Can Regional-Scale Governance and Planning Support Transformative Adaptation? : A Study of Two Places

The idea that climate change adaptation is best leveraged at the local scale is a well-institutionalized script in both research and formal governance. This idea is based on the argument that the local scale is where climate change impacts are “felt” and experienced. However, sustainable and just climate futures require transformations in systems, norms, and cultures that underpin and reinforce our unsustainable practices and development pathways, not just “local” action. Governance interventions are needed to catalyse such shifts, connecting multilevel and multiscale boundaries of knowledge, values, levels and organizational remits. We critically reflect on current adaptation governance processes in Victoria, Australia and the Gothenburg region, Sweden to explore whether regional-scale governance can provide just as important leverage for adaptation as local governance, by identifying and addressing intersecting gaps and challenges in adaptation at local levels. We suggest that regional-scale adaptation oers possibilities for transformative change because they can identify, connect, and amplify small-scale (local) wins and utilize this collective body of knowledge to challenge and advocate for unblocking stagnated, institutionalized policies and practices, and support transformative change

The challenge of integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk management : lessons from bushfire and flood inquiries in an Australian context

Emergency management and climate change adaptation will increasingly challenge all levels of government because of three main factors. First, Australia is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, particularly through the increasing frequency, duration and/or intensity of disasters such as floods and bushfires. Second, the system of government that divides powers by function and level can often act as a barrier to a well-integrated response. Third, policymaking processes struggle to cope with such complex inter-jurisdictional issues. This paper discusses these factors and explores the nature of the challenge for Australian governments. Investigations into the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2011 Perth Hills bushfires, and the 2011 Brisbane floods offer an indication of the challenges ahead and it is argued that there is a need to: improve community engagement and communication; refocus attention on resilience; improve interagency communication and collaboration; and, develop institutional arrangements that support continual improvement and policy learning. These findings offer an opportunity for improving responses as well as a starting point for integrating disaster risk management and climate change adaptation policies. The paper is based on the preliminary findings of an NCCARF funded research project: The Right Tool for the Job: Achieving climate change adaptation outcomes through improved disaster management policies, planning and risk management strategies involving Griffith University and RMIT. It should be noted from the outset that the purpose of this research project is not to criticise the actions of emergency service workers and volunteers who do an incredible job under extreme circumstances, often risking their own lives in the process. The aim is simply to offer emergency management agencies the opportunity to step back and rethink their overall approach to the challenge they face in the light of the impacts of climate change

Rethinking emergency management and climate adaptation policies

Emergency management and climate change adaptation will increasingly challenge all levels of government because of three main factors. First, Australia is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, particularly through the increasing frequency and/or intensity of disasters such as floods and bushfires. Second, the system of government that divides powers by function and level can often act as a barrier to a well-integrated response. Third, policymaking processes struggle to cope with such complex inter-jurisdictional issues. This paper discusses these factors and explores the nature of the challenge for Australian governments. Investigations into the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2011 Perth Hills bushfires, and the 2011 Brisbane floods offer an indication of the challenges ahead and it is argued that there is a need to: improve community engagement and communication; refocus attention on resilience; improve interagency communication and collaboration; and, develop institutional arrangements that support continual improvement and policy learning. These findings offer an opportunity for improving responses as well as a starting point for integrating disaster risk management and climate change adaptation policies. The paper is based on the preliminary findings of an NCCARF funded research project: The Right Tool for the Job – Achieving climate change adaptation outcomes through improved disaster management policies, planning and risk management strategies involving Griffith University and RMIT

Rethinking disaster risk management and climate change adaptation: Final Report [NCCARF Publication 88/13]

Australian governments face the twin challenges of dealing with extreme weather-related disasters (such as floods and bushfires) and adapting to the impacts of climate change. These challenges are connected, so any response would benefit from a more integrated approach across and between the different levels of government.This report summarises the findings of an NCCARF-funded project that addresses this problem. The project undertook a three-way comparative case study of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2011 Perth Hills bushfires, and the 2011 Brisbane floods. It collected data from the official inquiry reports into each of these events, and conducted new interviews and workshops with key stakeholders. The findings of this project included recommendations that range from the conceptual to the practical. First, it was argued that a reconceptualization of terms such as ‘community’ and ‘resilience’ was necessary to allow for more tailored responses to varying circumstances. Second, it was suggested that the high level of uncertainty inherent in disaster risk management and climate change adaptation requires a more iterative approach to policymaking and planning. Third, some specific institutional reforms were proposed that included: 1) a new funding mechanism that would encourage collaboration between and across different levels of government, as well as promoting partnerships with business and the community; 2) improving community engagement through new resilience grants run by local councils; 3) embedding climate change researchers within disaster risk management agencies to promote institutional learning, and; 4) creating an inter-agency network that encourages collaboration between organisations

Towards networked governance: improving interagency communication and collaboration for disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in Australia

Major disasters, such as bushfires or floods, place significant stress on scarce public resources. Climate change is likely to exacerbate this stress. An integrated approach to disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) could reduce the stress by encouraging the more efficient use of pooled resources and expertise. A comparative analysis of three extreme climate-related events that occurred in Australia between 2009 and 2011 indicated that a strategy to improve interagency communication and collaboration would be a key factor in this type of policy/planning integration. These findings are in accord with the concepts of Joined-up Government and Network Governance. Five key reforms are proposed: developing a shared policy vision; adopting multi-level planning; integrating legislation; networking organisations; and establishing cooperative funding. These reforms are examined with reference to the related research literature in order to identify potential problems associated with their implementation. The findings are relevant for public policy generally but are particularly useful for CCA and DRM

Climate change vulnerability and adaptation: voices from the community services sector in Victoria

The State of Australian Cities (SOAC) national conferences have been held biennially since 2003 to support interdisciplinary policy-related urban research. This paper was presented at SOAC 6, held in Sydney from 26-29 November 2013. SOAC 6was the largest conference to date, with over 180 papers published in collected proceedings. All papers presented at the SOAC 2013 have been subject to a double blind refereeing process and have been reviewed by at least two referees. In particular, the review process assessed each paper in terms of its policy relevance and the contribution to the conceptual or empirical understanding of Australian cities

Mainstreaming climate change adaptation : An incremental approach to disaster risk management in Australia

In this paper we argue that rationalist ‘predict then act’ approaches to disaster risk management (DRM) policy promote unrealistic public expectations of DRM provisions, the avoidance of decision making by political elites, an over-reliance on technical expertise and engineering solutions to reducing exposure to natural events, and a reactive approach to DRM overall. We propose an alternative incrementalist approach that focuses on managing uncertainties rather than reducing them and building resilience not simply through the reduction of hazard exposure, but also through the ongoing reduction of community vulnerability, the explicit consideration of normative priorities, and more effective community engagement in climate risk debates.\ud \u

Public policy, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation

Public policymakers are caught in a dilemma : there is a growing list of urgent issues to address, at the same time that public expenditure is being cut. Adding to this dilemma is a system of government designed in the 19th century and competing theories of policymaking dating back to the 1950s. The interlinked problems of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation are cases in point. As the climate changes, there will be more frequent, intense and/or prolonged disasters such as floods and bushfires. Clearly a well integrated whole of government response is needed, but how might this be achieved? Further, how could academic research contribute to resolving this dilemma in a way that would produce something of theoretical interest as well as practical outcomes for policymakers? These are the questions addressed by our research via a comparative analysis of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2011 Perth Hills bushfires, and the 2011 Brisbane floods. Our findings suggest that there is a need to: improve community engagement and communication; refocus attention on resilience; improve interagency communication and collaboration; and, develop institutional arrangements that support continual improvement and policy learning. These findings have implications for all areas of public policy theory and practice