Climate change adaptation policies and programs
Compared to efforts to mitigate the role of local energy systems in global climate change, efforts to adapt local energy systems to changing climatic conditions are much more difficult to identify. A scan of many local climate plans finds energy system adaptation rarely mentioned, or defined only in terms of a single type of climate risk, such as vulnerability to coastal flooding (Webster and McElwee, 2009).
Part of the problem is that local understanding of the climate impacts a specific city will face has historically been poor; efforts to downscale global climate models described earlier in this report are only now being employed in cities around the globe. Cities can use past extreme weather events as proxies, with the assumption that climate change will exacerbate the frequency or scale of these events.
Another factor potentially impeding local authority engagement is their limited "ownership" of the solutions to this problem.This fact forces local authorities to develop an advocacy, education, or partnership agenda, seeking to engage other key stakeholders such as utility owners and regulators in a way that will advance the city’s interest in a more robust and resilient energy system.
Adaptation and mitigation of climate change impacts in Kampala, Uganda
Climate change, now a reality, is influencing realignment of global and country policies towards adaptation and mitigation (Prasad et al., 2009). The effects of climate change are now being felt, with Africa as the most vulnerable region (UN-HABITAT, 2008). This is due to Africa’s multidimensional unprepar-edness, yet the continent is unequivocally urbanizing faster than any region globally, exposing inland and coastal cities to risks. Cities are both contributors to and vulnerable to climate change, but the effects of climate change are exacerbating the already grim environmental, social, and economic challenges heightening the risk to the urban poor (UN-HABITAT, 2008). Urban vulnerabilities are manifest in several areas including housing, energy, food security, water resources, health, transport infrastructure, environmental services, and economic productivity. This box highlights findings of climate change effects, and strategies for mitigation and adaptation in Kampala. Under the Sustainable Urban Development network (SUD-Net), the Cities in Climate Change Initiative (CCCI) of the UN-HABITAT is aimed at raising awareness, developing tools, and building capacity for municipalities and intensification of adaptation and mitigation activities through demonstration projects. The CCCI is building on existing climate change mitigation and adaptation measures at national and city levels by providing frameworks for urban vulnerability assessment, identifying scalable adaptation and mitigation measures implemented at community to city levels through Local Climate Change Plans.
Applying a multi-faceted methodological approach that utilized geospatial analysis integrating demographic, social, economic, and environmental data complemented with meta-evaluation of climate change projects, findings show that the impacts are increasing. In Uganda, there has been recorded variation in average temperatures that correlates with an estimated increase of 1.5 °C in the next 20 years and by up to 4.3 °C by the 2080s, although recent scientific studies indicate that the globe could warm by 4 °C by 2050. Significant observed changes in rainfall patterns and temperature continue to pose vulnerabilities to urban areas in Uganda. The most significant impact to Kampala is flooding due to increased rainfall that is spread over relatively short or extended periods. Increase in runoff has made flooding the most serious threat to humans, livelihoods, the urban system, and the economy. On the other hand, changes in temperature regimes have affected urban livelihoods and food security.
Kampala city is the primary city, with 39.6 percent of the national urban population. Located along the shores of Lake Victoria, a region with evidence of increased precipitation, the challenge of surface runoff coupled with non-robust drainage systems has increased the vulnerability of Kampala city’s infrastructure, housing, social services, and livelihoods. Between December 2006 and February 2007 there was serious damage to housing and schools and disruption of livelihoods from excessive rainfall. These vulnerabilities are felt variably in a city "region" of Kampala spanning an estimated surface area of 1,895 sq km with a spatial connectedness of economic, social, and environmental processes (Nyakaana et al., 2004). The various urban sectors of the city are affected in different ways, so that sector-specific vulnerability analysis provides better clues on mitigation and adaptation measures. Energy is an important sector with heavy reliance on biomass energy for domestic and institutional use. About 75 percent of Kampala’s population use wood fuel and will use an estimated 535 metric tons annually by 2007 (Mukwaya et al., 2007). This is coupled with increases in motorized transportation and consumption of petroleum products leading to greenhouse gas emissions. Although the contribution of Uganda to CO2 emissions is low, adapting urban transportation for energy efficiency is important. Another sector associated with energy is housing, with two roles: protection of inhabitants from climate change impacts; and contribution of buildings to emissions. Analysis shows that existing buildings are neither energy efficient nor protective to inhabitants. Low- or neutral-energy housing is needed and a housing code that is energy efficient is to be developed under the CCCI.
Urban water is an important sector vulnerable to climate change. Safe urban water supply reaches only 67 percent of the population in Kampala, with the large population left out being the urban poor. Climate change impacts around Lake Victoria have led to decrease in the water levels and affected supply for 2.5 years. Climate change is likely to worsen the situation for the urban poor. In respect to solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal, the principle of "generator pays" is the basis of solid waste management, but despite the initiative, solid waste management practices are deplorable. The city has not benefited from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of trading carbon credits from landfill gas capture. Local-level innovative ways of utilizing waste for energy with the potential to reduce landfill emissions is yet to be scaled up. The linkage between solid waste management, energy, and flooding has increased the vulnerability of the city’s population to health hazards. Infectious diseases, especially water-related and air-borne, are prevalent in many of the neighborhoods of Kampala: disease outbreaks occurred in 1997, 1999, 2004, 2006, and 2008 due to the increased floods (KCC and BTC, 2008). With these impacts, urban health services become overstretched to meet the challenges of high service demand. The ecosystem of the city region is also under threat with wetland destruction, biodiversity loss and soil erosion augmented by clearance of vegetation, and ecosystem services decline. Ecosystem conservation and management remains an important component for climate change adaptation and mitigation. A gender perspective of climate change vulnerability has informed the initiative to be responsive by analyzing effects on different gender groups and strategies that address the needs of women and children.
SUD-Net CCCI has initiated awareness-raising campaigns, which will be followed by development of tools to enable different stakeholders to develop climate change plans. Drawing on the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) and the Initial Climate Communication tool, the CCCI is enabling amplification of the role of urban areas in climate change adaptation and mitigation (Isabirye, 2009). A platform to enable engagement of stakeholders is envisaged to highlight vulnerability for policy action. Various demonstration projects, including city greening, alternative energy briquette utilization, clean wood fuel use, climate proofing of infrastructure, and designing energy efficient urban transport systems, are underway for long-term response to climate change. A key aspect of this program is building institutional resilience and adaptation to climate change by investing in action research that brings together different stakeholders. There is much needed knowledge to inform climate change policy, a wealth of which exists but is not widely disseminated. This necessitates innovations in enabling information flow for up- and out-scaling of innovations. Thus, information sharing is important and provides an opportunity for communicating and networking on climate change. UN-HABITAT under the SUD-Net is supporting a Local Urban Knowledge Arenas (LUKAS) platform through which climate change information at city and national level will be exchanged.
This is not to say there has been no progress on this issue. New York, London, and Chicago all have active energy system adaptation initiatives underway, working closely with key energy system stakeholders and regulators (Chicago Climate Task Force, 2007; Greater London Authority, 2008; City of New York, 2008). Other cities have also identified steps they would like to take to adapt the local energy system to climate-related impacts, while researchers and non-governmental organizations are coming up with their own guidance documents.Many of these emphasize the synergistic nature of mitigation and adaptation strategies, with system changes intended to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels whilst simultaneously enhancing the resilience of the system to climatic changes (Laukkonen et al., 2009).
It is possible to categorize adaptation initiatives in various ways, including those that reduce sensitivity, alter exposure, or increase resilience to changing conditions (Adger et al., 2005). As discussed above, it also helps to categorize strategies as relating to either energy supply or demand. Examples of different energy system adaptation strategies are found in Table 4.6, broken out by these two classification systems. In some cases, individual policy and program strategies provide benefits in multiple impact categories.
Cities opting to pursue adaptation initiatives will likely find that grappling with uncertainty over the nature, scale, and timing of the impacts will be a significant challenge. Part of the problem arises from the fact that the energy system itself is constantly changing, reflecting technological and market innovation and growing demand levels. Each segment of the system also has a natural lifespan, creating opportunities to upgrade the system or enhance its climate resiliency as part of the natural life cycle of the equipment (Neumann and Price, 2009). By themselves, these factors make system planning a highly complex endeavor; adding climate change to the mix only compounds the difficulty (Linder et al, 1987; ICF, 1995; Scott and Huang, 2007). Equally challenging is the fact that many energy companies have a relatively short capital investment horizon, potentially limiting their interest or ability to take actions whose benefits may only be realized over a much longer timescale.
Local authorities seeking decision rules to rank their adaptation options or manage risk have several options. It may be helpful to apply scenario analysis to the problem, selecting the option(s) that result in the least sensitivity to future climate conditions (Lempert and Collins, 2007). Hallegatte (2008) suggests that "no-regret" or "reversible" policies be considered. No-regret strategies are those yielding benefits even if impact projections prove overblown; energy efficiency initiatives are "no-regret measures par excellence" (Mansanet-Bataller et al., 2008) because they deliver cost-saving benefits regardless of what happens with climate change. Reversible policies allow a local authority to swiftly change course if anticipated problems do not arise or if the policy proves ineffective. Hallegatte (2008) also proposes that local authorities account for uncertainty over climate change by pursuing investments with a shorter projected lifespan. Such a strategy allows the local authority to exploit the replacement cycle for these investments, incorporating the latest scientific knowledge into the procurement process.
Table 4.6: Examples of energy system adaptation strategies.
|
Impact category |
Energy supply |
Energy demand |
|
Reduce sensitivity: alter the scale or type of local energy system assets or markets to minimize the effects of reduced system output or failure |
• Reduce supply sensitivity to loss of hydropower availability by increasing reservoir system capacity (Adger et al., 2005) • Install in-building supply systems (thermal or power) at elevations above anticipated flooding levels (Adger et al., 2005) • Construct additional or redundant transmission or distribution line capacity to offset anticipated efficiency losses (Hill and Goldberg, 2001) • Establish new coastal power plant siting rules to minimize flood risk (Stern, 1998) • Install solar PV technology to reduce effects of peak demand (Franco and Sanstad, 2008) |
• Install steam-powered chillers to reduce burden on local power system on hot days • Establish or expand demand-response programs which encourage consumers to voluntarily reduce power consumption during peak demand events (Stern, 1998) |
|
Alter exposure: take steps that reduce opportunities for the local energy system to experience damage or problems resulting from climate change |
• Upgrade local transmission and distribution network to handle increased load associated with higher temperatures (Hill and Goldberg, 2001) • Protect power plants from flooding with dykes/ berms (Mansanet-Bataller et al., 2008) • Expand hazard preparedness programs (Adger et al., 2005) • I nstall solar PV technology to reduce effects of peak demand (Franco and Sanstad, 2008) • Require utilities to develop storm hardening plans on a regular basis (Neumann and Price, 2009) • Retrofit power plants so they use less cooling water (Neumann and Price, 2009) |
• Install steam-powered chillers to reduce burden on local power system on hot days • Establish or expand demand-response programs which encourage consumers to voluntarily reduce power consumption during peak demand events (Stern, 1998) • I mprove and rigidly enforce energy efficient building codes (Morris and Garrell, 1996) |
|
Increase resilience: enhance ability of city to recover from losses by reducing overall need for energy services or enhancing speed with which system can recover |
• Automate restoration procedures to bring energy system back on line faster after weather-related service interruption (Overbye et al. ,2007) • Expand refinery capacity in less vulnerable areas (Neumann and Price, 2009) • Provide additional support for distribution generation systems to spread climate risk over a larger area (Neumann and Price, 2009) |
• Establish public education programs to promote lifestyles that are less energy-dependent • Employ passive building design strategies (e.g., larger windows, extra thick walls, flow-through ventilation, natural shading, etc.) to maintain minimum comfort or lighting levels even in situations where energy system losses occur (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007; Miller et al., 2008) • Reduce or eliminate energy subsidies so prices reflect true cost (Stern, 1998) |
Conclusions, policy recommendations, 1 areas for future research
This topic makes clear the complexity of urban energy systems. Market structures vary across cities and countries, as do current-day economic and climatic conditions. Technology decisions made long ago that reflect past market and policy/ regulatory realities continue to influence choices made today and plans looking toward the future.
The result is that urban energy consumption, the impacts of that consumption, and the vulnerability of urban energy systems to climate change will vary significantly across locales. This local context needs to be well understood, both to elucidate the vulnerabilities and challenges facing a particular city as well as to clarify the options available to combat these threats. Because of the unique circumstances facing each city, there is little evidence on how strategies promoted as "best practice" in one city can be effectively transferred from one city to another. It is also difficult to pinpoint one single energy system type as being more or less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than another.
Localized climate change studies offer clear benefits, employing downscaled GCMs to establish a scientific justification for local action. Energy supply and demand or greenhouse gas emission inventories also set the stage for comprehensive policymaking efforts.
Local authorities drawing on these facts have many intervention strategies they can employ to influence local energy use or enhance the climate resilience of urban energy systems. Section 4.5 looked at initiatives including public information campaigns, building regulations, and market and policy changes. However, because cities often have a limited span of control, working with partners is vital, including the public, non-governmental organizations and other civil society groups, the private sector, and different scales of government. There is evidence that cities have already recognized this and such collaborations are becoming increasingly common.
Knowledge gaps
Much of the research cited in this report is quite recent. Work in this area continues to evolve and, while some of the basic issues are now well-understood, a number of knowledge gaps remain. These include:
• Limits on structural or systemic change: Section 4.2 highlighted the key drivers of urban energy consumption. Although many local action plans seek modest or incremental change to the current energy system, there is a larger question of whether cities can overcome their path dependency to implement large-scale overhauls, dramatically altering the way they make or use energy, and under what timescale this might be possible. In Denmark, cities in the Copenhagen region banded together to completely overhaul the way buildings in the city are heated, installing a comprehensive district energy system that reached into nearly every home and business in just a few years (Manczyk and Leach, 2002). Is such a model transferable to other cities, employing the same or other types of energy technologies? Research authoritatively evaluating all that was done to deliver this change in Copenhagen and its relevance to other cities might go far in helping local authorities move beyond their current energy or climate policymaking comfort zone.
• A corollary to that question is our lack of understanding of the point at which local features of climate, geography, and history are immutable facts that undercut our goals for system transformation. In other words, when do aspirational climate or energy goals become unattainable, and what can be done to identify the realistic limits on change so this can be directly woven into the local planning process?
• Demand-side projections: There is little evidence to date on what climate scenarios mean for local energy demand in different cities. Storm and flooding risks are more likely to be known, based on historical experience. Far less understood, however, is the issue of consumer behavior and local price elasticity of demand. If cities start to get hotter, at what point will consumers increase their adoption of air conditioning, and how much will they use it each day? This knowledge is critical because it leads to questions of market pricing, demand-side management, and (potentially) the need for new peak-load generation capacity.
• Energy supply chains in developing countries: Little is known to date about how climate change will affect the informal energy systems of developing countries. Because some of these cities are rapidly growing, it will be important to understand whether climate-related system vulnerabilities may be outpaced by a transition to cleaner fuels or by efforts to expand grid access in these cities.
• Multi-level government policy coordination: A gaping hole in the urban energy and climate literature is an understanding of the proper role of national and transnational governments in urban energy system governance. Local authorities have their own vision in terms of policy coordination and resource support (see City of Copenhagen, 2009), but more fundamental questions about power sharing or the devolution of power from central/state government have not been examined in meaningful ways. A related question involves market restructuring efforts. Increased competition in supply has led to significant changes in technology deployment and energy planning responsibilities, but transmission and distribution functions are still largely regulated monopolies. In both cases, are these regulatory systems structured in ways that they can meaningfully address that challenges presented by climate change? Moreover, are regulators informed about how climate change may manifest itself in different cities under their jurisdiction, and on what time frame? Have they begun to weave these facts or projections into their regulatory decisions, such as whether to allow utilities to receive rate recovery for climate resiliency investments?
• Future-proofing: Hallegatte’s "no-regrets" strategy (Hallegatte, 2008) provides guidance on adaptation strategies cities can pursue with little concern for how climate change actually plays out, because the environmental or efficiency benefits of these strategies will always be valued. Uncertainty also exists, however, in the form of future national-level climate change mitigation policies and technological innovation. How can local authorities craft policies that will serve their long-term energy and climate interests without a full understanding of whether breakthrough technologies may fundamentally change how energy must be generated, imported, or used within a city? Local authorities would benefit from such guidance, particularly because it is likely that central and state governments will be increasingly active on climate change mitigation efforts in the coming years, leaving local authorities to play catchup.
