Measuring the adaptation goal in the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement establishes a global goal on adaptation which will be assessed through the global stocktake, the first attempt by the international climate change regime to measure collective progress on adaptation. This policy analysis identifies four main challenges to designing a meaningful assessment. These are: designing a system that can aggregate results; managing the dual mandate of reviewing collective progress and informing the enhancement of national level actions; methodological challenges in adaptation; and political challenges around measurement. We propose a mixed-methods approach to addressing these challenges, combining short-term needs for reporting with longer-term aims of enhancing national adaptation actions.

Key policy insights

• Broad domains of adaptation activity could be identified within each of the objectives of the adaptation goal and progress could be measured and aggregated through simple scorecards.

• The goal should have both process and outcome indicators as well as some narrative linking activities to outcomes over time.

• Reporting could be a compilation of national data using qualitative and quantitative sources, aligning with the global stocktake’s aim of enhancing national actions over time and reducing immediate reporting burdens.

• There would be a complementary role at least in the short term for an expert assessment of priority areas.

     

The effectiveness of communicative tools in addressing barriers to municipal climate change adaptation: lessons from the Netherlands

Little research has been done on the effectiveness of communicative tools for climate change adaptation. Filling this knowledge gap is relevant, as many national governments rely on communicative tools to raise the awareness and understanding of climate impacts, and to stimulate adaptation action by local governments. To address this knowledge gap, this study focuses on the effectiveness of communicative tools in addressing key municipal barriers to climate change adaptation, by conducting a large N-size empirical study in the Netherlands. This study explores the effectiveness of these tools in theory, by checking whether their goals match the perceived barriers to municipal climate change adaptation, and the effectiveness in practice by analysing whether they are used and perceived as useful. Document analyses have clarified the assumptions underlying the tools. By conducting semi-structured interviews with 84 municipalities the key barriers to climate change adaptation and the use and usefulness of the tools in practice were analysed. The research revealed that the key barriers experienced by municipalities are a lack of urgency, a lack of knowledge of risks and measures, and limited capacity, the first being the primary one. Communicative tools, while being effective in theory, are not sufficiently effective in practice in addressing the key barriers. Municipalities that are not experiencing a sense of urgency to take on adaptation planning are not likely to be activated by the tools. Advanced municipalities need more sophisticated tools. This article concludes with some suggestions to improve the effectiveness of communicative tools.

Key policy insights

• Although effective in theory in addressing key barriers to municipal adaptation planning, the effectiveness in practice of communicative tools is limited.

• To increase their effectiveness in practice, municipalities’ awareness of the existence of the communicative tools needs to be raised.

• Advanced municipalities need more sophisticated tools that are context-specific and address a wide range of climate risks.

• The effectiveness of communicative tools can be improved by embedding them in a wider mix of policy instruments.

     

Climate action for food security in South Asia? Analyzing the role of agriculture in nationally determined contributions to the Paris agreement

The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted under the Paris Agreement propose a country’s contribution to global mitigation efforts and domestic adaptation initiatives. This paper provides a systematic analysis of NDCs submitted by South Asian nations, in order to assess how far their commitments might deliver meaningful contributions to the global 2°C target and to sustainable broad-based adaptation benefits. Though agriculture-related emissions are prominent in emission profiles of South Asian countries, their emission reduction commitments are less likely to include agriculture, partly because of a concern over food security. We find that income-enhancing mitigation technologies that do not jeopardize food security may significantly augment the region’s mitigation potential. In the case of adaptation, analysis shows that the greatest effort will be directed towards protecting the cornerstones of the ‘green revolution’ for ensuring food security. Development of efficient and climate-resilient agricultural value chains and integrated farming bodies will be important to ensuring adaptation investment. Potentially useful models of landscape level climate resilience actions and ecosystem-based adaptation are also presented, along with estimates of the aggregate costs of agricultural adaptation. Countries in the region propose different mixes of domestic and foreign, and public and private, adaptation finance to meet the substantial gaps.

Key policy insights

• Though substantial potential for mitigation of agricultural emissions exists in South Asia, governments in the region do not commit to agricultural emissions reductions in their NDCs.

• Large-scale adoption of income-enhancing technologies is the key to realizing agricultural mitigation potential in South Asia, whilst maintaining food security.

• Increasing resilience and profitability through structural changes, value chain interventions, and landscape-level actions may provide strong options to build adaptive capacity and enhance food security.

• Both private finance (autonomous adaptation) and international financial transfers will be required to close the substantial adaptation finance gap

     

Adaptation financing for projects focused on food systems through the UNFCCC

Investments in adaptation are required to reduce vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of food systems to the impacts of climate change. For low-income nations, international financing plays a central role in supporting adaptation. In this article, we document and examine adaptation projects targeting food systems financed through funding bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We find that between 2004 and 2015, 3% (n?=?96) of adaptation projects supported through the UNFCCC explicitly focused on the production, processing, distribution, preparation and/or consumption of food, with US$546 m mobilized through funding bodies directly and US$1.44bn through co-financing. Agriculture is the most common sector supported, with extreme weather events the primary climate change-related impact motivating nations to apply for adaptation financing. The majority of actions are documented to adapt the food production component of food systems, with limited focus within projects on the full range of food system vulnerability and the implications on food security.

Key policy insights

• Enhanced international adaptation financing targeting food systems is needed, and in particular financing to address limited adaptation readiness

• Supported food system projects should include holistic assessments of the entire food system in order to prioritize sector and food system component issue areas for short- and long-term efficiency

• To better analyse food system linkages and aid in the prioritization of adaptation activities, adaptation-directed funds should consider placing a higher emphasis on a cross-sectoral approach within projects

• Linkages between official development assistance and adaptation-directed funds could help optimize financing for food systems and mainstream food system adaptation efforts

     

Smallholder farmers’ participation in climate change adaptation programmes: understanding preferences in Nepal

Globally, adaptation policies and programmes are being formulated to address climate change issues. However, in the agricultural sector, and particularly in least developed countries (LDCs), concerns remain as to whether these policies and programmes are consistent with farmers’ preferences. This study empirically investigates Nepalese farmers’ willingness to support the implementation of adaptation programmes. To this end, we first developed suggested adaptation programmes in accordance with the adaptation measures identified by LDCs in their National Adaptation Programmes of Actions. We then employed a choice experiment framework to estimate farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for adaptation benefits. The findings indicate that the substantial benefits of the adaptation programmes for farmers result in a sizeable WTP to participate, which would appear to justify the programmes’ widespread implementation.

Key policy insights

• Farmers are willing to participate in, and contribute to, the suggested adaptation programmes in the form of increased access to climate adaptive crop species and varieties, improved soil quality and irrigation and the provision of training in climate adaptive farming.

• Key socio-economic factors influence farmers’ support of adaptation programmes. Older farmers, those households closer to government extension services, larger land holders, those involved in household labour exchange, farmers located in drought and flood-prone regions and those who perceive that the climate has changed are more likely to participate.

• The more farmers are aware of climate change impacts, the greater their preference for adaptation programmes. Increasing farmer awareness prior to implementation of such programmes is therefore an obvious means of further raising participation rates.

     

Budgeting for climate change: obstacles and opportunities at the US state level

State governments in the United States are well placed to identify opportunities for mitigation and the needs for adaptation to climate change. However, the cost of these efforts can have important implications for budgets that already face pressures from diverse areas such as unfunded pensions and growing health care costs. In this work, the current level of spending on climate-related activities at the state level are evaluated and policy recommendations are developed to improve financial management practices as they relate to climate risk. An examination of state budgets reveals that climate mitigation and adaptation activities represent less than 1% of spending in most states. The data collection highlights the obstacles to collecting accurate spending data and the lack of budgetary and accounting procedures in place. More importantly, the difficulty in benchmarking these activities poses challenges for the analysis of state-level policies as well as planning and modelling future climate-related spending. Other policy contexts, including public pensions and infrastructure, can provide guidance on budgetary and accounting tools that may help states prepare for and more efficiently manage climate-related expenditures.

Key policy insights

• Climate change mitigation and adaptation will require substantial investments across many levels of government on a wide range of activities.

• Currently, US states are not clearly demarcating climate expenditures, hindering the identification of climate-related budgetary risks.

• In the absence of guidelines, these longer term fiscal outlays may remain chronically underfunded in favour of more near-term spending priorities.

• Establishing appropriate financial management and data collection practices is important for more sophisticated cost-effectiveness and policy analyses.

     

Knowledge gaps and climate adaptation policy: a comparative analysis of six Latin American countries

ABSTRACT

This article identifies and analyzes some of the main knowledge gaps that affect the development of climate adaptation policies in the Latin American context. It is based on a comparative analysis of online survey results conducted among government officials working on climate adaptation in six countries of the region: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Uruguay. The article addresses four key issues. First, it identifies some of the critical knowledge deficits (missing or incomplete information) that affect climate adaptation policy making and implementation. Second, it addresses the obstacles and difficulties facing collaborative processes of knowledge production (co-production) between scientists and public policy actors. Third, it analyzes factors affecting knowledge uptake and use by policymakers. Finally, it identifies some of the main knowledge deficits specifically affecting the monitoring and assessment of climate adaptation policies and measures. Overall, the article provides a diagnosis of the main knowledge gaps facing climate adaptation policy in the Latin American countries studied. The results of this diagnosis can serve as input for a research and action agenda aiming to strength the interaction between science and policy on climate adaptation in Latin American countries.

Key policy insights

• The countries covered by the study suffer strong knowledge deficits related to the design, implementation and evaluation of adaptation policy.

• Collaborative modes of knowledge production in the field of climate adaptation do not tend to sustain over time. Climate change co-production processes tend to be project based, linked to specific initiatives rather than to institutionalized long-term policymaking or planning processes.

• The fragmentation and lack of integration of the knowledge available on the different aspects of climate adaptation issues deeply affect their usability in policy processes.

• Weak state capabilities to co-produce, manage and use knowledge in the policy process constitute a main barrier affecting the science-policy interface on climate adaptation issues.

     

Implementing climate change adaptation: lessons from India’s national adaptation fund on climate change (NAFCC)

With poverty alleviation and sustainable development as key imperatives for a developing economy like India, what drives the resource-constrained state governments to prioritize actions that address climate change impacts? We examine this question and argue that without access to additional earmarked financial resources, climate action would get overshadowed by developmental priorities and effective mainstreaming might not be possible. A systematic literature review was carried out to draw insights from the current state of implementation of adaptation projects, programmes and schemes at the subnational levels, along with barriers to mainstreaming climate change adaptation. The findings from a literature review were supplemented with lessons emerging from the implementation of India’s National Adaptation Fund on Climate Change (NAFCC). The results of this study underscore the scheme’s relevance.

Key policy insights

• Experience with NAFCC implementation reveals that states require sustained ‘handholding’ in terms of financial, technical and capacity support until climate change issues are fully understood and embedded in the policy landscape.

• Domestic sources of finance are critically important in the absence of predictable and adequate adaptation finance from international sources.

• The dedicated window for climate finance fosters a spirit of competitive federalism among states and encourages enhanced climate action.

• Enhanced budgetary allocation to NAFCC to strengthen the state-level adaptation response and create capacity to mainstream climate change concerns in state planning frames, is urgently needed.

     

Swimming upstream: addressing fossil fuel supply under the UNFCCC

Reducing fossil fuel supply is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goal to keep warming ‘well below 2°C’, yet the Agreement is silent on the topic of fossil fuels. This article outlines reasons why it is important that Parties to the Agreement find ways to more explicitly address the phasing out of fossil fuel production under the UNFCCC. It describes how countries aiming to keep fossil fuel supply in line with Paris goals could articulate and report their actions within the current architecture of the Agreement. It also outlines specific mechanisms of the Paris Agreement through which issues related to the curtailment of fossil fuel supply can be addressed. Mapping out a transition away from fossil fuels – and facilitating this transition under the auspices of the UNFCCC process – can enhance the ambition and effectiveness of national and international climate mitigation efforts.

Key policy insights

• The international commitment to limit global average temperature increases to ‘well below 2°C’ provides a strong rationale for Parties to the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC to pursue a phase-down in fossil fuel production, not just consumption.

• Several countries have already made commitments to address fossil fuel supply, by agreeing to phase down coal or oil exploration and production.

• Integrating these commitments into the UNFCCC process would link them to global climate goals, and ensure they form part of a broader global effort to transition away from fossil fuels.

• The Paris Agreement provides a number of new opportunities for Parties to address fossil fuel production.

     

Evaluating the US Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization amidst early century uncertainty

The recent change in US presidential administrations has introduced significant uncertainty about both domestic and international policy support for continued reductions in GHG emissions. This brief analysis estimates the potential climate ramifications of changing US leadership, contrasting the Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization (MCS) released under the Obama Administration, with campaign statements, early executive actions, and prevailing market conditions to estimate potential emission pathways under the Trump Administration. The analysis highlights areas where GHG reductions are less robust to changing policy conditions, and offers brief recommendations for addressing emissions in the interim. It specifically finds that continued reductions in the electricity sector are less vulnerable to changes in federal policy than those in the built environment and land use sectors. Given the long-lived nature of investments in these latter two sectors, however, opportunities for near-term climate action by willing cities, states, private landowners, and non-profit organizations warrant renewed attention in this time of climate uncertainty.

Key policy insights

• The recent US presidential election has already impacted mitigation goals and practices, injecting considerable uncertainty into domestic and international efforts to address climate change.

• A strategic assessment issued in the final days of the Obama Administration for how to reach long-term climate mitigation objectives provides a baseline from which to gauge potential changes under the Trump Administration.

• Though market trends may continue to foster emission declines in the energy sector, emission reductions in the land use sector and the built environment are subject to considerable uncertainty.

• Regardless of actions to scale back climate mitigation efforts, US emissions are likely to be flat in the coming years. Assuming that emissions remain constant under President Trump and that reductions resume afterwards to meet the Obama Administration mid-century targets in 2050, this near-term pause in reductions yields a difference in total emissions equivalent to 0.3–0.6 years of additional global greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the number of terms served by a Trump Administration.

     

Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union

In principle, many climate policymakers have accepted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement’s mitigation targets, but they have avoided proposing by whom CDR might be delivered. Given its role in international climate policy, the European Union (EU) might be expected to lead the way. But among EU climate policymakers so far there is little talk on CDR, let alone action. Here we assess how best to ‘target’ CDR to motivate EU policymakers exploring which CDR target strategy may work best to start dealing with CDR on a meaningful scale. A comprehensive CDR approach would focus on delivering the CDR volumes required from the EU by 2100, approximately at least 50 Gigatonnes (Gt) CO₂, according to global model simulations aiming to keep warming below 2°C. A limited CDR approach would focus on an intermediate target to deliver the CDR needed to reach ‘net zero emissions’ (i.e. the gross negative emissions needed to offset residual positive emissions that are too expensive or even impossible to mitigate). We argue that a comprehensive CDR approach may be too intimidating for EU policymakers. A limited CDR approach that only addresses the necessary steps to reach the (intermediate) target of ‘net zero emissions’ is arguably more achievable, since it is a better match to the existing policy paradigm and would allow for a pragmatic phase-in of CDR while avoiding outright resistance by environmental NGOs and the broader public.

Key policy insights

• Making CDR an integral part of EU climate policy has the potential to significantly reshape the policy landscape.

• Burden sharing considerations would probably play a major role, with comprehensive CDR prolonging the disparity and tensions between progressives and laggards.

• Introducing limited CDR in the context of ‘net zero’ pathways would retain a visible primary focus on decarbonization but acknowledge the need for a significant enhancement of removals via ‘natural’ and/or ‘engineered’ sinks.

• A decarbonization approach that intends to lead to a low level of ‘residual emissions’ (to be tackled by a pragmatic phase-in of CDR) should be the priority of EU climate policy.

     

Measuring whether municipal climate networks make a difference: the case of utility-scale solar PV investment in large global cities

With cities being responsible for up to 70% of energy-related carbon emissions, municipal governments worldwide are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibility to act. Many large cities have committed to mitigation by becoming member of a municipal climate network, such as the C40 or the Compact of Mayors. However, there is no consistent assessment of whether membership of such networks translates into measurable outcomes. To fill this gap, we propose the use of novel outcome variables, combining financial data with geospatial information. As a starting point, this paper compares utility-scale investment in photovoltaics (PV) within the administrative boundaries of large global cities, combining the Bloomberg New Energy Finance database with information from Google Maps. We analyse 512 global cities with a population of above 1 million, and consider the impact of 5 networks and 2 reporting platforms. The results suggest that membership of the C40 network has a positive effect on utility-scale solar PV investment, while no such evidence is found for any of the other networks or reporting platforms under study. Based on our findings, we recommend that municipal climate networks increase their efforts to trigger city regulation that is conducive to solar PV investment. More generally, measuring early indicators, such as low-carbon investment, can help municipal climate networks in their role as ‘commitment brokers’ for climate action on the ever-more important city level.

Key policy insights

• Cities have considerable policy space to foster utility-scale solar PV investment within their administrative boundaries.

• While some large global cities exhibited significant growth in utility-scale solar PV, many others with good solar potential did not have a single project by the end of 2016.

• Outside of China (where city boundaries often include rural areas), Tokyo tops the list with utility-scale solar PV projects by far, followed by San Diego and Rome.

• Membership of the C40 network appears to make a positive difference to PV investment, unlike other networks or reporting platforms.

• Outcome measures like low-carbon investment can be used more generally to assess the climate action performance of cities.

     

Escaping the climate policy uncertainty trap: options contracts for REDD+

Climate policy uncertainty significantly hinders investments in low-carbon technologies, and the global community is behind schedule to curb carbon emissions. Strong actions will be necessary to limit the increase in global temperatures, and continued delays create risks of escalating climate change damages and future policy costs. These risks are system-wide, long-term and large-scale and thus hard to diversify across firms. Because of its unique scale, cost structure and near-term availability, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD+) has significant potential to help manage climate policy risks and facilitate the transition to lower greenhouse gas emissions. ‘Call’ options contracts in the form of the right but not the obligation to buy high-quality emissions reduction credits from jurisdictional REDD+ programmes at a predetermined price per ton of CO₂ could help unlock this potential despite the current lack of carbon markets that accept REDD+ for compliance. This approach could provide a globally important cost-containment mechanism and insurance for firms against higher future carbon prices, while channelling finance to avoid deforestation until policy uncertainties decline and carbon markets scale up.

Key policy insights

• Climate policy uncertainty discourages abatement investments, exposing firms to an escalating systemic risk of future rapid increases in emission control expenditures.

• This situation poses a risk of an abatement ‘short squeeze,’ paralleling the case in financial markets when prices jump sharply as investors rush to square accounts on an investment they have sold ‘short’, one they have bet against and promised to repay later in anticipation of falling prices.

• There is likely to be a willingness to pay for mechanisms that hedge the risks of abruptly rising carbon prices, in particular for ‘call’ options, the right but not the obligation to buy high-quality emissions reduction credits at a predetermined price, due to the significantly lower upfront capital expenditure compared to other hedging alternatives.

• Establishing rules as soon as possible for compliance market acceptance of high-quality emissions reductions credits from REDD+ would facilitate REDD+ transactions, including via options-based contracts, which could help fill the gap of uncertain climate policies in the short and medium term.

     

United States non-cooperation and the Paris agreement

In June 2017, the Trump administration decided to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, a landmark climate agreement adopted in 2015 by 195 nations. The exit of the US has not just raised concern that the US will miss its domestic emission reduction targets, but also that other parties to the Paris Agreement might backtrack on their initial pledges regarding emission reductions or financial contributions. Here we assess the magnitude of the threat that US non-cooperation poses to the Paris Agreement from an international relations perspective. We argue that US non-cooperation does not fundamentally alter US emissions, which are unlikely to rise even in the absence of new federal climate policies. Nor does it undermine nationally determined contributions under pledge and review, as the Paris Agreement has introduced a new logic of domestically driven climate policies and the cost of low-carbon technologies keeps falling. However, US non-participation in raising climate finance could raise high barriers to global climate cooperation in the future. Political strategies to mitigate these threats include direct engagement by climate leaders such as the European Union with key emerging economies, notably China and India, and domestic climate policies that furnish benefits to traditional opponents of ambitious climate policy.

Key policy insights

• US non-cooperation need not be a major threat to pledge and review under the Paris Agreement.

• US non-cooperation is a serious threat to climate finance.

• Deeper engagement with emerging economies offers new opportunities for global climate policy.

     

Securing the climate benefits of stable forests

Stable forests – those not already significantly disturbed nor facing predictable near-future risks of anthropogenic disturbance – may play a large role in the climate solution, due to their carbon sequestration and storage capabilities. Their importance is recognized by the Paris Agreement, but stable forests have received comparatively little attention through existing forest protection mechanisms and finance. Instead, emphasis has been placed on targeting locations where deforestation and forest degradation are happening actively. Yet stopping deforestation and forest degradation does not guarantee durable success, especially outside the geographic scope of targeted efforts. As a result, today’s stable forests may be at risk without additional efforts to secure their long-term conservation.

We synthesize the gaps in existing policy efforts that could address the climate-related benefits derived from stable forests, noting several barriers to action, such as uncertainty around the level of climate services that stable forests provide and difficulties describing the real level of threat posed. We argue that resource and finance allocation for stable forests should be incorporated into countries’ and donors’ comprehensive portfolios aimed at tackling deforestation and forest degradation as well as resulting emissions. A holistic and forward-looking approach will be particularly important, given that success in tackling deforestation and forest degradation where it is currently happening will need to be sustained in the long term.

Key policy insights

• Climate policies, finance, and implementation have tended to focus on areas of recent forest loss and near-term threats of anthropogenic disturbance, resulting in an imbalance of effort that fails to adequately address stable forests.

• In some contexts, policy measuresintended to secure the climate-related benefits of stable forests have competed poorly against more urgent threats. Policymakers and finance mechanisms should view stable forests as a complementary element within a holistic, long-term approach to resource management.

• International mechanisms and national frameworks should be adjusted and resourced to promote the long-term sustainability and permanence of stable forests.

• Beyond additional resources, the climate benefits of stable forests may be best secured by pro-actively designing implementing policies that recognize the rights and interests of stakeholders who are affected by land management decisions.

     

Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?

Discourse analyses and expert interviews about climate engineering (CE) report high levels of reflectivity about the technologies’ risks and challenges, implying that CE experts are unlikely to display moral hazard behaviour, i.e. a reduced focus on mitigation. This has, however, not been empirically tested. Within CE experts we distinguish between experts for radiation management (RM) and for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and analyse whether RM and CDR experts display moral hazard behaviour. For RM experts, we furthermore look at whether they agree to laboratory and field research, and how they perceive the risks and benefits of one specific RM method, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Analyzing experts’ preferences for climate-policy options, we do not find a reduction of the mitigation budget, i.e. moral hazard, for RM or CDR experts compared to climate-change experts who are neither experts for RM nor for CDR. In particular, the budget shares earmarked for RM are low. The perceptions of risks and benefits of SAI are similar for RM and climate-change experts. Despite the difference in knowledge and expertise, experts and laypersons share an understanding of the benefits, while their perceptions of the risks differ: experts perceive the risks to be larger.

Key policy insights

• Experts surveyed all prioritize mitigation over carbon dioxide removal and in particular radiation management.

• In the views of the experts, SAI is not a viable climate policy option within the next 25 years, and potentially beyond, as global field-testing (which would be a precondition for long-term deployment) is widely rejected.

• In the case of SAI, greater knowledge leads to increased awareness of the uncertainty and complexity involved. Policy-makers need to be aware of this relationship and the potential misconceptions among laypersons with limited knowledge, and should follow the guidelines about communicating risks and uncertainties of CE that experts have been advised to follow.

     

Overcoming barriers to climate change information management in small island developing states: lessons from pacific SIDS

We live in a rapidly advancing digital information age where the ability to discover, access and utilize high-quality information in a reliable and timely manner is often assumed to be the norm. However, this is not always the experience of researchers, practitioners and decision makers responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing climate, despite the billions now being made available for investment in climate change adaptation initiatives throughout the world and particularly in developing countries. In recognition of the importance of information in adaptation planning, Article 7.7 of the Paris Agreement sets out clear guidance for parties to develop, share, manage and deliver climate change knowledge, information and data as a means to strengthening cooperation and action on adaptation. This article provides some key lessons and insights on climate change information and knowledge management (IKM) in small island developing States (SIDS) from the perspective of Pacific SIDS. A situation analysis of current climate change IKM practices in Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu was conducted and key barriers to effective climate change IKM identified. The outcome of this article is a range of pragmatic policy considerations for overcoming common barriers to climate change IKM in the Pacific, which may be of value to SIDS more widely.

Key policy insights

• The partnership approach of co-investigating climate change IKM barriers in collaboration with Pacific SIDS generated considerable trust, a shared purpose and therefore rich IKM lessons and insights.

• Turning climate change IKM aspirations into practice is significantly more complicated than expected, and requires a long-term commitment from both national governments and development partners.

• Pacific SIDS need to establish national guiding climate change IKM Frameworks that leverage rather than duplicate growing national investments in whole-of-government IKM.

• Reframing climate change IKM in the Pacific towards demand and user needs will be critical to ensuring widespread ownership and participation in IKM solutions that lead to greater adaptation and resilience outcomes.

• It is also critical that IKM activities in SIDS support the development of national capacity to scope, develop, deploy and maintain decision support systems.

• Federated IKM systems are ideal for encouraging greater IKM collaboration.

     

Decision making under uncertainty in climate change mitigation: introducing multiple actor motivations,agency and influence

Climate change mitigation has two main characteristics that interact to make it an extremely demanding challenge of governance: the complexity of the socio-technical systems that must be transformed to avoid climate change and the presence of profound uncertainties. A number of tools and approaches exist, which aim to help manage these challenges and support long-term decision making. However, most tools and approaches assume that there is one decision maker with clearly defined objectives. The interaction between decision makers with differing perspectives and agency is an additional uncertainty that is rarely addressed, despite the wide recognition that action is required at multiple scales and by multiple actors. This article draws inspiration from dynamic adaptive policy pathways to build on current decision support methods, extending analysis to include the perspectives and agency of multiple actors through a case study of the UK construction sector. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering alignment between perspectives, agency and potential actions when developing plans; the need for mobilizing and advocacy actions to build momentum for radical change; and the crucial influence of interaction between actors. The decision support approach presented could improve decision making by reflecting the diversity and interaction of actors; identifying short-term actions that connect to long-term goals and keeping future options open.

Key policy insights

• Multiple actors, with differing motivations, agency and influence, must engage with climate change mitigation, but may not do so, if proposed actions do not align with their motivations or if they do not have agency to undertake specific actions.

• Current roadmaps, which assume there is one decision maker with control over a whole system, might overstate how effective proposed actions could be.

• Decision making under deep uncertainty needs to account for the motivations and agency of diverse decision makers and the interaction between these decision makers.

• This could increase the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation activities.

     

Reducing fugitive methane emissions from the North American oil and gas sector: a proposed science-policy framework

The shale gas boom in the United States spurred a shift in electricity generation from coal to natural gas. Natural gas combined cycle units emit half of the CO₂ to produce the same energy as a coal unit; therefore, the market trend is credited for a reduction in GHG emissions from the US power sector. However, methane that escapes the natural gas supply chain may undercut these relative climate benefits. In 2016, Canada, the United States and Mexico pledged to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector 40–45% from 2012 levels by 2025. This article reviews the science-policy landscape of methane measurement and mitigation relevant for meeting this pledge, including changes in US policy following the 2016 presidential election. Considerable policy incoherence exists in all three countries. Reliable inventories remain elusive; despite government and private sector research efforts, the magnitude of methane emissions remains in dispute. Meanwhile, mitigation efforts vary significantly. A framework that integrates science and policy would enable actors to more effectively inform, leverage and pursue advances in methane measurement and mitigation. The framework is applied to North America, but could apply to other geographic contexts.

Key policy insights

• The oil and gas sector’s contribution to atmospheric methane concentrations is becoming an increasingly prominent issue in climate policy.

• Efforts to measure and control fugitive methane emissions do not presently proceed within a coherent framework that integrates science and policy.

• In 2016, the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States pledged to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector 40–45% from 2012 levels by 2025.

• The 2016 presidential election in the United States has halted American progress at the federal level, suggesting a heavier reliance on industry and subnational efforts in that country.

• Collectively or individually, the countries, individual agencies, or private stakeholders could use the proposed North American Methane Reduction framework to direct research, enhance monitoring and evaluate mitigation efforts, and improve the chances that continental methane reduction targets will be achieved.

     

Quantifying barriers to decarbonization of the Russian economy: real options analysis of investment risks in low-carbon technologies

Russia has significant potential for reducing its carbon emissions. However, investment in new low-carbon technologies has significant risks. Ambiguous energy and climate policy in Russia, along with deterioration of the country's investment climate, create investment barriers that are well described in qualitative terms in the literature. This paper attempts to provide a quantitative analysis of these barriers. For this numerical experiment, we apply the RU-TIMES model. Using a real options methodology, we estimate the risk-adjusted cost of capital in the Russian energy sector (including energy production and consumption technologies represented in the TIMES framework) to be approximately 43% (including a risk-free interest rate) and demonstrate the high risk of investment into energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies. Any future low-carbon emissions pathway depends on the ability of the Russian government to reduce climate and energy policy uncertainties, and to reduce financial risks through improvements of the general investment climate.

Key policy insights

• The high cost of capital investment into Russian energy production and consumption may prevent the adoption of new energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies.

• These investment risks, if not addressed, will delay Russia's low-carbon transition for the coming decades.

• Adopting a clear and unambiguous long-term climate and energy policy is important to reduce these risks and alleviate some of the barriers to the new technologies.

• The first step could be ratification of the Paris Agreement and adoption of a long-term emission target for the period up to 2050.