies significant for climate change and actively engaging relevant stakeholders. General Discussion. The highlights of the general discussion session are noted below. Are there examples of environmental assessments that integrate climate change into mitigation and adaption that were presented at the Aalborg Symposium? Ms. Kørnøv noted that one of the objectives of the Aalborg Symposium was to put forward the work that has been done to date. She added that while several case studies were presented, the challenge now is to collect all the material presented in a repository that is accessible to impact assessment practitioners. What was discussed in Denmark about the capacity building element, the communication element and how is that going to be taken forward by IAIA? Ms. Kørnøv responded that several guidance documents and tools to help people think about climate change are available. There may even be too many, she added, and we need to consider these critically. She argued for another kind of capacity building; the institutional challenge was discussed at the Aalborg Symposium but two unanswered questions remain: first, who should take leadership in integrating climate change?; and second, who will take ownership and leadership to move forward impact assessment and climate change integration? Were representatives from the political level or financial institutions present at the Aalborg Symposium? The financial community was not strongly represented, and Ms. Kørnøv drew attention to the need to engage specifically with it. She also noted that there is a critical gap that needs to be filled to link the impact assessment professional and politicians; this second group of actors was not present at the Aalborg Symposium either. There is a general belief that if political and financial leaders mandate integration of climate change into impact assessment, then there will be a wide take up of available tools. Mr. Rob Verheem in turn provided a summary of the take home messages that emerged from the session on EIA/SEA Practitioners Needs. While there are a number of cases using EIA/SEA to mainstream climate change in planning and project formulation, several have not been completed yet. According to the participants, the most pressing need for practitioners is guidance on how to effectively manage and perform the EIA/SEA process. Equally important is the need for guidance on how to obtain the necessary data, in particular the data on what will happen in the region or country where they work over the next 30-40 years. Existing guidance, which is substantial, should be revised to improve the climate aspects. We have learned much over the last 30-40 years about how to assess, how to get information, how to organize and design the participatory process. We have not yet learned sufficiently
19 about the science of convincing people – how do you influence decision-makers? How to convince and commit politicians to do things? There is a need for guidance in this area. According to the Paris Declaration, harmonization of existing guidance is an important issue. A surprising conclusion of the discussion was that one should not be concerned about harmonization, since it will be solved by impact assessment practice, which will select the best one! What is really needed is to improve communication among EIA/SEA practitioners and social experts as well as the sector community. The impact assessment community needs to reach out. One of the key follow-up actions for the IAIA community is to reach out – go to sectoral conferences. The IAIA can be a hub/focal point for communication with other sectors. We need to do it! Another potential community to engage with is the community of asset managers, who typically come from an accounting background, and are making decisions about things that are climate change sensitive. Has climate change been taken into account? Part 2: Panel on Climate Change and Impact Assessment During Part 2 of the first Plenary Session, Ms. Courtney Lowrance, Technical Resource and Counsel at Citigroup, moderated a panel discussion about the role of laws and regulations, Equator Principles and EIA/SEA to address the challenge of climate change. The panel observed that any inaction or gap left in policy is likely to lead to increased liability and litigation; that with increased risks from future climate change impacts, the impact assessment community needs to work together with the financial and insurance sectors; and that with the speed at which natural capital and ecosystem services are being eroded, there is an urgent need for laws and policies to address free-rider problems. Mr. Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia University Law School, addressed the current state of laws and regulations on impact assessment and climate change. He summarized the situation in the US, and shared some important statistics on litigation. He indicated that in the US, there have been 76 lawsuits filed concerning EIA and climate change: 40 cases were filed under the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a decision has been made on 30 of them; of 29 cases filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, a decision has been made on 23; and 2 of 7 cases filed under other states laws have been decided. He listed two rules that are emerging from this litigation: (i) climate change is an appropriate topic for EA; and (ii) in the absence of a set protocol, any assessment will do. Mr. Gerrard noted that he expects that an increasing portion of the burden to regulate GHG emissions will fall within the purview of the EIA process. Mr. Gerrard concluded by listing nine “needs” for impact assessment to fulfill its full potential in contributing to regulation of climate change: (i) there is a need to harmonize the proliferation of protocols for analysis and for incorporating climate change considerations into impact assessment (several states have protocols, and some of these have been pulled together already at www.columbiaclimatelaws.com); (ii) climate-related information gathered through other regulations needs to be harmonized with data gathered as part of the EIA process; (iii) climate change-related information should be collated and posted online in a searchable way, linked with a GIS; (iv) while much of the focus has been on climate impacts, there needs to be equal focus on adaptation; (v) more serious attention needs to be paid to the worst-case analysis/events; (vi) impact
Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 20 assessment should be recognized for the potential it holds to improve energy efficiency; (vii) from time to time there is a need to revisit EIA conclusions as mitigation commitments are implemented and monitored; (viii) water demand and water consumption should have a central role in the EIA process; and (ix) there is need for expedited review of renewable energy projects. Mr. Peter Croal, Manager of the Environmental Integration Unit, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability Division at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), provided insights on the role, value and application of EIA and SEA to climate change adaptation and mitigation, drawing on the lessons and experience of the Panel on SEA and Climate Change of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). After describing the various pieces of work carried out by the DAC Task Team, which are accessible at http://www.seataskteam.net/, he indicated that the guidance note on SEA and climate change has been used by several countries, in particular Mozambique, to assess the impacts of climate change in various investment proposals. One of the driving forces behind this work is the involvement of the private sector – since it will be financing most of the investments. Mr. Croal emphasized the need for the practice to address questions of risk and uncertainty. He also helped to answer the question of where SEA fits into the management of risk and assessment. He indicated that SEA can support efforts to integrate ecosystem goods and services into national accounts; such integration is currently becoming central to the banking and insurance companies and investment analysis, especially in the developing world where national capital is being eroded. Mr. Croal concluded by saying that impact assessment practice needs to get out of the silos and work across sections, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the 5th Global Environmental Outlook Report and the Rio +20 processes. Ms. Courtney Lowrance focused on the approach of the Equator Banks to climate change and impact assessment, including: how banks are addressing climate change from mitigation to adaptation; climate change and risk management from an Equator Principles perspective; and climate change risk in project finance. She noted that in project finance, commercial banks rely on environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) for due diligence. She indicated that in the absence of government policy, it is rare that the ESIA contains any substantive climate change analysis. In order to address risks and impacts posed by climate change, commercial banks have developed a number of initiatives ranging from the principles-based approaches, like the Climate Principles (comprehensive industry framework for a response to climate change), to due diligence frameworks, like the Carbon Principles (series of guidelines established to assess the risks in financing electric power projects, which take into account environmental externalities and incorporate them into the financial analysis of the project and which consider things like energy efficiency options, sensitivity of project to potential carbon shadow pricing, feasibility and cost implications of carbon storage, cost of mitigation plans, among others). These are integrated not only into the financial analysis of projects but also into the valuation of the companies. These approaches could apply to other sectors as well. She mentioned that the working group of the Equator Banks is currently looking at how to assure that climate change is incorporated into its due diligence. Solutions to a number of questions are still needed. If an Equator Bank receives an EIA that does not take into account climate change considerations, what should be done? What are the triggers for a stand-alone climate change assessment? How to define best available technology? How to evaluate energy (and water) efficiency performance in the local context in the absence of reliable country-specific data? How to balance environmental trade-offs when mitigating air emissions? These are some of the questions with which the Equator Banks have been grappling. General Discussion. During the general discussion session, the following clarifications and suggestions were made:
21 The Equator Banks are undertaking outreach to promote new ways of thinking within the impact assessment community. The Equator Banks are moving in the direction of soon requiring GHG assessment for all their projects. Since the Equator Banks follow the standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), to the extent the IFC performance standards are moving to include climate change in impact assessment, the Equator Banks community will be required to do the same. While in the past Canadian impact assessment practitioners put a lot of emphasis on the effects of the program and/or project on the environment, now they are concerned with the effects of the environment on the program and/or project. In northern Canada, impact assessment experts and project proponents are concerned about extreme weather destroying newly built infrastructure. Impact assessment practitioners need guidance to incorporate climate change into the EIA. A powerful tool to move the climate change agenda forward is to drive home the importance of the impacts the project could have – often when it becomes personal is when people move forward and start making more strategic linkages! In order to motivate the private sector to act it is important to frame the impacts in economic terms – to account for the externalities and to put a cost on them. This goes beyond just putting a cost on carbon but also looking at the cost of mangroves, the cost of water shortages, among others. There is a need to develop a new terminology to get through to the general public – we need to change how we express our concerns for climate change. We also need to share good news. For example, a medical journal showed a huge potential co-benefit of climate change mitigation. A health impact assessment could be used to assess the benefits and adverse effects of a particular policy decision. With regard to worst-case analysis, it was mentioned that both legal teams and project proponents do not wish to see bad news in the EIA. In a world of uncertainty, how we can define the worst-case scenario? While the US Government is seriously revisiting its policy on worst-case analysis, lawyers will be reluctant to accept this, while some US courts will be more sympathetic to requiring this analysis. The SEA offers a wider view of the changes society needs to make to combat and adapt to climate change. However, SEA currently is seen as a tool of the public sector alone. We need to find ways to promote the use of SEA within the financing sector and encourage companies that operate in the same locality to jointly look at the risks and impacts. The economic crisis seems to have pushed climate change and environmental issues to the back burner. In Canada, for example, a lot has been done in terms of stimulating the economy. In 30 years we will see the effects of the stimulus. How willing is the private sector to entertain the soft infrastructure measures to adapt to climate change as opposed to hard infrastructure? There is a huge amount of capacity building that has to take place in the private sector. When the banks, private sector and industry in general understand the impacts – what is happening when they impact ecosystem
Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 22 services and the implications for their business and surrounding communities, they are very receptive. We need to find ways to influence companies and banks to look at ecosystem services. After the economic crises there was a relaxation of the EIA process in the US, so the economic stimulus package could be passed much more quickly. There will be a rise in litigation if policy makers and regulators do not change the way they look at environment as a risk. Is it a good thing that environmental assessment is relaxed in the current crisis? If a bank requests due diligence – a lot of money is being invested into infrastructure – then it needs to be done right, but the figures present a terrifying picture. More weight needs to be given to the role of discounting. Something that happens two generations into the future is valued very little. There is a lot of debate about the application of the social cost of carbon. If discounted, it is actually an adverse calculation. With respect to the rights of the planet, there are declarations in international agreements but since countries are not bound by the principles, they are not legally enforceable. EIA is a rigorous, standardized process that is capable of incorporating and handing climate change. The general consensus is that it is possible today to go ahead even in the absence of new models or guidelines. One recommendation is to look at cumulative impacts. There are different points of view on what is appropriate: a rights-based approach or a requirements approach, or doing something because it is right to do not because it is in the regulation. This gets into the question of inter-generational effects. It may be good for business in the short term but not in the medium term. How to address disclosure of GHG emissions if it is not mandated by national requirements? A couple of banks are looking at how to address these types of risks in the disclosure process.
Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 23 Speakers in the second Plenary Session moderated by Mr. Craig Davies, Principal Environmental Advisor at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), urged participants to look beyond the current development paradigm, which revolves around fossil fuel energy intensive growth; to promote the use of broader principles of sustainability assessment so the true impacts of projects may be understood, in particular regarding GHG emissions; and to incorporate climate change analysis in EIA/SEA to inform decision-making about large infrastructure projects. Mr. Torrie opened this session with his keynote address on The Human Responses to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture. Mr. Steven Hazell, Consultant and ex-President of the Sierra Club of Canada, focused on the application of EIA in Canada to date and its impacts on reducing GHG emissions; he argued for a broad application of sustainability assessment, particularly when dealing with energy projects. He spoke about the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to the Kearl Oil Sands Project and the McKenzie Valley Gas Pipeline Project. More specifically, he discussed the challenge in bringing climate change into consideration for such projects. Despite their large size, Mr. Hazell noted, the panel reviewing the pipeline concluded that no one project, even one that would result in an increase of emissions equivalent to about 0.5 percent of Canadian GHG emissions or 800,000 cars, was significant enough to be called into question based on climate change considerations. Mr. Hazell discussed some of the issues that he thought should be included in a sustainability assessment – end-use of the gas (whether it would displace coal) and the potential for carbon offsets. He also made reference to an ongoing process for an assessment of the proposed Joslyn North Oil Sands Mine project in northern Alberta, which he believes may be more successful in reviewing a wider range of climate change considerations and alternatives. He concluded by recommending that there be a move away from narrow approaches that only identify adverse effects, consider their significance and prepare mitigation measures; and that sustainability assessment be incorporated into law in Canada. Mr. Ralph Silver, President of Technik Eaucan, Inc., discussed Hydro Quebec’s evaluation of the implications of climate change for its operations as a large, almost entirely hydro-based, utility (97 percent). He presented the results of the recently completed evaluation carried out by the utility to investigate the impacts of climate change on the hydrological regime of Québec’s developed watersheds and the productivity of the utility. In order to reduce uncertainty about the future climate, the evaluation considered 90 hydrological scenarios (see Figure 5). The presentation revealed the benefits from long hydrological series, which provide a good empirical basis for evaluating the impact of a wide range of climate conditions on the operation of the system. A three-year dry period from 1960-63 was important in testing the implications of a shortfall in precipitation. Figure 5: Uncertainty and Hydrological Scenarios
Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 24 Mr. Silver noted that the company is conscious of the need to consider climate change, and in the last 10 years jointly with the Quebec Government and Environment Canada has established Ouranos, a private non-profit organization with the objective of helping society adapt to increasing climate change, and devoted substantial resources to hydrological modeling and analysis, including mathematical experimentation to assess the impacts of structural (including changes in physical configuration), and non-structural adaptation measures (including pricing incentives to shift or reduce electricity demand) (see Figure 6). These learning processes are expected to increase over time. The experimentation prior to adaptation has shown that by varying operating rules, it is possible to turn a production shortfall (0 to 14 percent) into a surplus (1 to 15 percent). He concluded by listing the five basic requirements for adaptation: (i) long-term vision; (ii) long-term monitoring and documentation; (iii) modeling; (iv) organizational structures that value learning; and (v) risk acceptance. Ms. Richenda Connell, Chief Technical Officer at and Co-founder of Acclimatise, reflected upon two questions: first, how useful is EIA/ESIA as a tool for integrating adaptation into project-level decision- making by the private sector; and second, how can salient project-level decisions be made in the face of climate change uncertainty. Although Ms. Connell’s talk focused predominantly on the private sector, she noted that the private sector functions within the context provided by the government and project funders. Both actors have an important role to play in promoting adaptation. In answering the first question, Ms. Connell made use of a diagram to show the different processes and analyses that are undertaken during the lifecycle of expensive long-life assets and noted that EIA/ESIA is only one of them. She also showed that at each stage of the business operation, there are decisions being made based on the processes and analysis undertaken, and in the corporate world, they are unwilling to revisit them once the decision has been made, given the enormous costs and consequences this would entail. While EIA/ESIA is a useful tool for integrated thinking on adaptation, it is not enough. There are other tools and analysis where adaptation needs to be integrated (see Figure 7). Ms. Connell discussed several illustrative examples, including a brewery in the Caucasus being financed by EBRD and a palm oil processor in Ghana financed by IFC. She noted that there are sometimes positive as well as negative implications of climate change, pointing to the potential increase in demand for beer as a benefit to the brewery. In contrast, the processing of palm oil would suffer efficiency losses if temperature exceeded a design limit specific to the plant. She mentioned the BG Group as a good example of a company that has mainstreamed adaptation. In answering the second question, Ms. Connell Figure 6: Learning Process for Adaptation
25 noted that sometimes there is a strong focus on the uncertainties of climate change, making people feel they cannot make decisions because of it. Through some pilot projects, Ms. Connell noted, it has been found that an extremely useful first step is to identify climatic sensitivities and critical climate thresholds for aspects of business performance. She recommended starting from a personal viewpoint of what matters – what affects us – rather than starting from climate science (see Figure 8). Using an analysis performed in Pakistan, she showed that the choice of the impact assessment model (in this particular case for groundwater recharge) makes a difference in terms of the view of the outcome, so the weight given to the choice of impact model should be equal to that given to climate uncertainty. Finally, when making decisions in the face of uncertainties, she highlighted the importance of participatory approaches as part of the analytical process. General Discussion. During the general discussion session, numerous practical questions were raised, which are summarized below. A participant inquired about the cost of doing climate assessments. Ms. Connell suggested from her experience that they raise the costs of an assessment by 10 to 15 percent. Figure 7: Process and Analysis during the Lifecycle of Long-Life Assets Figure 8: Climate Sensitivity and Thresholds
Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 26 Another participant inquired about the uncertainty regarding future precipitation. The challenge of the conflict among model results for precipitation in many parts of the world was recognized by the panel. Hydro Quebec may differ in this respect as modeling results for its region are more consistent. Another discussion focused on whether clients actually use the information from climate studies. One of the participants indicated that an OECD study (which was discussed in another session) found that the conclusions on climate change in environmental assessments are often ignored. Ms. Connell indicated that from her experience, clients would generally choose to accept a decline in performance when dealing with choices about an existing facility or equipment, but were not willing to make design changes in the context of decisions about new investments. A specific question was asked regarding the applicability of the Hydro Quebec analytical approach to utilities with a low water regime. Mr. Silver answered that it was applicable.
Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 27 Multilateral Development Banks: Emerging Standards and New Guidance for EIA Representatives from six MDBs participated in this session moderated by Ms. Elizabeth Brito, Lead Environmental Specialist at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and spoke about their ongoing initiatives to adapt their existing strategies and due diligence procedures to incorporate the potential effects of climate change. The key highlights of the session were that all MDBs have a role to play, not only in terms of climate change policy but also in providing finance to address climate change impacts, that climate change initiatives will require environmental assessment policy updates across the board, that outputs from adaptation strategies are uncertain and thus require monitoring, that harmonization among MDBs so that each learns from and uses the experiences of others is needed, and that the time has come to move away from generalities and focus on the specifics of what to do to address climate change issues. Mr. Alan Miller, Principal Climate Change Specialist at the IFC, laid the foundations for the discussion with special attention to the linkages between climatic events, and financial and development concerns. Over the past decade extreme weather events have become more prevalent, particularly with respect to flooding, drought and coastal events. What were once risks occurring once every 100 years on average may now move toward once every 10 years (see Figure 9). Maps showing the frequency of economic losses due to natural disasters indicate an increasing number of countries in the extreme risk category (see Figure 10). Figure 9: Climate Events - A Financial and Development Concern
Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 28 Figure 10: Natural Disasters Economic Losses Index 2010 - High Frequency Mr. Miller pointed out that what is most characteristic of climate change events is their uncertainly. Also there is a tendency among the MDBs to look at climate risks that impact projects by looking at the past. Much greater emphasis should be given to climate change’s impact on human needs. New tools for financial and environmental assessment will be required to link direct and indirect financial performance to expected climate change impacts (see Figure 11). Available tools to enable better assessment of climate impacts on financial investments include: (i) downscaling models; (ii) increasing focus on shorter time-frames; (iii) making sense of conflicting model results; (iv) understanding linkages between climate impacts and financial consequences; (v) reducing vulnerabilities, and (vi) increasing adaptive capacity. Mr. Miller indicated that IFC is currently undertaking key studies of climate risks in portfolio investments. The scale of these studies is significant, covering climate, geographical, institutional, social, and financial issues. IFC has acknowledged that climate risk management by IFIs will need to consider and review new procedures for: (i) project performance standards; (ii) risk assessment/management; (iii) insurance requirements and products; (iv) advisory services; and (v) public/private adaptation projects. He concluded his remarks by saying that a key point in reducing financial uncertainty in the light of climate impacts is sharing of information and experiences among the MDBs. Figure 11: Climate Links to Financial Performance
29 Ms. Eva Maria Mayerhofer, Lead Environmental Specialist at the European Investment Bank (EIB), noted that the EIB mainly focused on private sector investments, like IFC, and that the direction and new tools outlined in the prior presentation were useful. She pointed out that for the most part, policies and procedures for environmental assessment of climate impacts are linked to the European Union’s climate change policies. She indicated as an example that all EIB projects are required to include an energy efficiency component if possible. She also emphasized that project preparation teams are encouraged to identify post project adaptation measures, which usually entail climate relevant modifications. Ms. Mayerhofer commented further that project evaluations are required to include a cost for carbon and that such evaluations include assessments of potential impacts on renewable energy and biodiversity, as well as risks of social conflict; they also include compensation measures to address these issues. She concluded her remarks by noting that the European Commission is continually adapting and changing its climate change policies, requiring the EIB to be especially sensitive to these changes. Mr. Fernando Loayza, Senior Environmental Specialist at the World Bank, called attention to the World Bank Group’s Strategic Framework for Climate Change, published in November 2008. He indicated that since that time there have been efforts to upgrade the Framework through public sector reviews, which are ongoing. He elaborated on three of the key objectives outlined in the Strategic Framework: first, to provide the tools to address changing development needs; second, to address poverty reduction in the light of climate change; and, third, to incorporate climate change considerations into all development activities. He elaborated further on a few of the actions required to achieve these objectives: (i) support for climate actions in country development strategies; (ii) adoption of climate safe technologies, including GHG reduction strategies and mitigation measures; and (iii) significant investments in capacity building at national and local levels to address future climate impacts. Mr. Loayza also indicated that the above- mentioned Framework commits the World Bank Group to update its guidance and existing tools, including EIA and SEA, to take account of climate change considerations. This update will take place in the ongoing review of the World Bank safeguards policies. He mentioned that in the meantime there have been new developments in the Bank with respect to achieving better understanding of GHG reduction projects, including the adoption of a new screening tool for coal power production; and that SEA is beginning to be adopted for country and project reviews to incorporate climate change considerations within country policies and programs. Mr. Alistair Clark, Director of the Environmental Department at the EBRD, noted that EBRD has a legacy of effectiveness in developing energy efficient projects. About 20 percent of the existing project portfolio includes projects to promote energy efficiency and GHG mitigation. This has been due largely to private sector initiatives in the Bank’s recipient countries. He added that the introduction of climate adaptation measures has been somewhat more difficult, since the role of the EBRD vis-à-vis the private sector investment is not as clearly defined. He emphasized that a major issue that will need future attention is how to take national (and global) policy issues down to the project level. Mr. Clark believed that this is much more difficult when the loan recipients are private sector entities. Mr. Vijay Joshi, Environmental Expert at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), began by remarking that most of the world’s nations most vulnerable to climate change impacts are in Asia, and that Asian economies are significant generators of GHG emissions. He further added that the climate change battle might be won or lost in Asia. He noted that the ADB’s intention to integrate climate change impacts in all of its country development activities is reflected in the Bank’s Strategy 2020. The key components of the Strategy related to climate include: (i) introduction of inclusive economic growth since climate change most directly impacts the poor; (ii) attention to regional integration since climate change can trigger/amplify tension among neighbors; and (iii) a conscious effort to scale up support for projects that address climate change. Mr. Joshi further highlighted that the ADB’s Safeguard Policies have also
Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 30 recently been updated to include climate change as a major focus in project assessment. He pointed out that much more attention has been given to the use of SEA as a tool for anticipation of mitigation and adaptation measures that might be necessary in country development strategies as well as individual projects. When referring to Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA), he indicated that it has been adopted in project preparation to address climate change impacts and vulnerabilities at the local level. He concluded his remarks by listing the ADB’s future actions to address climate change and impact assessment: (i) greater efforts to predict climate change impacts at the local level; (ii) more use of climate change models to assess vulnerabilities; and (iii) undertaking specific studies to generate climate change scenarios for vulnerable developing member countries. Ms. Janine Ferretti, Director of Environment at the IDB, called attention to the presentation of Prof. Watson, noting that IDB’s position is that there is a continuing requirement for an integrated strategy covering global climate issues, regional and country risks, and human actions. She indicated that the IDB’s Safeguard Policies focus on encouraging the reduction of GHG, and other mitigation measures, but do not provide specific benchmarks. Each project preparation team is responsible for making sure that the project is climate responsible. As a consequence, the process is always evolving. Ms. Ferretti concluded her remarks by emphasizing two of the challenges faced by IDB in incorporating climate change considerations into its projects: first, incorporating adequate GHG reduction standards without creating the perception that IDB is imposing such standards; and second, finding acceptable reference points for good technologies to address climate issues in projects in varying sectors. General Discussion. In the very brief discussion session that followed, a key point was how MDBs shift from “best practices” into (presumably standard) policies. It was noted that in exchanges among specialists at the various MDBs, climate change issues have frequently come up for discussion. Almost all of the financial institutions have, or are responsible to, regional or national policies regarding climate change issues. In other words, policies are set. The objective then is to achieve flexibility in the incorporation of climate adaptation and mitigation tools in the projects and financial loans under preparation. Learning best practices from one another based on field experiences is one of the more useful tools. National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – North America In this session chaired by Mr. Michael Gerrard, distinguished speakers from Canada, Mexico and the United States provided insights on how the three countries are addressing the inclusion of the climate change component into their national impact assessment procedures. In the case of the US, in the absence of clear guidance, most of the evaluations of GHG emission considerations under NEPA are driven by litigation and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). While attention traditionally has been paid to mitigation, sectoral federal policies are increasing their focus on adaptation. In the case of Canada, although general guidance was issued in 2003 on how to incorporate climate change considerations into environmental assessment, it is not clear how extensively the guidance has been followed. It is hoped that the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy released in 2010, which requires a Federal SEA review process, will contribute to the impacts of the broad suite of available tools to combat climate change and address adaptation to climate change impacts. Finally, in the case of Mexico, several programs
31 for legislation on climate change are actively being considered, and climate change is starting to be evaluated as part of the EIA process. Mr. Michael Smith, Senior Manager with ICF International provided an overview of the current state of affairs in the US in terms of climate change integration into the NEPA. At present there are no formal regulations on climate change and a major ongoing debate is whether the NEPA statute needs to change to cover climate change. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) has not issued any regulation with specific mention of climate change. He noted that there are two mentions in current regulations that require agencies to discuss energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternative and mitigation measures and to carry out assessments of cumulative impacts. Both are widely ignored, he stressed. Guidance documents have been issued but they do not carry the force of law. There is a rapid increase in activity regarding climate change litigation in the US, and the courts often order revisions of analysis, but in no case have they been thrown out. Mr. Smith made reference to the most famous NEPA climate change case – the 2007 case of the Center for Biological Diversity versus the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, where the plaintiffs alleged that the agency ignored climate change impacts in its NEPA analysis for setting new national gas- mileage standards for sport utility vehicles and light-duty trucks. He explained that although the agency carried out a GHG emissions and cumulative impacts assessment, the court indicated that more needed to be done to assess what would happen once the emissions were in the air. Another important NEPA case commented on by Mr. Smith was the Massachusetts et al versus the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He indicated that in this particular case, the court ruled that GHG are pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act and declared that the US EPA was in violation of the act for not considering the regulation. While most of the cases have been on the impacts on climate change, over time we will see cases where the impacts of climate change on projects and on the resources the projects affect will be challenged, Mr. Smith stated (see Figure 12). Although there have been efforts to create guidance documents and regulations for NEPA (e.g., the 1997 internal draft CEQ Guidance Document regarding considerations of global climate change in environmental documents prepared pursuant to the NEPA), Mr. Smith noted that they were never circulated to the public. He commented that there was a formal legal petition submitted to CEQ in 2008 requesting revision to NEPA to cover climate change and address it in all major EIAs. Draft CEQ guidance was released on February 2010 regarding GHG and climate change, which was opened for comments. CEQ is still reviewing the comments received, Mr. Smith added. The guidance, however, is silent on land management activities. CEQ is coordinating with other agencies on climate change adaptation, and the established working group released a report on the subject in October 2010. He Figure 12: Fundamental Aspects of Climate Change Impact Analysis
Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 32 concluded by sharing several examples of integrating climate change analysis, in particular GHG emissions, into NEPA analysis. Mr. Dean Stinson O’Gorman, Acting Director of Policy Analysis at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), opened his presentation by contrasting two different perspectives: “Among the developed countries, Canada is probably farther along in terms of recognition of climate change considerations within the context of EIA;” and “… the CEAA environmental assessment process has not been used effectively by the Government of Canada in addressing at least one of its own stated environmental priorities – climate change and GHG emissions.” He indicated that the Government of Canada supports an approach to climate change that achieves real environmental and economic benefits for all Canadians; that integrates the economy to the point where it makes no sense to proceed without aligning a range of principles, policies, regulations and standards; and that commits to the 2020 target in the Copenhagen Accord to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent from the 2005 levels. He listed several key GHG reduction measures, including the announced intention to regulate coal-fired electricity generation to take effect in 2015, and regulations on renewable fuels. He mentioned that Canada is also acting on adaptation and elaborated on the broad suite of relevant ongoing programs. Mr. O’Gorman noted that the integration of climate change and environmental assessment is an important issue for Canada. He made reference to the 2003 Guidelines, which suggest the potential benefits of using the environmental assessment process as another tool to address climate change, including taking advantage of the opportunity for the EIA process to raise awareness to reduce GHG emissions; stimulate the consideration of possible adaptation measures; and assure that the public understands that climate change is a factor and is considered in the decision-making process. He also shared recent developments in the use of SEA and climate change, referring to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy released in October 2010, which in the area of climate change sets as a goal and target to reduce Canada’s total GHG emissions by 17 percent relative to 2005 by 2020; as well as the accompanying Federal Cabinet Directive, which requires an SEA of the proposed policy, plans and programs that considers impacts on the goals and targets of the Strategy. With regard to project EIA, Mr. O’Gorman referred to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act), which defines “environmental effect” as any change the project may cause in the environment and any change to the project caused by the environment. He also indicated that climate change factors are not explicitly identified in the CEA Act. He stressed the importance of understanding that under the Canadian Constitution there are 10 different provincial environmental assessment regimes. While this poses some challenges, both provincial and federal levels of government are committed to One Project – One Assessment. Mr. O’Gorman then elaborated on the 2003 Guidance for Practitioners, which is a cooperative approach prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on climate change and impact assessment that focuses on a project’s contribution to GHG emissions and the effects of climate change on projects. He indicated that so far experience with the Federal EAs and their use of the Guidelines has been mixed, and that a small number of projects explicitly relied on the Guidelines to structure their analysis of climate change. He provided two interesting examples to illustrate some of the challenges in integrating GHG emission and climate change adaptation considerations into EAs – the Sydney Tar Ponds Remediation Project and the Kearl Oil Sands Project. He shared with the audience four potential areas to consider to improve the treatment of climate change in EIA: (i) improving and promoting the use of the guidelines, including guidance on methodologies and analysis tools; (ii) determination of significance; (iii) mitigation versus adaptation – what is the right policy mechanism?; and (iv) legislative/regulatory changes.
33 Mr. O’Gorman concluded by saying that the Government of Canada is acting to combat climate change, that the Federal EA can and does play a role in that process, and the some positive steps have been taken, and some progress has been demonstrated in both SEA and project EA, but that more remains to be done. Mr. Luis Vera, President of Vera and Carvajal Law firm, elaborated on the steps and progress made in the promulgation of climate change-related legislation in Mexico. He started by highlighting the several actions that Mexico has taken to comply with its obligations under the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Framework Convention since 1996. He mentioned several climate change studies that have been performed so far, and reflected on the vulnerability of the water sector and the economics of climate change. He also elaborated on the various programs being undertaken to address GHG emissions. Mexico was working on climate change legislation for over a year, and although a draft general law on climate change was elaborated by the Senate, it was not approved by the House. Mr. Vera discussed the constraints faced in incorporating climate change in the EIA process in Mexico, focusing on two areas: (i) legislative interpretation of “official scientific knowledge,” which precludes the use of state of the art information and technology; and (ii) the limited integration of public participation within the EIA process. In this regard, he presented the results of two pilot studies undertaken to demonstrate that it is possible to incorporate climate change considerations in the EIA process working with the current legal framework. He then spoke about the ongoing efforts to develop EIA guidelines on how to integrate participation. Mr. Vera concluded by saying that EIA guidelines in Mexico need to be updated to incorporate social input, that new knowledge and technology must be used as soon as practicable and that good and proactive governance is needed. General Discussion. During the general discussion session, the following points were raised: A question was posed on whether Canada will back off from the cap and trade program supported under the Western Climate Initiative or will continue to move forward. The Federal Government of Canada is not formally involved in the Western Climate Initiative. While no Province has said yet that it is backing off from the initiative, there is currently ongoing consultation among the Provinces regarding the cap and trade program. Another question was posed on the role of the several Mexican states that have observer status in the Western Climate Initiative. While the six Mexican states that are part of the initiative are seeking a more active role, clarification is needed on the specific actions they can undertake at the level of the state. Another question related to the openness of the Mexican government to the adoption of a participatory approach to develop solutions. It was indicated that the Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources is open to the development of new guidelines and is currently working in that direction. It was also indicated that some agencies are sympathetic to the idea of doing more than what the current EIA law requires. It was suggested that in order to deal with the problem of projects too small to individually cause significant impacts on climate change, countries should adopt a regional EIA, particularly when dealing with tar sands projects. Some work has been done on analyzing the value-added of regional EIA or SEA in contributing to addressing climate change and cumulative impacts. At present, there is interesting work being done in Canada in looking at regional and land use planning, and results are expected soon. While cumulative assessment is part of the Canadian Act, there is a question as to how well it is being done. Overall, Canada is looking at tools that can help address climate change considerations, including regional SEA.
Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 34 A final question was posed on the effects of EIA on the final decision regarding fuel standards for standard utility vehicles and light trucks. First, it was noted that there is much debate among the impact assessment community on whether NEPA has requirements on cumulative impact assessment. Second, there is the issue of significant effect and the importance of scale in terms of CO2 concentrations. Third, awareness was raised on the different implications on climate change of the various alternatives identified. Fourth, the EIA provided sufficient ammunition to the NGOs to challenge the agency’s choice of alternatives. In short, for most projects, the EIA probably will not have much bearing yet on the decision-making process, but by doing the analysis, it can demonstrate the important effects of climate change on actions. National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – Beyond North America In this session chaired by Mr. Ronald Hoffer, Environment and Water Advisor at the World Bank, distinguished speakers from the Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) and the OECD reflected on the opportunities and challenges for incorporating climate change considerations into EIA/SEA and sectoral policies. Mr. Shardul Agrawala, Senior Economist at the OECD Environment Directorate, while sharing the good news that several national and sub-national governments and development agencies have made progress in employing EIA as a vehicle to enhance resilience of projects to the impacts of climate change, noted that much of the progress has been at the level of intentions rather than actual implementation. Systematic consideration of climate change requires the availability of specific scenarios of climate change that are accepted by stakeholders, which so far are only available for a handful of countries. Lack of country- specific climate change scenarios, however, should not be a deterrent to incorporating adaptation and mitigation considerations into programs and projects. There are simple rules of thumb and tools available to the impact assessment community to engage in dialogue and help influence decisions. Mr. Shardul Agrawala started the session by providing an overview of the stocktaking done by OECD on the degree of attention paid in different jurisdictions to the need to incorporate climate change risks and adaptation in EIA procedures. He emphasized that the EIA can certainly be an efficient tool to climate-proof1 projects, because it is already a well-established decision-making tool in various countries and bilateral agencies. Rather than having a separate tool, he said, it is logical to broaden the scope of EIA to incorporate climate change risks. He described a recently developed quick screening tool that shows the several entry points during the EIA cycle where the climate change information, risks and adaptation measures can be incorporated (see Figure 13). 1 During the general discussion it was clarified that climate-proofing is the wrong term to use – a more appropriate usage would be improving climate resilience.
35 Figure 13: Quick Screening Tool to Incorporate Climate Change Considerations into the EIA
Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 36 Mr. Agrawala also shared the findings of a recent stocktaking carried out by the OECD on the progress made in terms of incorporating climate change into the EIA. He noted that the degree of progress varies across jurisdiction – at the level of intention, at the level of operational guidance and the level of implementation. He also walked through one example from Australia (the Armidale Landfill) to show how climate change risks have been taken into account and what some of the challenges are. Several national and sub-national authorities, as well as development agencies, have made progress in this direction, he said. However, there is much more progress at the level of intentions than actual implementation, he added (see Figure14). In terms of actual implementation, examples can only be found in a small number of countries: Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Two additional remarks were that in several projects, the EIA only relied on historical climate data; and that climate change impact assessments have also at times been applied inconsistently. Systematic consideration of climate change requires availability of spatially specific scenarios of climate change, which may not exist at the scale on which project decisions are made in most parts of the world. He warned that any use of climate change scenarios in the EIA should take adequate account of the associated uncertainties. There may be a risk of unnecessary or even counterproductive investments altering project design if these uncertainties are not adequately considered. In his concluding remarks he stressed the concomitant need to make substantial and long-term investments in the provision of climate change information, as well as establishing good communication mechanisms between the scientific community and practitioners so that climate change information could be judiciously incorporated within EIA. Mr. Glenn Watts, Climate Change Expert with the UK Environment Agency, provided remarks on the impacts of climate change on the water sector. He commented on two contrasting and very practical areas where climate change is being included in investment decisions now – water supply and flood, and reflected on some experiences in what works and what does not. With regard to climate change in water supply, he said that in 1996 the UK Government instructed all water companies to consider climate change in their water resources planning and in 1998, the first guidance, albeit rather simplified, from the Environmental Agency was issued. In 2003, the Water Act was revised and required water companies to carry out an assessment of the carbon footprint. Technical assessments were carried out: in 1996, impacts of climate change on demand and river flows; and in 2003, further work was performed on the demand. In 2006, consistent methods to assess river flows and groundwater were established. Practitioners then had readily available tools that let them find the climate change data and apply it within the current approach to water supply demand balance. With regard to floods, he pointed out that since flood defense cannot be everywhere, in the UK the intention is to limit the expenditure on flooding – maximize the benefits of flood defense spending. There is an explicit acknowledgement that there will be flooding, he added. Figure 14: Stocktaking Findings on Incorporating Climate Change in EIA
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report
IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report

Recommandé

Module 4 power point presentation 20140520
Module 4 power point presentation 20140520Module 4 power point presentation 20140520
Module 4 power point presentation 20140520Nkosilathi Mpala
 
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...zubeditufail
 
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh Perspective
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh PerspectiveEffectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh Perspective
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh PerspectiveShahadat Hossain Shakil
 
Toxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone Pollution
Toxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone PollutionToxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone Pollution
Toxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone PollutionWorld Resources Institute (WRI)
 
UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An Introduction
UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An IntroductionUNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An Introduction
UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An Introductionzubeditufail
 
#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate Finance
#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate Finance#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate Finance
#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate FinanceWorld Resources Institute (WRI)
 
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) eAmbiente
 
The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for Action
The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for ActionThe Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for Action
The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for ActionWorld Resources Institute (WRI)
 

Recommandé

Module 4 power point presentation 20140520
Module 4 power point presentation 20140520Module 4 power point presentation 20140520
Module 4 power point presentation 20140520Nkosilathi Mpala
 
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands an...zubeditufail
 
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh Perspective
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh PerspectiveEffectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh Perspective
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Bangladesh PerspectiveShahadat Hossain Shakil
 
Toxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone Pollution
Toxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone PollutionToxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone Pollution
Toxic Air: The Challenge of Ozone PollutionWorld Resources Institute (WRI)
 
UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An Introduction
UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An IntroductionUNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An Introduction
UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - An Introductionzubeditufail
 
#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate Finance
#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate Finance#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate Finance
#GreeningGovernance - Making it Count: Accountability in Climate FinanceWorld Resources Institute (WRI)
 
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) eAmbiente
 
The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for Action
The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for ActionThe Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for Action
The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: 5 Opportunities for ActionWorld Resources Institute (WRI)
 
Eia e top1_body
Eia e top1_bodyEia e top1_body
Eia e top1_bodyJitender Kumar
 
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)ESD UNU-IAS
 
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...Shahadat Hossain Shakil
 
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And ProblemsEnvironment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problemsinventionjournals
 
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate ChangeeTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate ChangeeTransform Africa
 
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...Shahadat Hossain Shakil
 
National environmental policy, 2006
National environmental policy, 2006National environmental policy, 2006
National environmental policy, 2006SAGUPTAAMBARIN
 
Lessons for Global Warming Adaptation
Lessons for Global Warming AdaptationLessons for Global Warming Adaptation
Lessons for Global Warming AdaptationZ3P
 
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...Karim Osseiran
 
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance LevelsAdapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance LevelsPedro Fidelman
 
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18UNDP Eurasia
 
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
Climate Change Adaptation StrategyClimate Change Adaptation Strategy
Climate Change Adaptation StrategyTurlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
 
ICAO Environmental Report 2010
ICAO Environmental Report 2010ICAO Environmental Report 2010
ICAO Environmental Report 2010Vladlens Visockis
 
Environmental management
Environmental managementEnvironmental management
Environmental managementHeshan Rajapaksha
 
Environmental impact assessment (eia)
Environmental impact assessment (eia)Environmental impact assessment (eia)
Environmental impact assessment (eia)SANDEEP PATRE
 
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...Shreedeep Rayamajhi
 
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness ProgrammeUNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness ProgrammeOECD Environment
 
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...Poverty Environment Net
 
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal AuditEnvironment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal AuditKANTHARAJAN GANESAN
 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)Palash Mehar
 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdf
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdfEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdf
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdfDr. Subramanyam Revanuru
 
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptationPROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptationPROVIA
 

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)ESD UNU-IAS
 
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...Shahadat Hossain Shakil
 
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And ProblemsEnvironment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problemsinventionjournals
 
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate ChangeeTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate ChangeeTransform Africa
 
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...Shahadat Hossain Shakil
 
National environmental policy, 2006
National environmental policy, 2006National environmental policy, 2006
National environmental policy, 2006SAGUPTAAMBARIN
 
Lessons for Global Warming Adaptation
Lessons for Global Warming AdaptationLessons for Global Warming Adaptation
Lessons for Global Warming AdaptationZ3P
 
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...Karim Osseiran
 
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance LevelsAdapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance LevelsPedro Fidelman
 
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18UNDP Eurasia
 
ICAO Environmental Report 2010
ICAO Environmental Report 2010ICAO Environmental Report 2010
ICAO Environmental Report 2010Vladlens Visockis
 
Environmental impact assessment (eia)
Environmental impact assessment (eia)Environmental impact assessment (eia)
Environmental impact assessment (eia)SANDEEP PATRE
 
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...Shreedeep Rayamajhi
 
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness ProgrammeUNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness ProgrammeOECD Environment
 
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...Poverty Environment Net
 
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal AuditEnvironment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal AuditKANTHARAJAN GANESAN
 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)Palash Mehar
 

Tendances (20)

Eia e top1_body
Eia e top1_bodyEia e top1_body
Eia e top1_body
 
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
Resource efficiency - The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI)
 
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
Assessment of the Extent to which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ca...
 
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And ProblemsEnvironment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
Environment Impact Assessment: Significance, Process And Problems
 
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate ChangeeTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
eTransform Africa: ICTs and Climate Change
 
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes and International System D...
 
National environmental policy, 2006
National environmental policy, 2006National environmental policy, 2006
National environmental policy, 2006
 
Lessons for Global Warming Adaptation
Lessons for Global Warming AdaptationLessons for Global Warming Adaptation
Lessons for Global Warming Adaptation
 
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for th...
 
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance LevelsAdapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
Adapting to Climate Change at Multiple Governance Levels
 
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
Climate Change and Development - Updates from COP18
 
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
Climate Change Adaptation StrategyClimate Change Adaptation Strategy
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
 
ICAO Environmental Report 2010
ICAO Environmental Report 2010ICAO Environmental Report 2010
ICAO Environmental Report 2010
 
Environmental management
Environmental managementEnvironmental management
Environmental management
 
Environmental impact assessment (eia)
Environmental impact assessment (eia)Environmental impact assessment (eia)
Environmental impact assessment (eia)
 
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
Research paper-nepal-s-position-paper-for-the-en-negotiations-cop15-by-shreed...
 
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness ProgrammeUNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
UNEP / UNDP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme
 
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
Local Solutions for Poverty, Environment, Climate Change, and the MDGs: UNDP’...
 
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal AuditEnvironment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
Environment management Tools : EIA & Environmetal Audit
 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
 

Similaire à IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report

PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptationPROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptationPROVIA
 
Pew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental Leadership
Pew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental LeadershipPew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental Leadership
Pew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental LeadershipObama White House
 
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...MdHaque78
 
Auditing implementation of_me_as
Auditing implementation of_me_asAuditing implementation of_me_as
Auditing implementation of_me_asDr Lendy Spires
 
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basicsJanuary 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basicsCEQAplanner
 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changebhavyarkrishnan2000
 
HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK...
HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK... HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK...
HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK...Abraham Ncunge
 
EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...
EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...
EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...AbdirahmanYusufAli1
 
Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...
Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...
Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...Global Programme for Hydrogen in Industry
 
Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action
Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global ActionClimate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action
Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global ActionSustainable Brands
 
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessmentSamanth kumar
 
Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...
Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...
Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...Iwl Pcu
 
2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot
2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot
2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlotOECD Environment
 
Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...
Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...
Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...OECD Environment
 
BasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdf
BasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdfBasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdf
BasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdfTausifAhmad53
 

Similaire à IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report (20)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdf
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdfEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdf
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).pdf
 
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptationPROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
PROVIA-led research prioritization for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation
 
Pew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental Leadership
Pew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental LeadershipPew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental Leadership
Pew Center on Global Climate Change- Business Environmental Leadership
 
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
Environmental impact assessment and importance of effective application in ba...
 
Auditing implementation of_me_as
Auditing implementation of_me_asAuditing implementation of_me_as
Auditing implementation of_me_as
 
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basicsJanuary 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
January 8th esp 179 lecture- class intro and eia basics
 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
 
ipcc_wg3_booklet
ipcc_wg3_bookletipcc_wg3_booklet
ipcc_wg3_booklet
 
HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK...
HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK... HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK...
HOW PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND STAK...
 
EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...
EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...
EIA-GeES 3112 Chapter 1.ppt Basic Concept of Environmental Impact Assessment...
 
Climate Change
Climate ChangeClimate Change
Climate Change
 
Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...
Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...
Function to Impact: Chemical Leasing -a performance-based business model for ...
 
UNEP
UNEPUNEP
UNEP
 
Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action
Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global ActionClimate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action
Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action
 
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessment
 
Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...
Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...
Global foundations for reducing nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion from...
 
EIA presentation.pptx
EIA presentation.pptxEIA presentation.pptx
EIA presentation.pptx
 
2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot
2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot
2014 cop20-ccxg-adaptation-side-event-m. mullan and j. corfee-morlot
 
Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...
Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...
Item 6. Triggering positive tipping points to deal with risks of crossing cli...
 
BasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdf
BasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdfBasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdf
BasConcept of Eic nvironmental Impact Assessment-pages-2-13,18-65.pdf
 

IAIA Climate Change Special Symposium report

  • 1. SYMPOSIUM REPORT Climate Change and Impact Assessment Special Symposium Washington, D.C. • November 15-16, 2010
  • 2. IN MEMORY This report is published in memory of Gene Owens, who contributed significantly to the success of the Symposium and the production of this report. Gene was an active member of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), and served as Co-Chair of IAIA’s Washington Area Branch since 2008. Throughout his long career in international development and environmental economics and management, he was a strong proponent of improving awareness of the value of environmental assessment -- and building the capacity of organizations worldwide to do it well. We remember and appreciate his professional contributions and his persistent joy in working with all of us in IAIA.
  • 3. International Association for Impact Assessment SYMPOSIUM REPORT Climate Change and Impact Assessment Special Symposium Washington, D.C. • November 15-16, 2010
  • 4.
  • 5. Table of Contents 1 Abbreviations and Acronyms 2 Introduction 4 Summary of Key Themes 5 Daily Agenda 8 Keynote Addresses 10 Risk in the Context of Climate Change 10 The Human Response to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture 16 Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 17 Part 1: Aalborg in Brief - Report on the October Meeting 17 Part 2: Panel on Climate Change and Impact Assessment 19 Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 23 Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 27 Multilateral Development Banks: Emerging Standards and New Guidance for EIA 27 National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – North America 30 National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – Beyond North America 34 Bilateral Donors: New Guidance for EIA 41 Track B – Applying Impact Assessment to Private and Public Decision-Making 46 OECD DAC Panel on SEA and Climate Change 46 Insuring Against Climate Change 51 EIA as an Input to Climate Change Adaptation Planning 53 Special Topics in EIA and Climate Change Decision-Making 56 Track C – EIA Practice: Assessing Risk and Vulnerability to Climate Change 59 Tools, Methods and Information Resources 59 Disaster Management, Rapid Environmental Assessment Response and Climate Change 66 SEA and Cumulative Impacts: Case Studies 68 Summary and Recommendations to IAIA 71 Symposium Keynote Speakers 73 Symposium Chairs, Panelists and Speakers 75 Symposium Committee and Contributors 88 Symposium Host, Sponsors and Supporters 89
  • 6. Abbreviations and Acronyms 2 °C Degree Celsius ADB Asian Development Bank ARIA Rapid Institutional Analysis for Adaptation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCPL Climate Change Program Loan CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEA Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEA Country Environmental Analysis CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CIAM Capacity for Impact Assessment and Management CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network CO2 Carbon Dioxide CP4D Climate Proofing for Development CPWC Co-operative Programme on Water and Climate DAC Development Assistance Committee DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DFID Department of International Development DOT Department of Transportation EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank ELCI Environmental Liaison Centre International EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPOC Environment Policy Committee ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Ex-Im Bank Export-Import Bank GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GTZ German Development Corporation IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IBHS Institute of Building and Home Safety IDB Inter-American Development Bank IEG Independent Evaluation Group IEMA Institute for Environment Management and Assessment IFC International Finance Corporation IFI International Financial Institution IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
  • 7. ? 3 INECE International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement InVEST Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency km Kilometer kWh Kilo-Watt Hour m3 /sec Meter cubic per second mm Millimeter MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MDB Multilateral Development Bank MW Mega Watts NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NC Nature Conservancy NCEA Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC Natural Environment Research Council NGO Nongovernmental Organization NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NPSSI National Program of Small Scale Irrigation NWT North West Territory OECD Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development OPCQC Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy ppm Parts per million PPP Policies, Plans and Programs PPPP Policies, Plans, Program and Projects REA Rapid Environmental Assessment SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UEA University of East Anglia UK United Kingdom UKCIP United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development VINTE Viviendas Integrales WAB Washington Area Branch WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wildlife Fund
  • 8. Introduction 4 The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) organized a 2-day Symposium on Climate Change and Impact Assessment in Washington, DC. The Symposium, held on November 15-16, 2010 and hosted by the World Bank, attracted 180 impact assessment and climate change professionals from multilateral development banks (MDBs), bilateral development institutions, as well as impact assessment and climate change practitioners from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America. The Symposium was the second event organized by IAIA that provided a forum for impact assessment practitioners and climate change professionals to share experiences and insights from their respective specialties. The first event, hosted by Aalborg University in Denmark (October 25-26, 2010), brought together 133 delegates primarily from across Europe. The purpose of the Symposium was to foster mutual collaboration between experts and professionals from two complementary communities – climate change and impact assessment. Additionally, it focused on how development banks and bilateral institutions are incorporating impact assessment processes into their climate change strategies, and what impact assessment practitioners need to know to better apply their expertise to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Symposium set out to explore the following questions: What effects will climate change have on the feasibility, viability and long-term sustainability of policies, plans, programs and projects? Will climate change exacerbate the impacts of a project? To what degree does a project, program, policy or intervention promote reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? How can flexibility in responding to the impacts of climate change be assured through impact assessment? How can impact assessment apply climate change projections to site-specific projects? What tools does impact assessment offer for understanding and assessing risk and responding to climate change? This report presents a summary of the main points raised during the Symposium from keynote addresses, plenary discussions, and presentations in three concurrent sessions: emerging standards and guidance for assessment of climate change impacts; applying impact assessment to private and public decision-making; and environmental impact assessment practice – assessing risk and vulnerability to climate change. For further details, readers are invited to visit the IAIA’s Symposium website, which includes a set of key background documents, presentations and abstracts delivered by the majority of the speakers and keynoters, and YouTube videos for all sessions.
  • 9. Summary of Key Themes 5 This section provides a summary of the key themes that emerged from the Symposium’s discussions and presentations. Integration of Climate Change with Other Environmental Issues. Climate change cannot be considered in isolation from other global and regional environmental issues. In addition to being a development issue, a food security issue and an inter- and intra-generational equity issue, climate change can adversely affect the economy and the ability of governments to alleviate poverty. Thus, climate change has to be integrated with other environmental issues such as biodiversity, forestry, water, desertification, air quality and stratospheric ozone depletion. Integration of Climate Change Assessment into Impact Assessment Processes. The impact assessment community is under increasing pressure to act now and promote the use of broader principles of sustainability assessment to better understand the true impacts of policies, plans, programs and projects (PPPP) on the environment, in particular from GHG emissions; and of the environment on PPPP by incorporating climate change analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Since SEA offers a much wider view of the changes society may need to make to mitigate and adapt to climate change, SEA can play a critical role in climate change adaptation and mitigation, particularly when it brings together environmental and social issues and is carried out before project-level assessments. Further guidance is needed to incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation into EIA/SEA. Improvements to EIA/SEA to Realize Their Potential. Although the rigorous and standardized processes of EIA/SEA are able to incorporate and address climate change, some improvements can be made to allow these tools to realize their full potential in contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, namely: harmonizing the growing number of protocols for analyzing and incorporating climate change considerations into impact assessment processes; developing procedures to harmonize the climate-related data gathered as part of the EIA/SEA with information gathered via other sources; giving due consideration to the use of worst-case scenario analysis; emphasizing the use of monitoring systems, and allowing for their adaptation, including review of EIA conclusions, as mitigation commitments and adaptation programs are implemented, given the uncertainty about climate change; and giving due consideration to the impacts of climate change on water resources, water demand and water consumption. Improved Tools for Risk Assessment. When making use of climate change scenarios, impact assessment practitioners need to take adequate account of the uncertainties associated with climate change and plan for robustness through adaptive management. Practitioners should use risk management frameworks in order to understand the implications of climate change impacts and uncertainties in relation to planning, investment and operation decisions. Various alternative and well-established criteria and approaches are available for decision-making in such situations, such as minimizing maximum adverse effect, and minimizing maximum regret, among others. Adaptive management, in turn, requires building flexibility into the project regarding future changes. Improved Procedures and Tools. For the MDBs and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to play a significant role in shaping climate change policy and addressing climate change impacts, they should update their environmental assessment policies, develop new tools to enable better assessment of climate impacts on financial performance of investments, and enhance existing mechanisms to share lessons learned.
  • 10. Summary of Key Themes 6 Improved Climate Projections at Required Level of Specificity. Systematic consideration of climate change requires the availability of specific scenarios of climate change at regional and local levels that are credible and accepted by stakeholders, which to date are available only in a small number of countries. That said, lack of country-specific climate change scenarios should not be a deterrent to incorporating adaptation and mitigation considerations into programs and projects. There are simple rules of thumb and tools available to the impact assessment community to engage in dialogue and help influence decisions, such as those developed by the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) and summarized in Box 1. Private Sector Outreach on Value of SEA. While SEA has been used as a public sector tool, new ways need to be found to promote its use within the financing and private sectors as well. A significant amount of capacity building has to take place in the private sector for companies to understand the impacts of climate change – what happens to ecosystem services and the implications Box 1: Simple Approach for Incorporating Climate Change into Impact Assessment The overall approach adopted by the NCEA for incorporating climate change into impact assessment includes three phases: screening climate change risk, since climate is not always relevant; climate change risks and options assessment; and climate sensitivity analysis. For the screening phase, the NCEA has assembled a list to guide EIA practitioners to decide if mitigation is relevant to their projects, which includes industrial activities, power stations, and infrastructure projects; agricultural projects including greenhouses; housing projects; waste processing; groundwater abstraction and airports. No similar list is available to decide if adaptation is relevant. In this case, it is necessary to look at the following aspects: what local climate change is expected, what is the vulnerability of the area, what is the vulnerability of the project, and how the short-term costs to adapt compare to the long-term damage caused by climate change. If there is a big difference between the two, then adaptation is important. For the climate change risks and options assessment, a distinction is made between mitigation and adaptation. When mitigation is considered important, the impact assessment practitioner needs to follow these three steps: first, describe the expected GHG emission level and the measures included to reduce it; second, describe the options to improve energy efficiency in the project; and third, describe (and quantify) how the project contributes to national mitigation goals. When adaptation is important, the steps to follow include: first, try to make the project more resistant – to withstand extreme circumstances; second, try to make the project more resilient – to recover quickly once extreme circumstances return to normal; and third, make the project more adaptable and flexible when the extent and speed of climate change is uncertain. For the climate sensitivity analysis phase, the impact assessment practitioner needs to consider different climate scenarios and whether the project can survive under such scenarios. Once this is done, measures that are good ideas in any of these scenarios – “no regrets” need to be identified; and finally, impact assessment practitioners need to define back-up measures – what to do in the worst case.
  • 11. 7 for their business and surrounding communities – so they become more receptive to the value of and need for SEA. Improved Public Access to Climate Information. In many countries there is not much information on the climatology of the region and often where it does exist it is not available to a wide range of stakeholders. Substantial and long-term investments are needed to provide climate-related information and establish mechanisms to make that information accessible to the public. Climate- related information needs to be posted online in a searchable way, linked with geographic information systems (GIS). Integrating Climate Change Considerations into the Life-Cycle of Infrastructure Investments. Presenting technical opinions on future climate impacts in formats that are familiar and accessible to decision-makers has a great potential to influence the EIA processes for adapting the life-cycle of infrastructure investments interest to address climate change. Improved Communication. Effective communication mechanisms between the scientific community and impact assessment practitioners need to be put in place so that climate change information can be judiciously incorporated into EIA/SEA. Similarly, continuous communication between impact assessment practitioners, sector experts, social experts and climate experts is needed so that relevant information can be incorporated into their respective sectors.
  • 12. Daily Agenda 8 9:00 Opening and Keynote Address Organizers’ Welcome with Remarks and Housekeeping Host’s Welcome and Introduction of Keynote Speaker Keynote Address: Risks in the Context of Climate Change 10:15 Coffee Break 11:00 Plenary I - Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? Part 1: Aalborg in Brief – Videolink Report on the October Meeting Part 2: Panel on Climate Change and Impact Assessment 13:00 Lunch 14:00 Concurrent Sessions I (A) Multilateral Development Banks: Emerging Standards and New Guidance for EIA Strategic Implications of Climate Change for Institutional Investors European Investment Bank World Bank European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Asian Development Bank Inter-American Development Bank (B) OECD DAC Panel on Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change Climate Change and Adaptation Mainstreaming The Aalborg Lessons: Available Guidance and Practice in Using SEA for Climate Issues in Developing Countries Climate Change Policy Making and SEA in Indonesia Adaptation Tools in an SEA in Mali SEA, Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change in Malawi (C) Tools, Methods and Information Resources (Part 1) Addressing Climate Change Uncertainties in Project EIA Climate Change and Ecosystem Services Geographic Information Systems World Bank Group Climate Change Portal Lessons from and for Evaluation 15:15 Coffee Break 15:45 Concurrent Sessions II (A) National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – North America US Climate Change and National Environmental Policy Act Canada Climate Change and Environmental Assessment Proposed Climate Change Law in Mexico (B) Insuring Against Climate Change (C) Tools, Methods and Information Resources (Part 2) EIA of Coal-Fired Power Plants EIA of Low-Income Housing Sector in Mexico Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans and Projects Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Mega-Cities 17:15 First Day’s Summary and Review 18:00 Reception Monday 15th November
  • 13. 9 8:30 Announcements 8:45 Plenary II: EIA, Climate Change and the Private Sector Keynote Address: The Human Response to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture Hydro-Québec’s Experience in Adapting to Climate Change MacKenzie Valley Gas Pipeline - Sustainability Assessment Climate Change Adaptation Decisions in the Private Sector – The Role of EIA 10:15 Coffee Break 10:45 Concurrent Sessions III (A) National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – Beyond North America Incorporating Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in EIA: Opportunities and Challenges (B) EIA as an Input to Climate Change Adaptation Planning National Policy Frameworks on Adaptation: A Survey Participatory Climate Vulnerability Assessment Practical Measures for Adapting Infrastructure to Climate Impacts A Review of the Use of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Measures in EIA in Western Australia (C) Disaster Management, Rapid Environmental Assessment Response and Climate Change Impact of Climate Variability and Change on Vulnerable Populations World Wildlife Fund Experience in Disaster Management and Climate Change 12:15 Lunch 13:15 Concurrent Sessions IV (A) Bilateral Donors: New Guidance for EIAs Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Greenhouse Gas Policy United States Export-Import Bank: New Requirements for High Carbon Intensity Projects Millennium Challenge Corporation: Challenges and Opportunities (B) Special Topics in EIA and Climate Change Decision-Making Health Impact Assessment in Climate Change Decision-Making Assessing Displacement/ Resettlement Due to Climate Change Adaptation Projects Biodiversity Assessment and Climate Change (C) SEA and Cumulative Impacts: Case Studies Cumulative Impact Assessment SEA Approaches in the Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change Program: Case of the State of Michoacán, Mexico Climate Change and Country Environmental Analysis: Case of Indonesia An Innovative Approach to Preparing a Sub-National Climate Change Action Plan: Case of Orissa State, India 14:45 Coffee Break 15:15 Second Day’s Summary and Review 16:30 Discussion and Next Steps 18:00 Symposium Ends Tuesday 16th November
  • 14. Keynote Addresses 10 Risk in the Context of Climate Change In the opening Keynote Address, Prof. Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor at the United Kingdom (UK) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Strategic Director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) made it clear that climate change cannot be considered in isolation from other global and regional environmental issues, that the impacts of climate change are predominantly negative and primarily affect developing countries and poor people, that human-induced climate change should be viewed as a risk management issue, and that there is an urgency to act now. In his introductory remarks, Prof. Watson made one central point: climate change cannot be seen as an environmental issue alone. He indicated that climate change is also a development issue and a food security issue as it adversely affects the economy and the ability to alleviate poverty, and can affect security from the personal to the regional levels. He added that climate change is also an inter-and intra- generational equity issue and that we cannot think of climate change in isolation from other environmental issues such as biodiversity, forestry, water, desertification, air quality and stratospheric ozone depletion. He contended that unless we can get the international conventions to work in an integrated fashion, we will find solutions that could be potentially good for climate change but bad for biodiversity or land degradation. He emphasized the need to understand the inter-linkages in a scientific manner but also to understand the policy inter-linkages among all the various issues. Within this context, Prof. Watson stressed the importance of looking at the risks posed by climate change. He said that risks are difficult to compare because of their diverse and dispersed nature, data inequality and scarcity, subjectivity and values, and uncertainty, among other factors. When we look at the risks of climate change, he argued, we need to look at the social, economic and environmental implications and their absolute and relative impacts as well as how climate change is affecting various issues from several perspectives. He provided a very interesting framework on how to look at risks in terms of the social, economic and environmental implications (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Strategic Risk Appraisal Framework
  • 15. 11 With regard to current knowledge of the climate system, Prof. Watson explained that the fundamental point is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere by increasing GHG emissions. He noted that over the last 100 years we have seen increases in temperature, changing precipitation patterns (spatially and temporally), many more heavy precipitation events and far fewer light precipitation events, more floods and droughts, and more extreme events (more categories 4 and 5 and fewer categories 1, 2 and 3). He stated that one can say with a 95 percent confidence level that most of the observed changes in the past 50-60 years are due to human activities. Prof. Watson then elaborated on likely future climate scenarios and noted that they will depend on various factors including human behavior. He showed that the 10 theoretical global models of surface temperature do not project a uniform warming of the earth. For the low and medium emission scenarios, he said, the high latitudes will warm more than the tropics. He noted, however, that for the period 2020-2029, all models look identical, and therefore, what is going to happen before 2030 is irrelevant in terms of the GHG emission scenario (see Figure 2). He underscored the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report finding that we cannot affect the earth’s climate for the next three decades. With regard to precipitation, he noted that it is more difficult to predict – while the models show that it is driest in the subtropics of both hemispheres, much more variability is observed elsewhere. Figure 2: Projected Temperature Changes in the 21st Century In reviewing the impacts of climate change, Prof. Watson stressed that any warming in the tropics and subtropics will be accompanied by decreased agricultural activity. In the temperate regions, he said, we will observe increased agricultural activity for the next 1-2 decades. This will pose a big problem for food security. He also noted that we will observe a decrease in water availability and water quality in arid and semi-arid areas and increased flooding in almost all regions. He emphasized that we could lose key
  • 16. Keynote Addresses 12 ecosystem services that are critical for human well-being and the economy. Adverse effects to human health and human settlements caused by flooding and coastal erosion, he said, will pose a huge challenge to human security. Climate change, Prof. Watson stressed, should not be looked at in isolation from other drivers but in the context of all other pressures on food, water and biodiversity. To illustrate this point, he referred to food and water security. In terms of food security, he said, we have not been successful. He noted that the problem of undernourished people has nothing to do with food production but with the institutional and policy environment for rural development in developing countries. This, he noted, is leading to significant environmental degradation, increased GHG (about 15 percent of GHG comes from the agriculture sector, about 15 percent from forestry and 70 percent from the way we produce and use energy). He also noted that we are losing biodiversity due to agricultural practices. The challenge lies in the fact that the demand for food will almost double by 25-50 years, thus, there is a need to increase the nutritional value of the food that is produced. Water security, Prof. Watson said, is linked to water scarcity, which is growing. By 2025, he noted, more than half of the world’s population is projected to live under conditions of severe water stress. Human- induced climate change is projected to decrease water quality and availability in many arid and semi-arid regions and to increase the threats posed by floods and droughts in most parts of the world. He emphasized that water stress will increase independent of climate change (see Figure 3). Figure 3: Water Stress Will Increase Independent of Climate Change Prof. Watson then referred to biodiversity, which is a major issue as well. In the millennium ecosystem assessment, he said, a series of ecosystems was examined and the impacts of five of the major drivers including habitat change, climate change, over-exploitation, pollution, and invasive species were
  • 17. 13 evaluated. He noted that for most of the ecosystems, climate change was a moderately important driver. In future, however, it will be an important driver of change in almost every ecosystem – climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems are unavoidable. He emphasized that biodiversity has a huge amount of market and non-market economic value. While biodiversity and climate change are inextricably linked, he noted, there are no linkages between the respective international conventions. In undertaking an EIA, Prof. Watson recommended that one ask the following questions: what happens to the genetic species at the ecosystem level? how does it affect the ecosystem services? what are the implications for human well-being, recognizing that some issues have market value and others do not? He cautioned that one needs to be very careful not to double count. Prof. Watson also stressed that climate change is an inter- and intra-generational equity issue – climate change can adversely affect developing countries and poor people in those countries as well as future generations. He acknowledged that at the moment there is no definitive answer to the question of whether climate change will spread conflict and cause migration. He noted, however, that climate change may possibly displace people – climate change coupled with other stresses could result in regional conflict and migration depending on the social, economic and political circumstances. In undertaking an EIA, he recommended that one think about the larger portfolio of issues associated with this rather than trying to do any quantitative evaluation of migration and/or regional conflict. Definition of risks, Prof. Watson said, should be informed by scientific knowledge. He argued that in Copenhagen, we should have tried to limit climate change from 2 degrees Celsius (°C) to 3°C; the higher the temperatures, the greater the negative effects of climate change. Right now, he noted, there are limited hopes to stabilize it at 2°C above pre-industrial levels – it is more likely the world will experience an increase of 3–4°C, since we are on our way to global GHG emission concentrations of 550-650 parts per million (ppm) (see Figure 4). His recommendation when doing an EIA is to look at the impacts of 2°C, but also at the impacts of a global increase of 3– 4°C and apply probability. Mitigating climate change, Prof. Watson said, will require technological transformation, putting a price on carbon and mobilizing behavioral change. He cited among the potential technological options the efficient production and use of energy, a fuel shift – coal to gas, renewable energy and fuels, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage, and nuclear. He noted that potential technological options will also have to be placed in the right policy and behavior frameworks. He stressed the need to protect forests and peat lands. He said we need to sustainably manage our forests and wetlands, adopt more sustainable agricultural practices and restore degraded wetlands. When referring to the price of carbon needed to stimulate adoption of mitigation measures, he suggested looking at various sectors and different prices. Countries are employing risk assessment methodologies to define climate projections, and Prof. Watson explained the approach being used in the UK. He stressed that one cannot think of climate singularly. In the UK, he said, 3 emission scenarios are considered – low, medium and high. He added that the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model has been run 400 times changing 1-2 parameters at a time to account for uncertainties in key processes and the results are combined with other Global Circulation Model results to produce probabilistic temperature and precipitation projections at 25 kilometer (km) resolution for every decade in the 21st Century. He stressed that when dealing with climate change one has to think of probability distributions at the spatial scale.
  • 18. Keynote Addresses 14 Figure 4: What Level of Temperature Change to Consider? Prof. Watson concluded by saying that we need a legally binding long-term equity agreement to reduce the risk of climate change; we need a radical transformation in our policies, practices and technologies; we need the public and private sectors to work together; and we need advances in science and technology. He noted that cost-effective and equitable solutions exist. In his view, he said, there is no dichotomy between economic growth and reducing the threats of climate change. Not addressing the risk posed by climate change now, he said, will lead to high economic losses. In reality, he said at the end, we are short on action. General Discussion. Several points were touched on during the general discussion session, which are summarized below. What is the role of SEA in climate change adaptation and mitigation? Prof. Watson said that SEA can play a critical role, particularly when it brings together environmental and social issues. He noted, however, that the SEA needs to be carried out before one starts doing project by project assessment. How much climate change can the world take? Current climate projections have taken into account plausible changes in regional economic growth, Prof. Watson said. Projections have considered that there will be strong economic growth mostly in underdeveloped countries and a series of choices in the socio-political process and in technology have also been made. Future climate projections have to be done once again, incorporating policy choices. He noted that current climate projections have not included the rate of growth China is experiencing now, for example. According to Prof. Watson, we should not be so worried about the energy sector, since energy could be produced and used with zero emissions, but should focus on how to reduce emissions from the agriculture sector, since we need to double food production to feed the world. He advocated for a sustainable food production and consumption system
  • 19. 15 that takes into account the full life-cycle. He believes that we could have a world with a high standard of living but we have to produce and use materials in a more sensible way than we are doing today, especially in terms of the waste that currently is generated in Europe and North America. Will the findings of the next IPCC report inspire action? Prof. Watson responded that he could not pre-judge the findings of the next report, but what he could say was that the information since the last IPCC report only strengthens the case for human-induced climate change and there is nothing in the literature that would undermine the conclusions of the 4th IPPC report. Until the United States (US) starts to take this issue seriously and move forward, it will be very hard to see China, Brazil or South Africa making a radical change, Prof. Watson commented. He then noted that China is trying to do a lot – it is committed to renewable energy and energy efficiency standards in transportation, but it has a huge demand for energy to fuel its economic growth. In his view, we need a consortium of different interest groups that wants to move the climate change agenda forward. When we will see more confident climate projections? Prof. Watson noted that there are two facts that underpin a projection – uncertainty in the emission scenario and uncertainty in understanding the climate system. Climate sensitivity is still a factor of 3. In the UK to address the uncertainty, they are doing probabilistic distribution scenarios. He noted that at present there is a significant body of research on climate change, which we hope will result in more confident projections. How has population figured in the models? Prof. Watson responded that the projections assume that by 2050 there will be around 9.0-9.5 billion people and that by 2100, the population will have stabilized between 9.5 and 10 billion. He argued that while demographic trends are important, age distribution, family size, urban and rural distribution, the availability to purchase and what to purchase are also important factors. He noted that the ability to purchase and what to purchase may be a much bigger threat – particularly when the ability to purchase goes up in the poorest areas. He holds that climate change is a consumption issue rather than a demographic one.
  • 20. Keynote Addresses 16 The Human Response to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture In discussing the developments over recent years that could be considered as setbacks to the progress on climate change policy in Copenhagen, Mr. Ralph Torrie, President of Torrie Smith Associates, said they could in fact create space for reconsideration of the current development paradigm, which is based on fossil fuel energy intensive growth. He believes we cannot simply respond with the same kind of market mechanisms we employed during the oil shock of the seventies – such mechanisms are not enough to promote the kind of transformational change we need. In the keynote address to the second Plenary Session on EIA, Climate Change and the Private Sector, Mr. Torrie described the threat climate change presents to energy and land use patterns, reviewed the responses applied so far, explored the reasons they have failed and suggested scenarios for how public policy and business strategies may evolve in the decades ahead. Mr. Torrie provided a broad overview based on his experiences over many years in major environmental reviews and outlined the three most important things that have happened recently in climate change: first, the hardening of the climate sciences; second, the failure of the US to achieve a reversal in climate change policy; and third, the failure in Copenhagen to achieve a binding agreement on emission reduction. Despite this bleak outlook, Mr. Torrie noted that at the global level there is awareness of the need to reconsider frameworks and approaches to human response to climate change. His core message was that climate change represents a challenge to the longstanding model of economic growth as the key to development. The first signs of limits on growth were the oil price shocks in the 1970s. While energy productivity has been steadily improving (beginning even before the oil price shocks), climate change is among several indicators of emerging limits, calling into question whether socio-economic development can continue on the basis of “remedial approaches,” or whether adjustments to the prevailing fossil fuel production and consumption paradigm are needed. Mr. Torrie noted that the electric utility industry understands the situation and is “coming to the table” to work out solutions, only to find declining public concern and support for action even as the science becomes more conclusive on the risks of inaction. He also noted that the problem for business is the need for certainty, consistency and fairness in the rules as the basis for investments, and when seeking solutions to climate change and the challenge of sustainability. He concluded by saying that one needs to look beyond the fuel-electricity commodity marketplace and replace the remedial approaches with new transformational approaches in which sustainability is integrated into technology design, economic development and human endeavor.
  • 21. Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 17 Part 1: Aalborg in Brief – Report on the October Meeting During Part 1 of the first Plenary Session, Ms. Lone Kørnøv, Director of the Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment at Aalborg University, Mr. Martin Lehmann, Deputy Head of the Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment at Aalborg University and Mr. Rob Verheem, Deputy Director of the NCEA, spoke about the increasing pressure on the impact assessment community to act now to move forward towards impact assessment and climate change integration and to ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation aspects are factored into programs, plans and projects. Ms. Kørnøv presented the key messages from the Special Symposium on Climate Change and Impact Assessment that took place on October 25 and 26, 2010, in Aalborg, Denmark. Noting the increasing pressure on the impact assessment community to act, she observed further that there is no room for bystanders and that adapting and controlling the currently uncontrolled high emission-based economy may be a matter of sheer survival. She indicated that the purpose of the Aalborg Symposium was to bring reflective and responsive thinking into focus and to explore twelve topics: water and climate change; climate change in professional impact assessment practice; social impact assessment; landscapes and ecosystems services; urban and regional strategies for climate change; health impact assessment; scenarios and future thinking; impact assessment of climate change and infrastructure; waste management strategies; carbon calculators; climate change and development cooperation; and decision-making and governance. Ms. Kørnøv cited seven conclusions that are emerging from the field of practice: (i) no common standards exist; (ii) exploratory work is going on; (iii) different approaches are used in different sectors; (iv) a partial overview of what is happening was assembled in Aalborg; (v) impact assessment has a role to play; (vi) impact assessment represents a significant opportunity to ensure that climate change objectives are effectively factored into public plans as they are prepared; and (vii) reflective impact assessment practice is necessary and urgent. With regard to adaptation, Ms. Kørnøv indicated that it raises different questions and offers different challenges than those associated with mitigation and is currently handled differently in impact assessment practice. Adaptation requires a more holistic perspective comprising both mitigation and adaptation. She noted, however, that there are synergies and trade-offs involved and that according to Mr. Vaidotas Kuodys, Director General for Climate Action in the European Commission, climate change adaptation is a “new concept for the EIA/SEA Directive.” Ms. Kørnøv warned that some in the impact assessment community are avoiding uncertainty. Practitioners are employing strategies that ignore or postpone the handling of uncertainty. She cited Mr. Viriato Soromenho-Marques, who said that “Certainty is for kids – not mature scientists,” and made reference to Mr. Eric Berlow’s remarks, who said that “We need to zoom out and embrace complexity and pass the discomfort period.” She also noted that while there seems to be plenty of guidance on how to integrate climate change into impact assessment, planning and decision-making, at present there is limited experience with the practical application of available guidance. The character of climate change, with its long-term perspective and high uncertainty, might involve guidance other than that currently available. Ms. Kørnøv addressed the need to pay close attention to the social dimensions of climate change adaption and mitigation. She cited the remarks of Lord Nicholas Stern: “The social side of it and the way we work
  • 22. Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 18 together as communities – the way we understand things is absolutely fundamental.” She added that IAIA can play a role as a hub for communication and maintaining dialogue with climate change experts. Ms. Kørnøv concluded by recommending the following three critical steps in the way forward: (i) ensure a holistic perspective comprising mitigation and adaptation, climate change impacts and other environmental and social objectives, and synergies and trade-offs between them; (ii) acknowledge uncertainty and ensure openness and transparency; and (iii) be proactive by identifying decisions and policies significant for climate change and actively engaging relevant stakeholders. General Discussion. The highlights of the general discussion session are noted below. Are there examples of environmental assessments that integrate climate change into mitigation and adaption that were presented at the Aalborg Symposium? Ms. Kørnøv noted that one of the objectives of the Aalborg Symposium was to put forward the work that has been done to date. She added that while several case studies were presented, the challenge now is to collect all the material presented in a repository that is accessible to impact assessment practitioners. What was discussed in Denmark about the capacity building element, the communication element and how is that going to be taken forward by IAIA? Ms. Kørnøv responded that several guidance documents and tools to help people think about climate change are available. There may even be too many, she added, and we need to consider these critically. She argued for another kind of capacity building; the institutional challenge was discussed at the Aalborg Symposium but two unanswered questions remain: first, who should take leadership in integrating climate change?; and second, who will take ownership and leadership to move forward impact assessment and climate change integration? Were representatives from the political level or financial institutions present at the Aalborg Symposium? The financial community was not strongly represented, and Ms. Kørnøv drew attention to the need to engage specifically with it. She also noted that there is a critical gap that needs to be filled to link the impact assessment professional and politicians; this second group of actors was not present at the Aalborg Symposium either. There is a general belief that if political and financial leaders mandate integration of climate change into impact assessment, then there will be a wide take up of available tools. Mr. Rob Verheem in turn provided a summary of the take home messages that emerged from the session on EIA/SEA Practitioners Needs. While there are a number of cases using EIA/SEA to mainstream climate change in planning and project formulation, several have not been completed yet. According to the participants, the most pressing need for practitioners is guidance on how to effectively manage and perform the EIA/SEA process. Equally important is the need for guidance on how to obtain the necessary data, in particular the data on what will happen in the region or country where they work over the next 30-40 years. Existing guidance, which is substantial, should be revised to improve the climate aspects. We have learned much over the last 30-40 years about how to assess, how to get information, how to organize and design the participatory process. We have not yet learned sufficiently
  • 23. 19 about the science of convincing people – how do you influence decision-makers? How to convince and commit politicians to do things? There is a need for guidance in this area. According to the Paris Declaration, harmonization of existing guidance is an important issue. A surprising conclusion of the discussion was that one should not be concerned about harmonization, since it will be solved by impact assessment practice, which will select the best one! What is really needed is to improve communication among EIA/SEA practitioners and social experts as well as the sector community. The impact assessment community needs to reach out. One of the key follow-up actions for the IAIA community is to reach out – go to sectoral conferences. The IAIA can be a hub/focal point for communication with other sectors. We need to do it! Another potential community to engage with is the community of asset managers, who typically come from an accounting background, and are making decisions about things that are climate change sensitive. Has climate change been taken into account? Part 2: Panel on Climate Change and Impact Assessment During Part 2 of the first Plenary Session, Ms. Courtney Lowrance, Technical Resource and Counsel at Citigroup, moderated a panel discussion about the role of laws and regulations, Equator Principles and EIA/SEA to address the challenge of climate change. The panel observed that any inaction or gap left in policy is likely to lead to increased liability and litigation; that with increased risks from future climate change impacts, the impact assessment community needs to work together with the financial and insurance sectors; and that with the speed at which natural capital and ecosystem services are being eroded, there is an urgent need for laws and policies to address free-rider problems. Mr. Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia University Law School, addressed the current state of laws and regulations on impact assessment and climate change. He summarized the situation in the US, and shared some important statistics on litigation. He indicated that in the US, there have been 76 lawsuits filed concerning EIA and climate change: 40 cases were filed under the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a decision has been made on 30 of them; of 29 cases filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, a decision has been made on 23; and 2 of 7 cases filed under other states laws have been decided. He listed two rules that are emerging from this litigation: (i) climate change is an appropriate topic for EA; and (ii) in the absence of a set protocol, any assessment will do. Mr. Gerrard noted that he expects that an increasing portion of the burden to regulate GHG emissions will fall within the purview of the EIA process. Mr. Gerrard concluded by listing nine “needs” for impact assessment to fulfill its full potential in contributing to regulation of climate change: (i) there is a need to harmonize the proliferation of protocols for analysis and for incorporating climate change considerations into impact assessment (several states have protocols, and some of these have been pulled together already at www.columbiaclimatelaws.com); (ii) climate-related information gathered through other regulations needs to be harmonized with data gathered as part of the EIA process; (iii) climate change-related information should be collated and posted online in a searchable way, linked with a GIS; (iv) while much of the focus has been on climate impacts, there needs to be equal focus on adaptation; (v) more serious attention needs to be paid to the worst-case analysis/events; (vi) impact
  • 24. Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 20 assessment should be recognized for the potential it holds to improve energy efficiency; (vii) from time to time there is a need to revisit EIA conclusions as mitigation commitments are implemented and monitored; (viii) water demand and water consumption should have a central role in the EIA process; and (ix) there is need for expedited review of renewable energy projects. Mr. Peter Croal, Manager of the Environmental Integration Unit, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability Division at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), provided insights on the role, value and application of EIA and SEA to climate change adaptation and mitigation, drawing on the lessons and experience of the Panel on SEA and Climate Change of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). After describing the various pieces of work carried out by the DAC Task Team, which are accessible at http://www.seataskteam.net/, he indicated that the guidance note on SEA and climate change has been used by several countries, in particular Mozambique, to assess the impacts of climate change in various investment proposals. One of the driving forces behind this work is the involvement of the private sector – since it will be financing most of the investments. Mr. Croal emphasized the need for the practice to address questions of risk and uncertainty. He also helped to answer the question of where SEA fits into the management of risk and assessment. He indicated that SEA can support efforts to integrate ecosystem goods and services into national accounts; such integration is currently becoming central to the banking and insurance companies and investment analysis, especially in the developing world where national capital is being eroded. Mr. Croal concluded by saying that impact assessment practice needs to get out of the silos and work across sections, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the 5th Global Environmental Outlook Report and the Rio +20 processes. Ms. Courtney Lowrance focused on the approach of the Equator Banks to climate change and impact assessment, including: how banks are addressing climate change from mitigation to adaptation; climate change and risk management from an Equator Principles perspective; and climate change risk in project finance. She noted that in project finance, commercial banks rely on environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) for due diligence. She indicated that in the absence of government policy, it is rare that the ESIA contains any substantive climate change analysis. In order to address risks and impacts posed by climate change, commercial banks have developed a number of initiatives ranging from the principles-based approaches, like the Climate Principles (comprehensive industry framework for a response to climate change), to due diligence frameworks, like the Carbon Principles (series of guidelines established to assess the risks in financing electric power projects, which take into account environmental externalities and incorporate them into the financial analysis of the project and which consider things like energy efficiency options, sensitivity of project to potential carbon shadow pricing, feasibility and cost implications of carbon storage, cost of mitigation plans, among others). These are integrated not only into the financial analysis of projects but also into the valuation of the companies. These approaches could apply to other sectors as well. She mentioned that the working group of the Equator Banks is currently looking at how to assure that climate change is incorporated into its due diligence. Solutions to a number of questions are still needed. If an Equator Bank receives an EIA that does not take into account climate change considerations, what should be done? What are the triggers for a stand-alone climate change assessment? How to define best available technology? How to evaluate energy (and water) efficiency performance in the local context in the absence of reliable country-specific data? How to balance environmental trade-offs when mitigating air emissions? These are some of the questions with which the Equator Banks have been grappling. General Discussion. During the general discussion session, the following clarifications and suggestions were made:
  • 25. 21 The Equator Banks are undertaking outreach to promote new ways of thinking within the impact assessment community. The Equator Banks are moving in the direction of soon requiring GHG assessment for all their projects. Since the Equator Banks follow the standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), to the extent the IFC performance standards are moving to include climate change in impact assessment, the Equator Banks community will be required to do the same. While in the past Canadian impact assessment practitioners put a lot of emphasis on the effects of the program and/or project on the environment, now they are concerned with the effects of the environment on the program and/or project. In northern Canada, impact assessment experts and project proponents are concerned about extreme weather destroying newly built infrastructure. Impact assessment practitioners need guidance to incorporate climate change into the EIA. A powerful tool to move the climate change agenda forward is to drive home the importance of the impacts the project could have – often when it becomes personal is when people move forward and start making more strategic linkages! In order to motivate the private sector to act it is important to frame the impacts in economic terms – to account for the externalities and to put a cost on them. This goes beyond just putting a cost on carbon but also looking at the cost of mangroves, the cost of water shortages, among others. There is a need to develop a new terminology to get through to the general public – we need to change how we express our concerns for climate change. We also need to share good news. For example, a medical journal showed a huge potential co-benefit of climate change mitigation. A health impact assessment could be used to assess the benefits and adverse effects of a particular policy decision. With regard to worst-case analysis, it was mentioned that both legal teams and project proponents do not wish to see bad news in the EIA. In a world of uncertainty, how we can define the worst-case scenario? While the US Government is seriously revisiting its policy on worst-case analysis, lawyers will be reluctant to accept this, while some US courts will be more sympathetic to requiring this analysis. The SEA offers a wider view of the changes society needs to make to combat and adapt to climate change. However, SEA currently is seen as a tool of the public sector alone. We need to find ways to promote the use of SEA within the financing sector and encourage companies that operate in the same locality to jointly look at the risks and impacts. The economic crisis seems to have pushed climate change and environmental issues to the back burner. In Canada, for example, a lot has been done in terms of stimulating the economy. In 30 years we will see the effects of the stimulus. How willing is the private sector to entertain the soft infrastructure measures to adapt to climate change as opposed to hard infrastructure? There is a huge amount of capacity building that has to take place in the private sector. When the banks, private sector and industry in general understand the impacts – what is happening when they impact ecosystem
  • 26. Plenary I – Impact Assessment and Climate Change: What Can We Learn from Each Other? 22 services and the implications for their business and surrounding communities, they are very receptive. We need to find ways to influence companies and banks to look at ecosystem services. After the economic crises there was a relaxation of the EIA process in the US, so the economic stimulus package could be passed much more quickly. There will be a rise in litigation if policy makers and regulators do not change the way they look at environment as a risk. Is it a good thing that environmental assessment is relaxed in the current crisis? If a bank requests due diligence – a lot of money is being invested into infrastructure – then it needs to be done right, but the figures present a terrifying picture. More weight needs to be given to the role of discounting. Something that happens two generations into the future is valued very little. There is a lot of debate about the application of the social cost of carbon. If discounted, it is actually an adverse calculation. With respect to the rights of the planet, there are declarations in international agreements but since countries are not bound by the principles, they are not legally enforceable. EIA is a rigorous, standardized process that is capable of incorporating and handing climate change. The general consensus is that it is possible today to go ahead even in the absence of new models or guidelines. One recommendation is to look at cumulative impacts. There are different points of view on what is appropriate: a rights-based approach or a requirements approach, or doing something because it is right to do not because it is in the regulation. This gets into the question of inter-generational effects. It may be good for business in the short term but not in the medium term. How to address disclosure of GHG emissions if it is not mandated by national requirements? A couple of banks are looking at how to address these types of risks in the disclosure process.
  • 27. Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 23 Speakers in the second Plenary Session moderated by Mr. Craig Davies, Principal Environmental Advisor at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), urged participants to look beyond the current development paradigm, which revolves around fossil fuel energy intensive growth; to promote the use of broader principles of sustainability assessment so the true impacts of projects may be understood, in particular regarding GHG emissions; and to incorporate climate change analysis in EIA/SEA to inform decision-making about large infrastructure projects. Mr. Torrie opened this session with his keynote address on The Human Responses to Climate Change: Reflections on the Big Picture. Mr. Steven Hazell, Consultant and ex-President of the Sierra Club of Canada, focused on the application of EIA in Canada to date and its impacts on reducing GHG emissions; he argued for a broad application of sustainability assessment, particularly when dealing with energy projects. He spoke about the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to the Kearl Oil Sands Project and the McKenzie Valley Gas Pipeline Project. More specifically, he discussed the challenge in bringing climate change into consideration for such projects. Despite their large size, Mr. Hazell noted, the panel reviewing the pipeline concluded that no one project, even one that would result in an increase of emissions equivalent to about 0.5 percent of Canadian GHG emissions or 800,000 cars, was significant enough to be called into question based on climate change considerations. Mr. Hazell discussed some of the issues that he thought should be included in a sustainability assessment – end-use of the gas (whether it would displace coal) and the potential for carbon offsets. He also made reference to an ongoing process for an assessment of the proposed Joslyn North Oil Sands Mine project in northern Alberta, which he believes may be more successful in reviewing a wider range of climate change considerations and alternatives. He concluded by recommending that there be a move away from narrow approaches that only identify adverse effects, consider their significance and prepare mitigation measures; and that sustainability assessment be incorporated into law in Canada. Mr. Ralph Silver, President of Technik Eaucan, Inc., discussed Hydro Quebec’s evaluation of the implications of climate change for its operations as a large, almost entirely hydro-based, utility (97 percent). He presented the results of the recently completed evaluation carried out by the utility to investigate the impacts of climate change on the hydrological regime of Québec’s developed watersheds and the productivity of the utility. In order to reduce uncertainty about the future climate, the evaluation considered 90 hydrological scenarios (see Figure 5). The presentation revealed the benefits from long hydrological series, which provide a good empirical basis for evaluating the impact of a wide range of climate conditions on the operation of the system. A three-year dry period from 1960-63 was important in testing the implications of a shortfall in precipitation. Figure 5: Uncertainty and Hydrological Scenarios
  • 28. Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 24 Mr. Silver noted that the company is conscious of the need to consider climate change, and in the last 10 years jointly with the Quebec Government and Environment Canada has established Ouranos, a private non-profit organization with the objective of helping society adapt to increasing climate change, and devoted substantial resources to hydrological modeling and analysis, including mathematical experimentation to assess the impacts of structural (including changes in physical configuration), and non-structural adaptation measures (including pricing incentives to shift or reduce electricity demand) (see Figure 6). These learning processes are expected to increase over time. The experimentation prior to adaptation has shown that by varying operating rules, it is possible to turn a production shortfall (0 to 14 percent) into a surplus (1 to 15 percent). He concluded by listing the five basic requirements for adaptation: (i) long-term vision; (ii) long-term monitoring and documentation; (iii) modeling; (iv) organizational structures that value learning; and (v) risk acceptance. Ms. Richenda Connell, Chief Technical Officer at and Co-founder of Acclimatise, reflected upon two questions: first, how useful is EIA/ESIA as a tool for integrating adaptation into project-level decision- making by the private sector; and second, how can salient project-level decisions be made in the face of climate change uncertainty. Although Ms. Connell’s talk focused predominantly on the private sector, she noted that the private sector functions within the context provided by the government and project funders. Both actors have an important role to play in promoting adaptation. In answering the first question, Ms. Connell made use of a diagram to show the different processes and analyses that are undertaken during the lifecycle of expensive long-life assets and noted that EIA/ESIA is only one of them. She also showed that at each stage of the business operation, there are decisions being made based on the processes and analysis undertaken, and in the corporate world, they are unwilling to revisit them once the decision has been made, given the enormous costs and consequences this would entail. While EIA/ESIA is a useful tool for integrated thinking on adaptation, it is not enough. There are other tools and analysis where adaptation needs to be integrated (see Figure 7). Ms. Connell discussed several illustrative examples, including a brewery in the Caucasus being financed by EBRD and a palm oil processor in Ghana financed by IFC. She noted that there are sometimes positive as well as negative implications of climate change, pointing to the potential increase in demand for beer as a benefit to the brewery. In contrast, the processing of palm oil would suffer efficiency losses if temperature exceeded a design limit specific to the plant. She mentioned the BG Group as a good example of a company that has mainstreamed adaptation. In answering the second question, Ms. Connell Figure 6: Learning Process for Adaptation
  • 29. 25 noted that sometimes there is a strong focus on the uncertainties of climate change, making people feel they cannot make decisions because of it. Through some pilot projects, Ms. Connell noted, it has been found that an extremely useful first step is to identify climatic sensitivities and critical climate thresholds for aspects of business performance. She recommended starting from a personal viewpoint of what matters – what affects us – rather than starting from climate science (see Figure 8). Using an analysis performed in Pakistan, she showed that the choice of the impact assessment model (in this particular case for groundwater recharge) makes a difference in terms of the view of the outcome, so the weight given to the choice of impact model should be equal to that given to climate uncertainty. Finally, when making decisions in the face of uncertainties, she highlighted the importance of participatory approaches as part of the analytical process. General Discussion. During the general discussion session, numerous practical questions were raised, which are summarized below. A participant inquired about the cost of doing climate assessments. Ms. Connell suggested from her experience that they raise the costs of an assessment by 10 to 15 percent. Figure 7: Process and Analysis during the Lifecycle of Long-Life Assets Figure 8: Climate Sensitivity and Thresholds
  • 30. Plenary II – EIA, Climate Change and Private Sector 26 Another participant inquired about the uncertainty regarding future precipitation. The challenge of the conflict among model results for precipitation in many parts of the world was recognized by the panel. Hydro Quebec may differ in this respect as modeling results for its region are more consistent. Another discussion focused on whether clients actually use the information from climate studies. One of the participants indicated that an OECD study (which was discussed in another session) found that the conclusions on climate change in environmental assessments are often ignored. Ms. Connell indicated that from her experience, clients would generally choose to accept a decline in performance when dealing with choices about an existing facility or equipment, but were not willing to make design changes in the context of decisions about new investments. A specific question was asked regarding the applicability of the Hydro Quebec analytical approach to utilities with a low water regime. Mr. Silver answered that it was applicable.
  • 31. Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 27 Multilateral Development Banks: Emerging Standards and New Guidance for EIA Representatives from six MDBs participated in this session moderated by Ms. Elizabeth Brito, Lead Environmental Specialist at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and spoke about their ongoing initiatives to adapt their existing strategies and due diligence procedures to incorporate the potential effects of climate change. The key highlights of the session were that all MDBs have a role to play, not only in terms of climate change policy but also in providing finance to address climate change impacts, that climate change initiatives will require environmental assessment policy updates across the board, that outputs from adaptation strategies are uncertain and thus require monitoring, that harmonization among MDBs so that each learns from and uses the experiences of others is needed, and that the time has come to move away from generalities and focus on the specifics of what to do to address climate change issues. Mr. Alan Miller, Principal Climate Change Specialist at the IFC, laid the foundations for the discussion with special attention to the linkages between climatic events, and financial and development concerns. Over the past decade extreme weather events have become more prevalent, particularly with respect to flooding, drought and coastal events. What were once risks occurring once every 100 years on average may now move toward once every 10 years (see Figure 9). Maps showing the frequency of economic losses due to natural disasters indicate an increasing number of countries in the extreme risk category (see Figure 10). Figure 9: Climate Events - A Financial and Development Concern
  • 32. Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 28 Figure 10: Natural Disasters Economic Losses Index 2010 - High Frequency Mr. Miller pointed out that what is most characteristic of climate change events is their uncertainly. Also there is a tendency among the MDBs to look at climate risks that impact projects by looking at the past. Much greater emphasis should be given to climate change’s impact on human needs. New tools for financial and environmental assessment will be required to link direct and indirect financial performance to expected climate change impacts (see Figure 11). Available tools to enable better assessment of climate impacts on financial investments include: (i) downscaling models; (ii) increasing focus on shorter time-frames; (iii) making sense of conflicting model results; (iv) understanding linkages between climate impacts and financial consequences; (v) reducing vulnerabilities, and (vi) increasing adaptive capacity. Mr. Miller indicated that IFC is currently undertaking key studies of climate risks in portfolio investments. The scale of these studies is significant, covering climate, geographical, institutional, social, and financial issues. IFC has acknowledged that climate risk management by IFIs will need to consider and review new procedures for: (i) project performance standards; (ii) risk assessment/management; (iii) insurance requirements and products; (iv) advisory services; and (v) public/private adaptation projects. He concluded his remarks by saying that a key point in reducing financial uncertainty in the light of climate impacts is sharing of information and experiences among the MDBs. Figure 11: Climate Links to Financial Performance
  • 33. 29 Ms. Eva Maria Mayerhofer, Lead Environmental Specialist at the European Investment Bank (EIB), noted that the EIB mainly focused on private sector investments, like IFC, and that the direction and new tools outlined in the prior presentation were useful. She pointed out that for the most part, policies and procedures for environmental assessment of climate impacts are linked to the European Union’s climate change policies. She indicated as an example that all EIB projects are required to include an energy efficiency component if possible. She also emphasized that project preparation teams are encouraged to identify post project adaptation measures, which usually entail climate relevant modifications. Ms. Mayerhofer commented further that project evaluations are required to include a cost for carbon and that such evaluations include assessments of potential impacts on renewable energy and biodiversity, as well as risks of social conflict; they also include compensation measures to address these issues. She concluded her remarks by noting that the European Commission is continually adapting and changing its climate change policies, requiring the EIB to be especially sensitive to these changes. Mr. Fernando Loayza, Senior Environmental Specialist at the World Bank, called attention to the World Bank Group’s Strategic Framework for Climate Change, published in November 2008. He indicated that since that time there have been efforts to upgrade the Framework through public sector reviews, which are ongoing. He elaborated on three of the key objectives outlined in the Strategic Framework: first, to provide the tools to address changing development needs; second, to address poverty reduction in the light of climate change; and, third, to incorporate climate change considerations into all development activities. He elaborated further on a few of the actions required to achieve these objectives: (i) support for climate actions in country development strategies; (ii) adoption of climate safe technologies, including GHG reduction strategies and mitigation measures; and (iii) significant investments in capacity building at national and local levels to address future climate impacts. Mr. Loayza also indicated that the above- mentioned Framework commits the World Bank Group to update its guidance and existing tools, including EIA and SEA, to take account of climate change considerations. This update will take place in the ongoing review of the World Bank safeguards policies. He mentioned that in the meantime there have been new developments in the Bank with respect to achieving better understanding of GHG reduction projects, including the adoption of a new screening tool for coal power production; and that SEA is beginning to be adopted for country and project reviews to incorporate climate change considerations within country policies and programs. Mr. Alistair Clark, Director of the Environmental Department at the EBRD, noted that EBRD has a legacy of effectiveness in developing energy efficient projects. About 20 percent of the existing project portfolio includes projects to promote energy efficiency and GHG mitigation. This has been due largely to private sector initiatives in the Bank’s recipient countries. He added that the introduction of climate adaptation measures has been somewhat more difficult, since the role of the EBRD vis-à-vis the private sector investment is not as clearly defined. He emphasized that a major issue that will need future attention is how to take national (and global) policy issues down to the project level. Mr. Clark believed that this is much more difficult when the loan recipients are private sector entities. Mr. Vijay Joshi, Environmental Expert at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), began by remarking that most of the world’s nations most vulnerable to climate change impacts are in Asia, and that Asian economies are significant generators of GHG emissions. He further added that the climate change battle might be won or lost in Asia. He noted that the ADB’s intention to integrate climate change impacts in all of its country development activities is reflected in the Bank’s Strategy 2020. The key components of the Strategy related to climate include: (i) introduction of inclusive economic growth since climate change most directly impacts the poor; (ii) attention to regional integration since climate change can trigger/amplify tension among neighbors; and (iii) a conscious effort to scale up support for projects that address climate change. Mr. Joshi further highlighted that the ADB’s Safeguard Policies have also
  • 34. Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 30 recently been updated to include climate change as a major focus in project assessment. He pointed out that much more attention has been given to the use of SEA as a tool for anticipation of mitigation and adaptation measures that might be necessary in country development strategies as well as individual projects. When referring to Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA), he indicated that it has been adopted in project preparation to address climate change impacts and vulnerabilities at the local level. He concluded his remarks by listing the ADB’s future actions to address climate change and impact assessment: (i) greater efforts to predict climate change impacts at the local level; (ii) more use of climate change models to assess vulnerabilities; and (iii) undertaking specific studies to generate climate change scenarios for vulnerable developing member countries. Ms. Janine Ferretti, Director of Environment at the IDB, called attention to the presentation of Prof. Watson, noting that IDB’s position is that there is a continuing requirement for an integrated strategy covering global climate issues, regional and country risks, and human actions. She indicated that the IDB’s Safeguard Policies focus on encouraging the reduction of GHG, and other mitigation measures, but do not provide specific benchmarks. Each project preparation team is responsible for making sure that the project is climate responsible. As a consequence, the process is always evolving. Ms. Ferretti concluded her remarks by emphasizing two of the challenges faced by IDB in incorporating climate change considerations into its projects: first, incorporating adequate GHG reduction standards without creating the perception that IDB is imposing such standards; and second, finding acceptable reference points for good technologies to address climate issues in projects in varying sectors. General Discussion. In the very brief discussion session that followed, a key point was how MDBs shift from “best practices” into (presumably standard) policies. It was noted that in exchanges among specialists at the various MDBs, climate change issues have frequently come up for discussion. Almost all of the financial institutions have, or are responsible to, regional or national policies regarding climate change issues. In other words, policies are set. The objective then is to achieve flexibility in the incorporation of climate adaptation and mitigation tools in the projects and financial loans under preparation. Learning best practices from one another based on field experiences is one of the more useful tools. National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – North America In this session chaired by Mr. Michael Gerrard, distinguished speakers from Canada, Mexico and the United States provided insights on how the three countries are addressing the inclusion of the climate change component into their national impact assessment procedures. In the case of the US, in the absence of clear guidance, most of the evaluations of GHG emission considerations under NEPA are driven by litigation and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). While attention traditionally has been paid to mitigation, sectoral federal policies are increasing their focus on adaptation. In the case of Canada, although general guidance was issued in 2003 on how to incorporate climate change considerations into environmental assessment, it is not clear how extensively the guidance has been followed. It is hoped that the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy released in 2010, which requires a Federal SEA review process, will contribute to the impacts of the broad suite of available tools to combat climate change and address adaptation to climate change impacts. Finally, in the case of Mexico, several programs
  • 35. 31 for legislation on climate change are actively being considered, and climate change is starting to be evaluated as part of the EIA process. Mr. Michael Smith, Senior Manager with ICF International provided an overview of the current state of affairs in the US in terms of climate change integration into the NEPA. At present there are no formal regulations on climate change and a major ongoing debate is whether the NEPA statute needs to change to cover climate change. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) has not issued any regulation with specific mention of climate change. He noted that there are two mentions in current regulations that require agencies to discuss energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternative and mitigation measures and to carry out assessments of cumulative impacts. Both are widely ignored, he stressed. Guidance documents have been issued but they do not carry the force of law. There is a rapid increase in activity regarding climate change litigation in the US, and the courts often order revisions of analysis, but in no case have they been thrown out. Mr. Smith made reference to the most famous NEPA climate change case – the 2007 case of the Center for Biological Diversity versus the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, where the plaintiffs alleged that the agency ignored climate change impacts in its NEPA analysis for setting new national gas- mileage standards for sport utility vehicles and light-duty trucks. He explained that although the agency carried out a GHG emissions and cumulative impacts assessment, the court indicated that more needed to be done to assess what would happen once the emissions were in the air. Another important NEPA case commented on by Mr. Smith was the Massachusetts et al versus the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He indicated that in this particular case, the court ruled that GHG are pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act and declared that the US EPA was in violation of the act for not considering the regulation. While most of the cases have been on the impacts on climate change, over time we will see cases where the impacts of climate change on projects and on the resources the projects affect will be challenged, Mr. Smith stated (see Figure 12). Although there have been efforts to create guidance documents and regulations for NEPA (e.g., the 1997 internal draft CEQ Guidance Document regarding considerations of global climate change in environmental documents prepared pursuant to the NEPA), Mr. Smith noted that they were never circulated to the public. He commented that there was a formal legal petition submitted to CEQ in 2008 requesting revision to NEPA to cover climate change and address it in all major EIAs. Draft CEQ guidance was released on February 2010 regarding GHG and climate change, which was opened for comments. CEQ is still reviewing the comments received, Mr. Smith added. The guidance, however, is silent on land management activities. CEQ is coordinating with other agencies on climate change adaptation, and the established working group released a report on the subject in October 2010. He Figure 12: Fundamental Aspects of Climate Change Impact Analysis
  • 36. Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 32 concluded by sharing several examples of integrating climate change analysis, in particular GHG emissions, into NEPA analysis. Mr. Dean Stinson O’Gorman, Acting Director of Policy Analysis at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), opened his presentation by contrasting two different perspectives: “Among the developed countries, Canada is probably farther along in terms of recognition of climate change considerations within the context of EIA;” and “… the CEAA environmental assessment process has not been used effectively by the Government of Canada in addressing at least one of its own stated environmental priorities – climate change and GHG emissions.” He indicated that the Government of Canada supports an approach to climate change that achieves real environmental and economic benefits for all Canadians; that integrates the economy to the point where it makes no sense to proceed without aligning a range of principles, policies, regulations and standards; and that commits to the 2020 target in the Copenhagen Accord to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent from the 2005 levels. He listed several key GHG reduction measures, including the announced intention to regulate coal-fired electricity generation to take effect in 2015, and regulations on renewable fuels. He mentioned that Canada is also acting on adaptation and elaborated on the broad suite of relevant ongoing programs. Mr. O’Gorman noted that the integration of climate change and environmental assessment is an important issue for Canada. He made reference to the 2003 Guidelines, which suggest the potential benefits of using the environmental assessment process as another tool to address climate change, including taking advantage of the opportunity for the EIA process to raise awareness to reduce GHG emissions; stimulate the consideration of possible adaptation measures; and assure that the public understands that climate change is a factor and is considered in the decision-making process. He also shared recent developments in the use of SEA and climate change, referring to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy released in October 2010, which in the area of climate change sets as a goal and target to reduce Canada’s total GHG emissions by 17 percent relative to 2005 by 2020; as well as the accompanying Federal Cabinet Directive, which requires an SEA of the proposed policy, plans and programs that considers impacts on the goals and targets of the Strategy. With regard to project EIA, Mr. O’Gorman referred to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act), which defines “environmental effect” as any change the project may cause in the environment and any change to the project caused by the environment. He also indicated that climate change factors are not explicitly identified in the CEA Act. He stressed the importance of understanding that under the Canadian Constitution there are 10 different provincial environmental assessment regimes. While this poses some challenges, both provincial and federal levels of government are committed to One Project – One Assessment. Mr. O’Gorman then elaborated on the 2003 Guidance for Practitioners, which is a cooperative approach prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on climate change and impact assessment that focuses on a project’s contribution to GHG emissions and the effects of climate change on projects. He indicated that so far experience with the Federal EAs and their use of the Guidelines has been mixed, and that a small number of projects explicitly relied on the Guidelines to structure their analysis of climate change. He provided two interesting examples to illustrate some of the challenges in integrating GHG emission and climate change adaptation considerations into EAs – the Sydney Tar Ponds Remediation Project and the Kearl Oil Sands Project. He shared with the audience four potential areas to consider to improve the treatment of climate change in EIA: (i) improving and promoting the use of the guidelines, including guidance on methodologies and analysis tools; (ii) determination of significance; (iii) mitigation versus adaptation – what is the right policy mechanism?; and (iv) legislative/regulatory changes.
  • 37. 33 Mr. O’Gorman concluded by saying that the Government of Canada is acting to combat climate change, that the Federal EA can and does play a role in that process, and the some positive steps have been taken, and some progress has been demonstrated in both SEA and project EA, but that more remains to be done. Mr. Luis Vera, President of Vera and Carvajal Law firm, elaborated on the steps and progress made in the promulgation of climate change-related legislation in Mexico. He started by highlighting the several actions that Mexico has taken to comply with its obligations under the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Framework Convention since 1996. He mentioned several climate change studies that have been performed so far, and reflected on the vulnerability of the water sector and the economics of climate change. He also elaborated on the various programs being undertaken to address GHG emissions. Mexico was working on climate change legislation for over a year, and although a draft general law on climate change was elaborated by the Senate, it was not approved by the House. Mr. Vera discussed the constraints faced in incorporating climate change in the EIA process in Mexico, focusing on two areas: (i) legislative interpretation of “official scientific knowledge,” which precludes the use of state of the art information and technology; and (ii) the limited integration of public participation within the EIA process. In this regard, he presented the results of two pilot studies undertaken to demonstrate that it is possible to incorporate climate change considerations in the EIA process working with the current legal framework. He then spoke about the ongoing efforts to develop EIA guidelines on how to integrate participation. Mr. Vera concluded by saying that EIA guidelines in Mexico need to be updated to incorporate social input, that new knowledge and technology must be used as soon as practicable and that good and proactive governance is needed. General Discussion. During the general discussion session, the following points were raised: A question was posed on whether Canada will back off from the cap and trade program supported under the Western Climate Initiative or will continue to move forward. The Federal Government of Canada is not formally involved in the Western Climate Initiative. While no Province has said yet that it is backing off from the initiative, there is currently ongoing consultation among the Provinces regarding the cap and trade program. Another question was posed on the role of the several Mexican states that have observer status in the Western Climate Initiative. While the six Mexican states that are part of the initiative are seeking a more active role, clarification is needed on the specific actions they can undertake at the level of the state. Another question related to the openness of the Mexican government to the adoption of a participatory approach to develop solutions. It was indicated that the Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources is open to the development of new guidelines and is currently working in that direction. It was also indicated that some agencies are sympathetic to the idea of doing more than what the current EIA law requires. It was suggested that in order to deal with the problem of projects too small to individually cause significant impacts on climate change, countries should adopt a regional EIA, particularly when dealing with tar sands projects. Some work has been done on analyzing the value-added of regional EIA or SEA in contributing to addressing climate change and cumulative impacts. At present, there is interesting work being done in Canada in looking at regional and land use planning, and results are expected soon. While cumulative assessment is part of the Canadian Act, there is a question as to how well it is being done. Overall, Canada is looking at tools that can help address climate change considerations, including regional SEA.
  • 38. Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 34 A final question was posed on the effects of EIA on the final decision regarding fuel standards for standard utility vehicles and light trucks. First, it was noted that there is much debate among the impact assessment community on whether NEPA has requirements on cumulative impact assessment. Second, there is the issue of significant effect and the importance of scale in terms of CO2 concentrations. Third, awareness was raised on the different implications on climate change of the various alternatives identified. Fourth, the EIA provided sufficient ammunition to the NGOs to challenge the agency’s choice of alternatives. In short, for most projects, the EIA probably will not have much bearing yet on the decision-making process, but by doing the analysis, it can demonstrate the important effects of climate change on actions. National Governments: Climate Change and EIA – Beyond North America In this session chaired by Mr. Ronald Hoffer, Environment and Water Advisor at the World Bank, distinguished speakers from the Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) and the OECD reflected on the opportunities and challenges for incorporating climate change considerations into EIA/SEA and sectoral policies. Mr. Shardul Agrawala, Senior Economist at the OECD Environment Directorate, while sharing the good news that several national and sub-national governments and development agencies have made progress in employing EIA as a vehicle to enhance resilience of projects to the impacts of climate change, noted that much of the progress has been at the level of intentions rather than actual implementation. Systematic consideration of climate change requires the availability of specific scenarios of climate change that are accepted by stakeholders, which so far are only available for a handful of countries. Lack of country- specific climate change scenarios, however, should not be a deterrent to incorporating adaptation and mitigation considerations into programs and projects. There are simple rules of thumb and tools available to the impact assessment community to engage in dialogue and help influence decisions. Mr. Shardul Agrawala started the session by providing an overview of the stocktaking done by OECD on the degree of attention paid in different jurisdictions to the need to incorporate climate change risks and adaptation in EIA procedures. He emphasized that the EIA can certainly be an efficient tool to climate-proof1 projects, because it is already a well-established decision-making tool in various countries and bilateral agencies. Rather than having a separate tool, he said, it is logical to broaden the scope of EIA to incorporate climate change risks. He described a recently developed quick screening tool that shows the several entry points during the EIA cycle where the climate change information, risks and adaptation measures can be incorporated (see Figure 13). 1 During the general discussion it was clarified that climate-proofing is the wrong term to use – a more appropriate usage would be improving climate resilience.
  • 39. 35 Figure 13: Quick Screening Tool to Incorporate Climate Change Considerations into the EIA
  • 40. Track A – Emerging Standards and Guidance for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts 36 Mr. Agrawala also shared the findings of a recent stocktaking carried out by the OECD on the progress made in terms of incorporating climate change into the EIA. He noted that the degree of progress varies across jurisdiction – at the level of intention, at the level of operational guidance and the level of implementation. He also walked through one example from Australia (the Armidale Landfill) to show how climate change risks have been taken into account and what some of the challenges are. Several national and sub-national authorities, as well as development agencies, have made progress in this direction, he said. However, there is much more progress at the level of intentions than actual implementation, he added (see Figure14). In terms of actual implementation, examples can only be found in a small number of countries: Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Two additional remarks were that in several projects, the EIA only relied on historical climate data; and that climate change impact assessments have also at times been applied inconsistently. Systematic consideration of climate change requires availability of spatially specific scenarios of climate change, which may not exist at the scale on which project decisions are made in most parts of the world. He warned that any use of climate change scenarios in the EIA should take adequate account of the associated uncertainties. There may be a risk of unnecessary or even counterproductive investments altering project design if these uncertainties are not adequately considered. In his concluding remarks he stressed the concomitant need to make substantial and long-term investments in the provision of climate change information, as well as establishing good communication mechanisms between the scientific community and practitioners so that climate change information could be judiciously incorporated within EIA. Mr. Glenn Watts, Climate Change Expert with the UK Environment Agency, provided remarks on the impacts of climate change on the water sector. He commented on two contrasting and very practical areas where climate change is being included in investment decisions now – water supply and flood, and reflected on some experiences in what works and what does not. With regard to climate change in water supply, he said that in 1996 the UK Government instructed all water companies to consider climate change in their water resources planning and in 1998, the first guidance, albeit rather simplified, from the Environmental Agency was issued. In 2003, the Water Act was revised and required water companies to carry out an assessment of the carbon footprint. Technical assessments were carried out: in 1996, impacts of climate change on demand and river flows; and in 2003, further work was performed on the demand. In 2006, consistent methods to assess river flows and groundwater were established. Practitioners then had readily available tools that let them find the climate change data and apply it within the current approach to water supply demand balance. With regard to floods, he pointed out that since flood defense cannot be everywhere, in the UK the intention is to limit the expenditure on flooding – maximize the benefits of flood defense spending. There is an explicit acknowledgement that there will be flooding, he added. Figure 14: Stocktaking Findings on Incorporating Climate Change in EIA