Adaptation and Resilience
Climate Diplomacy

Climate Adaptation and Resilience: The Road to COP26

Raising Global Ambition to Address Climate Impacts

April 19, 2021

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to watch this briefing on raising global ambition to fund and implement climate adaptation and resilience.

During Earth Day week (2021), the Biden-Harris Administration hosted the Leaders Summit on Climate and unveiled its new greenhouse gas reduction goal—the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution—under the Paris Agreement. Designed to build momentum ahead of the next meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, COP26, the Summit was expected to focus on how major emitting countries can redouble efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across sectors and geographies.

This briefing highlights the complementary global efforts to advance climate adaptation and resilience in the lead-up to COP26. These efforts are intended to share best practices, develop metrics, and mobilize countries and subnational actors dedicated to protecting people and nature. Speakers discuss the key roles of financing, implementation, disaster preparedness, and the need for systemic action in building resilience. 

 

This briefing was co-sponsored by the 2021 U.N. Climate Change Conference(COP26), the British EmbassyWashington, and the American Society of Adaptation Professionals (ASAP).

 

Highlights

 

Andrew Jackson, Deputy Director for Adaptation and Resilience, Climate and Environment Department, British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

  • Jackson focused on three pillars of climate adaptation and resilience efforts in the United Kingdom (UK): planning, practical actions, and finance. For context, climate-related disasters have already caused $520 billion in global damages.
  • Adaptation and resilience have come to the forefront of the conversation around climate action. The United Nations’ 2019 Climate Action Summit included a call to action on adaptation. The 2021 Climate Adaptation Summit in the Netherlands set out an adaptation action agenda. The UK is also helping develop the Adaptation Action Coalition, and it hosted the Climate and Development Ministerial meeting to focus on the needs of countries that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts.
  • Cost-benefit ratios favor adaptation. For instance, strengthening early warning systems for disasters has a cost-benefit ratio of nine to one. The Global Commission on Adaptation estimated that investing $1.8 trillion over decades in adaptation (e.g., in water and agriculture infrastructure), could yield $7.1 trillion in benefits.
  • The first area of focus is adaptation and resilience planning.
  • The second area of focus is practical actions.
    • The Adaptation Action Coalition brings together the UK, Egypt, Bangladesh, Malawi, the Netherlands, Saint Lucia, and other countries to deliver resilience through a series of country-level water, infrastructure, and health system initiatives.
    • The Adaptation Research Alliance is an international coalition that brings together funders of practical programs to support research and best practices in adaptation by sector.
    • The Race to Resilience campaign, a sibling campaign to the Race to Zero, aims to bring together initiatives from private and non-state actors to build the resilience of over four billion people by 2030.
    • The UK’s COP26 approach includes A Just Rural Transition, launched at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, which promotes improvements in policy and investment as they relate to sustainable agriculture.
  • The third area of focus is finance.
    • The UK would like to see an international commitment to climate finance of over $100 billion and has doubled its national contribution to climate finance to 11.6 billion pounds ($16.2 billion) over the coming years.
    • The UK is working with initiatives like the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment to model risk investments and help shift more private investments to adaptation and resilience efforts.
    • There are some climate impacts that no amount of funding or adaptation adequately address; this is the issue of loss and damage. The UK is organizing a series of consultations to operationalize the Santiago Network, which was set out at COP25 to look at practical solutions in this area.
  • Adaptation and resilience are different in every country. There is no single solution for effective adaptation and resilience. Finance is an essential component. The UK is focused on pointing out what can be achieved in different sectors, the importance of planning, the particular opportunities in disaster risk response and management, and the tools that can accelerate private investment.

Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Senior Advisor to the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, U.S. Department of State

  • Adaptation and resilience are playing a more important role than ever in the United States. This is in part because of the urgency of the impacts of climate change, and in part because adaptation fits well with the Biden-Harris Administration’s priorities of equity, environmental justice, and environmental- and resilience-related employment.
  • The Administration’s first major climate change event, the Leaders Summit on Climate, will bring together 40 heads of state. It represents a new age, in which mitigation and adaptation are co-equal parts of fighting climate change.
  • The Administration is approaching climate change and adaptation and resilience as a whole-government effort, starting on the domestic level.
    • The Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad created a National Climate Task Force headed by White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy; called on the Department of Commerce to provide a report on the way to expand and improve climate forecast capabilities; and tasked the Department of Interior with providing a report on the development of a map to facilitate public access to climate-related information.
    • The Administration’s American Jobs Plan stresses the importance of adaptation and resilience in its call for upgraded, resilient infrastructure.
    • The Administration is focused on creating a smooth net-zero transition for companies with carbon-heavy or climate-vulnerable assets.
  • Adaptation and resilience are also an international priority of the United States.
  • Various initiatives, such as the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure and the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, are seeking to raise infrastructure standards so it is systematically designed to withstand future climate change impacts.
  • Investment should not only happen after the impacts of extreme weather, but as a preparation for disasters before they happen, which is often more cost-effective. Mitigation and adaptation are no longer in competition and can now work together.

Alice Hill, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Council on Foreign Relations

  • Adaptation is often under-represented in climate negotiations. That needs to change: Munich RE [a large reinsurance company] estimated that natural disasters accounted for $210 billion in global losses last year, including $95 billion in the United States alone.
  • One thing that the U.N. Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Paris Agreement already recognize is that the best way to start adjusting to a different future is to plan. Planning is essential because the risk that climate change brings is so unfamiliar. Our systems—transportation, communication, healthcare, and housing—are all built on an assumption that the future will resemble the past. This assumption no longer holds as we will experience bigger, worse extremes in our future.
  • For each $1 that we spend to reduce the risk of a disaster before it occurs, we gain over $4 in benefits. Planning helps incorporate these financial benefits into our future choices.
  • The United States does not have a national adaptation plan, which is something Congress or the Biden-Harris Administration could take leadership on. China, France, and the European Union all have issued national adaptation plans. Canada and many developing nations are working to put forth their own plans.
    • A plan would allow us to adopt a whole-of-community approach so that different stakeholders—the private sector, state and local governments, Tribal governments, and the federal government—are all working together to better prepare for a very changed future.
  • When it comes to cost-benefit analyses both at home and overseas, we should better incorporate the fact that we have a long-time horizon when it comes to climate change.
    • We have historically discounted investments for future protection in favor of lower costs now. However, if we invest more now, it will save us a lot of money in the long run.
  • We do not currently have a set of climate-resilient building codes. For instance, we do not have a resource for interested parties to learn how to build for greater storm surge, for hotter fires, or for higher wind speeds. As we replace and retrofit buildings, we need to figure out how to make those investments sound going forward.
  • We need to coordinate our emergency management systems to better respond to multiple events at the same time and in quick succession. For instance, the demands on the military will increase with the need for climate-related humanitarian missions in the face of disasters like typhoons and wildfires.
  • Climate change ignores borders. We need to come up with plans regionally within the United States and across international borders, which includes our overseas development work.
  • Climate change impacts fall very unevenly, with women and children in the United States and overseas often paying a higher price.
  • We need to adapt now: even if we significantly reduce our emissions, we are still going to experience further heating—bringing flooding, droughts, extreme heat, and sea level rise.
  • As a nation, we need to go beyond making particular infrastructure assets—a dam, a bridge, a road—climate resilient.
    • This requires an important change in thinking: how can we gain resilience through these investments rather than simply making sure that structures themselves are resilient? Just making an asset sturdier may not make communities more resilient. This requires us to look at issues like overall land use to determine if we will be more resilient as a result of that investment.

Rachel Jacobson, Deputy Director, American Society of Adaptation Professionals

  • People and communities on the frontlines of climate change are those who are experiencing the consequences of climate change first and worst.
    • People can be highly exposed to climate risks due to where they live or to their lack of resources, capacity, safety nets, or political power to respond to climate risks. The most vulnerable include Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and low-income communities, as well as immigrants, people at risk of displacement, and people with disabilities.
  • We need strong leadership, better coordination, and alignment across the federal government and among all federal agencies to create a unified adaptation and resilience strategy.
  • The most cited need of adaptation professionals is more funding to implement work on the ground.
    • There are many strategies and a growing body of technical assistance to help communities use public, private, and blended finance, as well as obtain capital for local adaptation plans and projects.
    • However, it will be impossible to implement the scale of work needed without significantly more federal dollars allocated directly to adaptation work through mechanisms like grants and revolving loan funds.
  • We need better principles for how funds are allocated and spent: agencies need to remove burdensome elements of funding applications so that federal funding does not only accrue to the communities that have the resources to apply for it.
    • Funding must be flexibly applied to community-determined priorities, such as in the case of Community Development Block Grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Massachusetts and North Carolina are pioneering a way to get more money into the hands of communities: these states created programs that provide technical assistance and funding for climate resilience planning and implementation in local communities across the state.
  • Federal funding through state programs can help communities build the foundations for sound climate adaptation (e.g., conducting local vulnerability assessments or developing climate adaptation resilience plans).
  • We need to reform existing policies to avoid maladaptation, which the IPCC recognizes as actions that may lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes, increased vulnerability to climate change, or diminished welfare. This can mean failing to anticipate expected climate change or trading long-term vulnerability for short-term benefits.
  • Many existing federal laws and policies promote maladaptation, for example by not incorporating forward-looking climate information or by inequitably allocating risks and benefits.
    • For instance, engineers and planners throughout the United States use the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlas 14 statistical data for infrastructural design. However, Atlas 14 does not include rainfall data that integrates future climate projections. Not accounting for future rainfall can shorten the lifespan of infrastructural assets.
  • We must consider where risks and benefits are accruing due to federal policies. Some federal programs use cost-benefit analysis tied to property values. Adaptation projects in places with lower property values may get passed over when, oftentimes, those are the places that need those projects the most.
  • We need a distinct set of policies explicitly designed to address current and future climate impacts, such as forced displacement.
    • Millions of people in the United States and hundreds of millions across the globe will be forcibly displaced by sea level rise and other climate impacts.
    • We need federal strategies, guidance, coordinated technical assistance, and dedicated funding to enact climate migration and managed retreat as just, equitable, and effective climate adaptation strategies.
  • The American Society of Adaptation Professionals’ 2021 policy priorities provide a guiding framework: we should treat climate change as a crisis; prioritize justice and equity in crisis responses; overlay climate resilience needs on all infrastructure decisions; preserve and manage natural systems for climate resilience; and define, develop, and train the climate change adaptation and resilience workforce. This includes investing in education and training.

 

Q&A Session

 

Q: How do we ensure that we are advancing adaptation and resilience work in a just and equitable way? What are some examples of policies or programs in the United States, the United Kingdom, or elsewhere that are doing this particularly effectively?

  • Jackson: Everything we are doing is about building inclusive approaches. That means prioritizing and driving the action for those who are most vulnerable to climate change: women, children, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, and marginalized groups. This is why one element of our approach has been endorsing the principles for locally-led adaptation and encouraging others to do the same. There has to be inclusion, particularly when it comes to developing countries leading effective adaptation and resilience initiatives.
  • Martinez-Diaz: We should not forget the importance of strengthening existing social safety nets. It is clear that when climate disasters strike, the most essential first lines of defense are social safety nets and your ability to rely on continued employment in the aftermath of such a disaster. The ability to move and relocate was essential in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and safety nets gave people the resources necessary to relocate immediately. Investment in our social safety nets will also help our resilience in specific localities. Additionally, there are now corporations around the world investing heavily in climate-resilient facilities, factories, and networks. The problem is that if public infrastructure fails, then suppliers cannot deliver. It does not matter how much you invest in your own private infrastructure: we need a set of efforts between local governments and businesses to figure out how to work together to ensure they have mutual resilience to climate, not just a type of private resilience. The distribution of adaptation resources is also crucial. It cannot just be about avoiding economic losses; it has to be about ensuring that you are protecting a broader set of people. That means changing the lens we use when making these financial decisions, as well as having different voices at the table when these allocations are made.
  • Hill: We need to improve early-warning systems. Longer term forecasting allows people to prepare in advance for when disaster strikes. If you couple robust early-warning systems with some kind of parametric insurance, disaster insurance, or stronger social net, you will have better outcomes. Parametric insurance is a tool increasingly used in development: it is a type of insurance that has a trigger. If there is a warning issued based on a forecast, the community is given an infusion of cash through their phones, which allows them to take steps to protect their homes and livelihoods. We have already seen many of these programs developed across the globe. As we improve our early-warning systems, we need to figure out ways to help people get out of harm’s way.
  • Jacobson: The United States recently released an Action for Climate Empowerment strategic planning framework. It leverages existing education, communication, workforce development, and civic infrastructure to mobilize all of society for just, community-driven climate action. This is a great example of using bottom-up grassroots approaches, even though it was a national strategic planning framework developed in the context of an international framework. This action plan provides an example of where to look for some principles and best practices. I want to uplift three examples: first, I want to acknowledge the people who are doing this work on the ground, particularly through community-based organizations that are rooted in environmental justice principles and the environmental justice movement. It is really important to know that the work happening under the banner of environmental justice is often adaptation and resilience work, but it is not always labeled as such. As we are thinking about a holistic national strategy to increase our ambition for just and equitable adaptation and resilience, we should be looking to the people who have been doing that work on the ground for decades under the banner of environmental justice. That is where we will find the best practices, and that is also where the implementation is. Two examples include the State of California’s Partners Advancing Climate Equity program, which builds the capacity of local leaders, and the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, which has been the standard bearer of many things in adaptation and resilience, especially regarding ecosystem adaptation. I want to particularly highlight their work with tribes and Indigenous peoples to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into climate planning frameworks.

 

Q: This week is the Leaders Summit on Climate. A goal for this briefing is to raise awareness of adaptation and resilience this week and going forward. How do we collectively increase the profile of adaptation ahead of the 26th conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26)?

  • Jackson: In terms of COP26, you will continue to hear from the United Kingdom. Adaptation is a big priority, and the UK will be using their G7 and COP presidencies to promote this agenda and encourage more countries, as well as businesses and other institutions, to join the Adaptation Action Coalition to support resilience. Around the world, countries are implementing new approaches and applying technologies to build resilience. The more that we can tell those stories and engage people, the more we can raise awareness.
  • Martinez-Diaz: The key is to ensure that the summit is not just a point in time or a one-off, but rather a destination on the journey to something bigger. We are hoping the summit will elevate the importance of these issues and encourage governments to make some important announcements and commitments and to then use the Petersburg Dialogue, the G7, and the COP26 itself to solidify and put into place a new burst of energy into this agenda. I think that is ultimately what we would like to do with this approach.
  • Hill: I think the Biden-Harris administration could, first of all, create a plan and strategy. That would drive better decision-making across the federal government in terms of incorporating climate risk. In anticipation of that, I would recommend that they set out to educate their workforce. Most decision makers across the federal government do not have any formal training on climate change, so they do not understand what is going to happen. We need to make sure that the people who are drafting the plans that Biden has already called for, much less an expanded plan and strategy, have the necessary knowledge. We have got to make sure that we have a level playing field because right now you could have someone who is very sophisticated, and then someone who is questioning why we need to care about these issues now. We have to answer those questions before we can really get to the level of understanding and drive needed to make sure we can address adaptation and planning internationally and domestically.
  • Jacobson: At the American Society of Adaptation Professionals (ASAP), we build the capacity of adaptation professionals, who are the people integrating future climate information into their day-to-day work. That can, and should, be everyone across the federal government. What we need is an integrated conversation about mitigation and adaptation. It will take our collective effort, not to just avoid dangerous temperature overshoot, but to adapt to the climate impacts that are locked in and to adapt to the unknown scale of impacts that will result from the trajectory our mitigation efforts put us on.

 

Highlights compiled by Rachel Snead and Celine Yang.