CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW
3.3 Climate change instruments and institutions
3.3.3 The Kyoto Protocol
3.3.3.2 Adaptation
The IPCC (2014) explains that adaptation refers to managing the impacts of climate change which, according to Sovacool et al. (2017), involves taking practical actions to cope with risks from climate impacts, protect communities and strengthen the resilience of the economy and infrastructure. Sovacool et al. (2017) suggest that adaptation can reduce the risks of
82
climate change impacts, but there are limits to its effectiveness, especially with greater magnitudes and rates of climate change. Nicholls et al. (2007) show that, by the year 2070, up to 140 million people and approximately US$35 000 billion of assets could be dependent on flood protection in large port cities around the world because of the combined effect of population growth, urbanisation, economic growth and sea level rise. Gifford et al. (2011) assert that for climate scientists, adaptation usually refers to structural adaptations made to address current and impending physical impacts of climate change, such as building a sea wall in anticipation of rising sea levels. However, adaptation options are many and range from technological options such as increased sea defences (Firth et al., 2013) or flood-proof houses on stilts (Sutradhar et al., 2015), to what Capstick and Pidgeon (2014) believe is behaviour change at the individual level, such as the sparing use of water in times of drought and other pro-climate change actions (Staats et al., 2004).
Brügger et al. (2015) suggest that there is a need for psychological adaptation since human behaviour causes climate change, humans can also respond and adapt to it. UNEP (2009) suggests that some adaptation choices to minimise the damage from climate change could include early action to improve seasonal climate forecasts, food security, freshwater supplies, disaster and emergency response, famine early-warning systems and insurance coverage.
Reed et al. (2013) indicate that adaptation actions to reduce the risks of flooding include both structural, for example, dam building and non-structural such as insurance measures, forecasting and warning plans, and flood-proofing and elevation. Thieken et al. (2016) suggest that there is a wide range of adaptive structural and non-structural measures that could be adopted for climate change impacts. According to Sovacool et al. (2017), adaptation to climate change must address three broad issues to strengthen ecosystems, communities and human organisations, namely: infrastructural, organisational and social adaptation.
Additionally, adaptation to climate change must also be considered as a multidimensional process which not only involves structural measures, but also includes climate change awareness of local communities; educating the public, government officials and business leaders about emergency preparedness and climate risks; and empowering local communities to decide on infrastructure investments. Obtaining feedback from stakeholders and civil society is also critical for successful adaptation programmes.
According to Butler et al. (2015), adaptation is made up of actions at all levels of society, by individuals, groups and governments. Additionally, the protection of economic well-being or
83
improvement of safety could be the motivation for adaptation measures. There are many different adaptation methods as Millner and Dietz (2015) suggest through market exchanges and, according to Adger et al. (2013), through extension of social networks or through actions of individuals and organisations to meet their own individual or collective goals.
Adaptation can be undertaken by an individual for personal reasons or by governments and public bodies to protect their citizens (Wamsler and Brink, 2015). Rosenzweig et al. (2017) point out that adaptation options exist in all sectors, but their context for implementation and potential to reduce climate-related risks differs across sectors and regions although the effectiveness of adaptation can be enhanced through a range of actions, including international cooperation as some adaptation responses involve significant co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs. Lavorel et al. (2015) point out that there will be more challenges for many adaptation options as climate change increases. Murphy et al. (2016) believe that it is crucial for effective selection and implementation of adaptation strategies, that adaptation planning and implementation can be enhanced through complementary actions across levels, from individuals to governments. Additionally, national governments can coordinate adaptation efforts of local and sub-national governments, for example, by protecting vulnerable groups, by supporting economic diversification and by providing information, policy and legal frameworks and financial support. Moreover, local government and the private sector are increasingly recognised as critical to progress in adaptation, given their roles in scaling up adaptation of communities, households and civil society, and in managing risk information and financing (Porter et al., 2015).
Societal values, objectives and risk perceptions according to Deng et al. (2017), influence adaptation planning and implementation at all levels of governance and that diverse interests, circumstances, social-cultural contexts and expectations must be acknowledged and recognised as this will benefit the decision-making processes. Fernández-Llamazares et al.
(2015) argue that although indigenous, local and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including indigenous peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are a major resource for adapting to climate change, these have not been used consistently in existing adaptation efforts as the effectiveness of any adaptation strategy is enhanced when such forms of knowledge are integrated with existing practices. Biesbroek et al. (2013) report that some of the common limitations that hinder adaptation planning and implementation include limited financial and human resources, limited integration or coordination of governance, uncertainties about projected impacts, different perceptions of risks, competing values,
84
absence of key adaptation leaders and advocates, limited tools to monitor adaptation effectiveness as well as insufficient research, monitoring and observation, and the finance to maintain them.
Ford et al. (2015) comment that adaptation can be reactive (after impact takes place) or anticipatory (before impact takes place). According to Green et al. (2017), adaptation can therefore be carried out in response to or in anticipation of changes within existing situations and in social systems. Runting et al. (2017) point out that adaptation decisions are often made by a variety of actors, including private decision-makers, public agencies, governments and civic society with groups and individuals being drawn from varied backgrounds, economic sectors, settlements, communities, cultures and ecosystems. Ziervogel and Taylor (2008) note that although adaptation is understood as an instinctive and ongoing process of finding ways to respond to stresses that reduce or combat negative impacts and harness potential benefits of change, it needs to be explicitly supported and enhanced due to the new and severe challenges presented by global climate change. Adaptation to climate change is only just starting to emerge in policy and practice in southern Africa, although regionally there has been an increase in adaptation funding from international donors who work with local stakeholders but who control the funding and determine the focus (Daron, 2015).
While Buizer et al. (2016a) are of the view that other adaptation strategies such as improving access to climate information to change policies is necessary, Batel et al. (2016) believe that it is important to recognise that the political and socio-cultural environment is often as important in determining adaptation strategies and actions as the physical conditions.
Additionally, adaptation is often highly constrained by prevailing circumstances, and support is needed at multiple levels to build adaptive capacity and support community-level development. Lawrence and Haasnoot (2017) maintain that strategies and actions can be pursued now which will move towards climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development, while at the same time help improve livelihoods, social and economic well- being and effective environmental management.
Lawn (2016) advocates that sustainable development when aligned with any climate change policy must include both adaptation and mitigation and that any delays in mitigating the build-up of GHGs could result in reduced options for climate-resilient pathways and adaptation in the future. Furthermore, Keskitalo et al. (2016) indicate that effective
85
implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives; as adaptation and mitigation responses are underpinned by common enabling factors such as effective institutions and governance, innovation and investments in environmentally sound technologies, and infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and behavioural and lifestyle choices. Tellingly, Demski et al. (2017) claim that GHG emissions, vulnerability to climate change and the capacity for adaptation and mitigation are strongly influenced by livelihoods, lifestyles, behaviour and culture. Also, the social acceptability and the effectiveness of climate policies are influenced by the degree to which they create incentives for people or the appropriate changes in lifestyles or behaviours that is applicable to a specific area or region (Grundmann, 2016). Thornton and Comberti (2017) further emphasis that successful implementation relies on relevant tools, suitable governance structures and, importantly, an enhanced capacity to respond. Peters et al. (2015) stress that GHGs will have to be reduced by at least 80% below the absolute level of current annual emissions and to achieve this is a major challenge in the world currently. Hammond and Pearson (2013) also indicate that there will be huge costs incurred as the world shifts from a high-carbon to a low-carbon trajectory. However, Orsato et al. (2015) are of the view that there will also be business opportunities as the markets for low-carbon, high-efficiency goods and services expand.