The effects of increased CO₂ concentration on land plants have been shown to be positive in some cases, with growth rates increasing due to “CO2 fertilisation.” Seagrasses are marine flowering plants, and consequently may also grow better due to this fertilisation. However, the key issue in this question is whether nourishment of beaches with alkaline sand might reduce the impacts of ocean acidification, or with addition of relatively more acidic sand, might accelerate the effects.

Mitigation attempts, aimed at reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, are considered the best approach to minimising ocean acidification. However, some intervention efforts may also modify the impacts of ocean acidification. For example, recent studies have suggested that the addition of sands made from finely crushed ultra-basic (alkaline) rocks such as fosterite and olivine have the potential to increase ocean pH, and enhance atmospheric CO₂ uptake, thereby offsetting the impact of ocean acidification. This could be a dual benefit from beach nourishment, where sand with appropriate pH is added to beaches as part of restoration efforts, or to aid coastal protection, can also reduce impacts of ocean acidification.

While this input from “basic” (alkaline) sands can be considered as an acceleration of natural weathering processes, it is still a slow process that is estimated to take about 200 years to fully benefit the ocean. Whether the impacts would be felt locally (i.e. pH changes in local waters) would also depend on the residence times of waters in the coastal environment and the amount of sand added. Surface ocean waters are also in relative equilibrium with atmospheric concentrations of CO₂, such that changes in pH concentration in shallow coastal water would quickly equilibrate with the atmosphere via outgassing or uptake of CO₂.

This sand addition approach has been explored in places such as the Netherlands, where sand replenishment programs are ongoing with up to 1.2 million cubic metres/year being delivered to nearshore and beach sites.

It is also worth noting that the faster the pH changes, the larger the potential for negative impacts on the marine environment. The sourcing and energy cost of creating such alkaline sands may also be problematic. Strictly speaking, pH of 7 is neutral, pH above 7 is basic, and pH below 7 is acidic, thus ocean acidification is as much a process of water becoming less basic as it is a process of becoming more acidic. Additionally, the pH in coastal waters around Australia is now around 8.1 (i.e. alkaline), and most alkaline sands available in Australia already have a pH that is lower than seawater. Thus adding these sands might in fact further contribute to a reduction in pH, rather than increasing pH.

Overall, given the slow rates of sand weathering, coupled with water mixing and advection in the coastal ocean, sand addition effects on local pH and biota are unlikely, unless the right pH of sand is added in truly enormous volumes. These sands would have to come from land sources, because if they are already in the ocean, it would better to leave them where they are.

Additional reading

Montserrat et al (2017). Olivine Dissolution in Seawater: Implications for CO₂ Sequestration through Enhanced Weathering in Coastal Environments. Env Sci & Tech. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05942

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

Given the increase in the number of fish species that are now reported out-of-range around Australia (e.g. RedMap (http://www.redmap.org.au/)), fisheries and conservation management do need to be proactive in managing range-expanding species. But movement of formally protected species is not a major management concern. Fisheries management has a range of options that are being explored or implemented.

In responding to this question, and considering climate-related changes in fish distribution, it is interesting to note the inconsistency of protected species status between State and Commonwealth levels, and between States. Species can be listed under State or Commonwealth legislation. Under the latter species are under the same protection level in any Australian jurisdiction. If a species is listed as protected in one state it may be under a different classification, or may not even be listed in another state.

What is the status of protection for marine fishes?

With regard to protected species, NSW has one species listed as critically endangered - the grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus). The scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) and southern bluefin tuna (SBT, Thunnus maccoyii) are listed as endangered, and the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) are listed as vulnerable.

Both listed species of hammerhead sharks are totally protected in NSW and cannot be taken by recreational or commercial fishers. In NSW, the recreational bag limit for the protected SBT is one per person per day, with commercial fishing prohibited inside NSW state waters (three nautical miles), although SBT are considered very rare inside state waters.

Other NSW species are protected from commercial fishing, such as the eastern blue groper (Achoerodus viridis), which has a daily bag limit of two fish above 30 cm (and only one above 60 cm) in NSW (see http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/375880/Eastern-Blue-Groper.pdf), and can only be caught by line (e.g. not netted or speared). This species is likely to move south under climate change, but is already completely protected in Victoria (see http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/fisheries/recreational-fishing/recreational-fishing-guide/catch-limits-and-closed-seasons/marine-and-estuarine-scale-fish/blue-groper) and Tasmania (see http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/recreational-fishing/catch-limits/possession-limits-scalefish). Similarly, both white and grey nurse shark are already fully protected in Victoria: taking and possessing are prohibited. SBT is listed under Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 as a threatened species, although this species is more common in the south, where similar levels of protection may not be warranted. At an international level, SBT was listed as critically endangered in 1996, but is only considered conservation dependent at a national level (EPBC Act). Further south in Tasmania, the white and grey nurse sharks are already protected, as well as a number of other Tasmanian species. One Victorian protected species, the Black cod (Epinephelus daemelii), is not protected in Tasmania.

Using NSW as an example, the protected species are either: (i) tropical and likely to increase in NSW waters under climate change (e.g. hammerhead sharks), (ii) southern species that are already more common to the south (e.g. SBT), or (iii) NSW species that are already protected in other jurisdictions (e.g. grey nurse shark). On the basis of the above review, there do not appear to be many protected species that are likely to move from NSW to southern states where protection will be inadequate. On the west coast of Australia, fish range-change along the coast have also been recorded, but with regard to protected species status, this is obviously within the same jurisdiction.

The question in a more general sense raises some interesting issues (aside from protection status) that are not yet clearly resolved. What should be the management approach for fish species that become more common in a new jurisdiction?

Could a range-expanding species be listed for protection?

Yes: the usual listing process can be followed if there is a desire to seek protection for a range-expanding species in a new jurisdiction – however, to date there has not been a test of this listing approach for a range-expanding species. It is not clear that range-expanding species would meet the criteria for listing under state legislation, as several of the criteria would not be met (e.g. documented decline of population).

Would a range-expanded species be protected in “marine protected areas”?

Yes: a range-expanding species would be protected in no-take marine areas, as is any non-range expanding species. Ensuring that adequate protected areas exist in each jurisdiction is an ongoing conservation issue, and these areas may need to cover new habitats or areas in future.

Fisheries management for range expanding marine species

Assuming fisheries might seek to capture a range-expanding species, fisheries management arrangements offer more flexibility than protected species legislation. Options that are being discussed by fisheries management agencies include:
 

• Attempting to remove the species – particularly if it is an undesirable species – this approach is considered for some range-expanding invertebrates. The long-spined sea urchin in Tasmania was initially treated as an “invasive species”, and removal was considered. The species is now seen as a natural range-expanding species and elimination is considered impossible.
• Prohibiting harvest until the population size increases to allow sustainable harvest. This precautionary strategy has been enacted in Victoria for the Blue Groper.
• Allowing limited recreational catch (e.g. bag limits) and no commercial catch. This approach has not been implemented to my knowledge.
• Allowing commercial and recreational catch under existing or new regulations (e.g. pink snapper and King George whiting where commercial harvest is permitted and recreational catch is limited to 5 fish per day (http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/recreational-fishing/catch-limits/possession-limits-scalefish) for each species in Tasmania).

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

There are only a limited number of studies related to natural cementation around, and the results from these could only be applied with very low confidence at other locations. The rates of sedimentation, consolidation and similar biogeochemical processes in the marine environment are remarkably variable in space and time. This implies that using data from one location to inform your understanding of the same process at another location can be risky.

In addition, the design of structures such as breakwaters would have to be compliant with the engineering design code; it’s likely that it would be difficult to make the suggested approach (i.e. relying on natural cementation) compliant.

Nonetheless, I can make the following comments.

The proposed steel cages are the marine equivalent of Gabion baskets (cages filled with rocks) that have been used for civil engineering purposes since at least the 16th century. Such structures are commonly used to stabilise banks and roadway cuttings. 
 
It is widely accepted that the useful life of Gabion baskets for structural support for terrestrial applications is dependent upon the structural life of the wire used to construct the basket. There are many examples of structural failure of Gabion Baskets once the wire has corroded away.
 
The questioner proposes that in the marine environment structural failure may not necessarily be the case, owing to the rocks within the baskets becoming stuck together by biogeophysical sedimentation processes. There is no question that, for example, oyster reefs do become 'stuck together' over time. However, it is rare to find such natural structures that have the batter angles (the inward slope of the structure) that would be used in an engineered coastal protection structure, except in the case of the windward side of coral reefs, where near vertical natural structures have formed. However, coral reefs are not formed by larger rocks being stuck together, rather they are formed by gradual layers of calcification accreting over time. 
 
Therefore it is hard to think of examples in the marine environment where larger rocks have been bound together at steep angles. It is not a large jump of logic to suggest that relying on this process to maintain an artificial structure may be unwise.

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

During the last 100 years, the sea level has risen globally by an average of 0.17 m. As the melting of glaciers and ice-sheets and the thermal expansion of sea-water accelerates a further 0.4 to 1.0 m of sea-level rise is expected over the next 100 years (Steffen et al. 2014). Rising sea levels can inundate coastal habitats and low-lands, erode beaches, cause barrier islands to migrate landward, increase coastal flooding and increase the salinity of rivers, estuaries and aquifers through saltwater intrusion (Steffen et al. 2014). Survival of affected ecosystems depends on natural capacity to change, but also on the extent to which humans interfere with this.

Wetlands and mangroves must either migrate inland, or accrete vertically in response to inundation (Kirwan and Megonigal 2013). Although these ecosystems have survived past rises and falls in sea level, the urbanisation of the coastal zone has introduced hard barriers to shorelines, such as seawalls and revetments, which prevent shoreward migration. Additionally, damming of river systems, the erection of tidal barrages and of coastal barriers has, in some areas, reduced coastal sediment supply, which is required for vertical accretion.

Urbanisation can also influence the capacity of submerged aquatic vegetation, such as seagrass and seaweeds, to adapt to sea-level rise by influencing light penetration (Steffen et al. 2014). As water depth increases with rising sea levels, the availability of light available for photosynthesis declines. In urbanised areas where sedimentation of waterways and eutrophication has already reduced light availability, the net effect may be loss of these photosynthesisers.

There are two main ways to limit the effect of human development on shoreward migration of coastal habitats. First, in presently undeveloped areas, the imposition of set-backs for new development is essential for providing space for shorelines, and their ecosystems, to migrate (Spalding et al. 2014). Second, in already-developed areas, managed retreat, whereby coastal barriers are removed to allow flooding, is required to facilitate regeneration and migration of wetland and intertidal habitats (Spalding et al. 2014).

Human dependence on hard structures for coastal defence may be reduced by conserving, restoring and creating natural habitats (Arkema et al. 2013; Spalding et al. 2014). Mangroves, salt marshes, shellfish and coral reefs provide natural defence against storms and flooding and the restoration, conservation and allowing migration of these ‘living shorelines’ can be an alternative to coastal engineering for stabilising shorelines and protecting coastal infrastructure. Similarly, beach nourishment and scraping are in some instances more desirable methods for coastal protection than hard engineering because they maintain beach width.

Catchment management that maintains sediment fluxes and freshwater flows to estuarine and coastal environments is essential for giving ecosystems the best chance to adapt to rising sea-levels and associated salt-water intrusion (Kirwan and Megonigal 2013). Similarly, strategies that prevent deterioration of water quality by successfully managing nutrient inputs to waterways and sedimentation from land clearing can assist in allowing submerged aquatic vegetation to adapt to increasing water depth. Saltwater intrusion of freshwater ecosystems may also be managed through interventions, such as barrages, that prevent tidal flows. However, such engineering strategies often have unintended consequences and should only be implemented following thorough analysis demonstrating that benefits greatly outweigh costs.

Further reading

Arkema, K.K., G. Guannel, G. Verutes, S.A. Wood, A. Guerry, M. Ruckelshaus, P. Kareiva, M. Lacayo, J.M. Silver, 2013: Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change, 3, 913-918. Accessed 15 February 2017. [Available online at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/abs/nclimate1944.html].

Kirwan, M.L., J.P. Megonigal, 2013: Tidal wetland stability in the face of human impacts and sea-level rise. Nature, 504, 53-60. Accessed 15 February 2017. [Available online at:
http://www.mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/Kirwan2013nature%20marsh%20stability.pdf].

Spalding, M.D., S. Ruffo, C. Lacambra, I. Meliane, L.Z. Hale, C.C. Shepard, M.W. Beck, 2014: The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean & Coastal Management, 90, 50-57. Accessed 15 February 2017. [Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Spalding2/publication/260213560_The_role_of_ecosystems_in_coastal_protection_Adapting_to_climate_change_and_coastal_hazards/links/53fdb1040cf2364ccc08ee09.pdf].

Steffen, W., J. Hunter, L. Hughes, 2014: Counting the costs: Climate change and coastal flooding. Climate Council of Australia. Accessed 15 February 2017. [Available online at:
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/56812f1261b168e02032126342619dad.pdf]

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

Wicked problems such as climate change adaptation, which are highly complex with multiple stakeholder perspectives, create unique challenges for community engagement. In most instances, climate change adaptation is unlikely to be a one-off action and instead consists of pathways of action that may alter course over time.

Because of these conditions, community engagement for climate change adaptation is best conducted within a social learning frame, which requires multiple and sustained engagement activities over time. However, this is difficult because of the resources (financial and human) needed to undertake engagement effectively and persistently.

Recognising these limitations, I suggest a process of engaging through established functional networks that currently exist within communities of place and communities of interest (sporting clubs, service clubs, faith-based groups, school groups, etc.). Through this approach, the role shifts from doing engagement to supporting others to engage. In this way, the engagement process becomes co-designed and should focus specifically on the motivations, preferences and capacities of the target audiences (the three fundamental components of community engagement that are typically ignored in most processes!).

By taking this approach, motivations unique to the existing networks can be addressed to build relevance of future impacts and the need for action (e.g. tailoring a message to parents about not being able to watch their grandchildren play sport because their sports fields will be subject to more intense flood events). Without knowing your context, it is difficult to provide specific examples of the values and risks but I would be surprised if there were no significant climate change impacts for your coastal community projected within the next 30 years (e.g. more intense storms) and drawing on examples of impacts from other regions may help to explain possible risks.

This approach of supporting engagement through existing networks has a few caveats, which require consideration, depending on the specific context and goal. For example, some of the more vulnerable people in society may not belong to any network, and there may also be particular power relationships within networks that may need consideration. However, resources for community engagement are usually quite limited, especially for sustained processes over time, and the more mainstreamed a social learning process can become, the more likely it is to effect change. The value of early engagement is not only in mainstreaming but also in building adaptive capacity (e.g. for autonomous responses).

Much more detail on the key elements of the process and rationale are included in Information Manual 9: Community Engagement. The examples we have included in the IM CE include: Twin Streams (Waitakere City, NZ); Marks Point and Belmont South (Lake Macquarie, NSW); and Great Lakes (USA). There are very few examples of contemporary retreat strategies, which are likely to be the most contentious. We have included an example of retreat (Twin Streams, NZ) that was only possible because of early and sustained engagement.

References and further reading

Smith, T., A. Leitch, and D. Thomsen, 2016: Community Engagement. CoastAdapt Information Manual 9, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: [https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/tool_downloads/IM_9_community%20engagement_uploaded.pdf].

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

This is an important question but would probably need to be more specific to receive a tightly focused answer. “Environmental impacts” could mean biological as well as physical changes. If I stick to my relevant area of expertise, namely sea-level rise caused by global warming, we may already be seeing in some locations the early coastal effects of sea-level rise. The main early effect would be what could be called “fair weather flooding”, which is just increased tidal flooding due to the same tides that have always occurred, plus the additional sea-level rise caused by global warming. Note that in some locations the land is falling, which is a geological effect, so this would need to be added to the sea-level rise effect to get the total impact. Future fair weather flooding is relatively easy to predict and we know that certain locations will be affected by it or are already being affected.

As for more complicated effects like coastal erosion, the jury is out at present. The problem is that coastal effects are highly local: in one location, erosion could be large, but 10 kilometres down the coast there could be no effect, due to differences in the coastline composition, currents and wave climate. Models that are used to predict these effects are currently not very accurate at this scale, so they have a very limited ability to predict into the future to see when these local effects will become large, as sea-level continues to rise. Coastal erosion effects of sea-level rise to date have also often been overwhelmed by the effects of large storms, natural variability like El Nino, human influences, and so on. Available observations indicate that most coasts have eroded in the past couple of decades, which is at least consistent with sea-level rise, but there is no scientific proof in the form of conclusive modelling experiments of the association of this increased erosion with global warming. Thus we actually don’t know when coastal erosion effects will grow to the point where they will be conclusively demonstrated to be caused by global warming or not.

Further reading

Cazenave, A., and G.L. Cozannet, 2014: Sea level rise and its coastal impacts. Earth's Future, 2, 15-34.

Gillis, J., 2016: Flooding of coast caused by global warming, has already begun. The New York Times. 03 September 2016. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0].

Le Cozannet, G., M., Garcin, M. Yates, D. Idier, and B. Meyssignac, 2014: Approaches to evaluate the recent impacts of sea-level rise on shoreline changes. Earth-Science Reviews, 138,47-60.

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

Mangrove forests, saltmarshes and seagrass beds are among the most effective ecosystems in the world for sequestering and storing carbon. Although they account for less than 0.5% of the Earth’s area, collectively these so-called ‘blue carbon’ habitats account for 30 to 40% of carbon taken up by living organisms, and can store as much as five times the carbon of terrestrial forests per unit area (Mcleod et al. 2011). Unlike terrestrial forests, where most carbon is held in the live plants themselves, in coastal ecosystems the majority of carbon is stored in sediments below. The carbon-rich material from dead plants is trapped by the shoots and roots of coastal vegetation, and becomes buried in the waterlogged sediments below where it may be stored for millennia.

When coastal vegetation is degraded or lost, so too is its ability to sequester and store carbon. Carbon stores already accumulated may be remobilised – putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Pendleton et al. 2012). Hence, there are significant carbon mitigation benefits to stabilising and restoring coastal vegetation.

The Australian Department of the Environment and Energy is presently scoping a method to estimate the emissions reduction that results from protection and restoration of mangroves. If a method is approved, such activities will then be eligible for consideration under the Emissions Reduction Fund. In the meantime, many State governments and several private foundations offer funding for community and/or local government projects that repair degraded ecosystems, in some cases for carbon mitigation benefits.

In addition to sequestering and storing carbon, the protection and repair of coastal vegetation has many other benefits, including dune stabilisation, erosion control, enhancement of fishery productivity and improvement of water quality. Some funding opportunities for habitat rehabilitation projects have a specific focus around these other ecosystem services. For example, funding from the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust can support projects that demonstrate the benefits to essential fish habitat. Thinking creatively about the multiple benefits of coastal habitat repair will assist in identifying other potential funding sources.

The case for repair of coastal vegetation is strengthened by data demonstrating the success of projects in meeting goals such as carbon sequestration, erosion control, fisheries productivity and/or clean water quality. Hence, it is essential that when projects are funded, they include a monitoring component that evaluates their success.

References

Mcleod, E., G.L. and Coauthors, 2011: A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 552-560. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:251863/UQ251863_OA.pdf].

Pendleton, L., and Coauthors, 2012: Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PloS one, 7, 43542. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043542].

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

Estuarine and coastal zones are transition zones between land and sea. As low points in the environment to which the land drains, estuaries and coasts are strongly influenced by freshwater, nutrient and sediment inputs from freshwater systems, as well as run-off of nutrients, sediments and pollutants from catchments (Sheaves 2009). Connectivity with the sea determines the extent of saltwater intrusion and tides into estuaries, and the opportunity for larval exchange between estuarine, coastal and marine domains.

Many estuarine and coastal species are dependent on multiple habitats to complete their life cycles (Sheaves 2009). Several species of fish, such as lamprey, salmon and eels, undertake large-scale migrations from freshwater to marine environments, or vice versa, to spawn. Additionally, many aquatic organisms at the larval stage of their life cycle may be transported kilometres, from source to sink populations, by wind, waves and currents.

Processes that enhance or inhibit the flow of organisms and resources between land and sea, and along coastlines, are likely to have large impacts on coastal ecosystems, and the ecosystem services they provide (Sheaves 2009).

Several of the physical impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, change in rainfall patterns, and altered storminess, may have large effects on estuarine and coastal ecosystems by directly and indirectly modifying connectivity. For example, altered rainfall patterns, coupled with sea-level rise, are expected to result in significant saltwater intrusion of the Kakadu wetland system (BMT WBM 2010). For estuarine habitats, the potential impacts include decreases in the abundance of migratory birds that utilise the area for foraging and breeding, decreases in culturally important fish species such as mud crabs and threadfin salmon, as well as changes in the extent of mangroves (with retraction in some areas and expansion in others; BMT WBM 2010).

In addition, adaptation of human settlements to climate change may influence coastal ecosystems by modifying land-sea connectivity (Bishop et al. in press). In areas of increased rainfall, reservoirs may be built for flood mitigation, while in areas of decreased rainfall, natural flows may be redistributed for agriculture and human consumption. Water retaining structures can serve as barriers to fish migration, unless fish ladders are provided. These barriers can also prevent sediment transport, leading to loss of mudflats and erosion of beaches at downstream, coastal locations. Where water-retaining structures alter the timing, frequency and volume of freshwater flows into the coastal zone, they may interfere with spawning events that are often triggered by changes in salinity and/or flow.

Seawalls, breakwaters, groynes, and barrages built to protect coastal infrastructure from more frequent storm surges and coastal flooding under sea-level rise, can also produce substantive collateral damage to coastal ecosystems by disrupting land-sea and long-shore connectivity of organisms and resources (Bishop et al. in press). For example, these structures may facilitate movement by marine pest species that utilise the increased hard-substrate as a stepping stone for spread. Additionally, dead seaweed has been observed to accumulate on the up-current side of groynes, producing unsightly and odorous banks of decaying material which local authorities have to remove from tourist beaches. This accumulation results in starvation of down-drift beaches of this nutrient source that fuels the productivity of sandy beach ecosystems.

Understanding the mechanisms by which climate change directly and indirectly modifies connectivity is essential if marine spatial planning and green engineering are to be effectively utilised to minimise impacts.

Further reading

Bishop, M.J., and Coauthors, In press: Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (accepted, 29 May, 2016).

BMT WBM, 2010: Kakadu-Vulnerability to Climate Change Impacts. A Report to the Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian Government, Canberra. Accessed 20 January 2017. [Available online at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b2915be6-16e4-4cb3-8533-471ed879bfc1/files/kakadu-coast.pdf].

Sheaves, M., 2009: Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 107-115. Accessed 20 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2009/391/m391p107.pdf].

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

This is a relatively easy question to answer at first – then as with anything associated with climate change it goes down a vortex of complexity. The simple answer of course is ‘it depends’. It depends on the agreement between the insurer and the local government. However, most coastal structures tend to not be covered in general insurance from coastal events (see Bell 2014).
 
The important thing to take away from your question is the simple fact that councils often do not know much about their risks in regards to their assets and climate change. Councils continue to approve development in coastal areas (including council development) without due consideration of the long-term risks. Councils tend to over-politicise what should be a simple risk management process. This will soon change. The insurance industry is now starting to ask local governments about climate change in a range of insurance contracts and it is likely that in the next few years, climate change will be an expected element in an audit of a local government’s risk register (this is occurring in some parts of Australia already).
 
Some assets are already uninsurable and this will be exacerbated over time. Insurers will not (and should not) take responsibility for the impact of poor planning and risk management practices. So ultimately the local governments (i.e. the rate payers) may have to foot the bill associated with increased exposure of assets to the effects of climate change.

The disconcerting issue is the fact that Councils have limited ability to generate revenue, may have substantial exposure to risk and in some cases inadequate understanding of the size of their exposure. Insurers will soon be a lever for change (either by working with local governments or by withdrawing insurance for some assets/risk types and/or locations).

Some innovative financing and risk management solutions exist (e.g. catastrophe bonds). While effective examples exist overseas (e.g. New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and storm surge risk) however, these are yet to materialise with local government here in Australia. I believe that catastrophe bonds and other alternative risk transfer mechanisms have merit and are likely to emerge as more council assets become uninsurable due to the effects of climate change.
 
In conclusion, some of the assets are probably already uninsurable for acts of the sea and the exposure for councils will increase over time as sea-level rise progresses. For some assets, councils will have to self-insure or explore alternative risk transfer mechanisms and other innovative approaches. Building codes, development standards and planning mechanisms can slowly reduce the risk. However, the best way to overcome this challenge is to get climate change considerations into the ‘DNA’ of the organisation. This will bring about an effective change to risk exposure. Often referred to as climate change governance, the mainstreaming of climate change as an issue is imperative in managing the risk. Some Councils, like Kingborough in Tasmania and Whitsunday Regional Council in Queensland, have policies that ensure that climate change is managed in a consistent and measured way, with appropriate triggers for change embedded into the mechanisms. I recommend that you search their websites for those policies.

Further reading:

Bell, J., 2014: Climate Change and Coastal Development Law in Australia. The Federation Press, Sydney.
 
Edwards, I., 2014: If my Insurer Says “No”: What Then? Queensland Local Government’s Understanding of Emergent Climate Change Risk and Implications for Risk Transferral Mechanisms. [Unpublished Masters Dissertation]. Griffith University. Brisbane, Australia.

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

There is no “correct” or ideal planning horizon for coastal adaptation to sea-level rise (SLR). There is no scientific, economic or engineering reason to use only the 100-year timeframe. It has simply become conventional to do so. 

Like most conventions, it is not entirely clear why 100 years has become common usage, but policy makers and modellers do tend to copy each other, mainly because it makes life simpler. One hundred is a nice round number; using it provides comparability with other studies, and one can get away without justifying it on the grounds that everyone else uses it too. 

However, there is some underlying rationale for using 100 years. The estimated values and climate effects of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) concepts used by the IPCC vary depending on timeframes and the different lifetimes of greenhouse gases. The dominant convention nowadays is a 100-year period for GWPs. To ensure consistency in modelling, use of 100-year GWPs or GTPs is generally matched by corresponding estimates of the physical effects and economic implications of climate change over the course of a century. If you want to learn more about GWP and GTP, there is more information here.

Some global climate models are used to project the effects of climate change beyond 100 years. Sea-level rise is projected to be relatively gradual because it depends on many different factors. For this reason, 500-year modelling projections are sometimes used. However, climate model results need to be interpreted in the context of local conditions to be of practical use.

Choice of timeframe ultimately depends on the purpose for undertaking the modelling. Coastal councils would be less likely to require information on sea-level rise or temperature increases beyond 100 years because most infrastructure for which they are responsible has an effective life of a century or less. Roads, for example, are considered by Austroads to have a life of about 20 years, although repairs and maintenance can extend this. NCCARF provides some illustrative information on infrastructure lives and climate change for the UK on page 3 of their Policy Guidance Brief 7, Climate proofing Australia’s infrastructure 

Further reading

European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee Factsheet, 2014: Global Temperature Change Potential Compared to Global Warming Potential. 13 May 2014. Accessed 20 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.fluorocarbons.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/efctc-factsheet_gtp.pdf].

NCCARF, 2013: Climate Proofing Australia’s Infrastructure. Policy Guidance Brief 7. NCCARF, Gold Coast. Accessed on 23 January 2017. [Available online at:https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/INFRASTRUCTURE_A4-Webview.pdf].

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

Your question raises a few interesting points. Firstly, as a word of caution, historical observations (S2) are not necessarily a good indicator of potential shoreline response to future sea-level (S3), and instead, a more detailed coastal assessment should always be done to understand local coastal processes, including sediment transport, and responses to projected sea-level rise conditions. It is widely recognised in the coastal engineering industry that the ‘Bruun Rule’ is quite restrictive, and not necessarily relevant even on sandy coastlines, especially where there is strong longshore sediment transport and influences on coastal processes from onshore and offshore structures, reefs etc. That said, within the context of CHRMAP, the Bruun Rule has been used to estimate a generic allowance on the WA coast to cater to shoreline recession associated with future sea-level rise (90 m as specified in SPP2.6 Schedule One). But the CHRMAP also mandates the use of a risk-based assessment, meaning that such an allowance is to consider both the likelihood and consequences of such an event occurring. The generic allowance is a simple way to delineate broad spatial planning control area overlays and is often used to raise stakeholders’ awareness of coastal hazards.

The risk assessment process adopted by CHRMAP provides a mechanism for dealing with uncertainties of hazards, through the use of likelihood and consequence scales. Identified hazards that have a low chance of occurring over a nominated timeframe can be assigned as low likelihood within the risk framework. It is always best to provide justification for a decision made within a risk assessment framework, especially with regard to assigning quantified likelihoods or consequences. With respect to the generic 90 m sea-level rise allowance, there is no explicit method provided in the WA policy to quantify the actual likelihood of the hazard. Some examples are provided in the CHRMAP guidelines, but I recommend you seek professional advice on a case-by-case basis and using the best available information to deliver a robust and defensible risk assessment.

With respect to your specific question, if I were in the shoes of the officer administering the State Planning Policy, I would need to be convinced that the likelihood is indeed low in the areas you have suggested. But I would be looking for consideration of the full spectrum of coastal hazards, covering both recession and inundation. So even though the likelihood of shoreline recession due to future sea-level rise may be low in your particular location, the likelihood of increased coastal inundation may actually be high as it is a coastal lowland. If this is the case, you should also be mindful that consequences may be different between recession hazards and inundation hazards. That is, consequences would likely be high if the land was to erode away completely, whereas consequences would probably be lower if the land was only inundated on an occasional basis.

From a policy perspective, use of the mandated 90 m setback provides a level of assurance to the administrator that ‘worst case’ conditions are considered. For greenfield development sites, sensible risk management may advocate an ‘avoidance’ strategy. For sites of existing development though, or where consequences are particularly high, it would be best to proceed with the other components the CHRMAP risk-based process and to seek more detailed investigations to refine definitions of likelihood, consequence and risk based on best available information, science and engineering methods.

Further reading

Government of Western Australia, 2006: State Planning Policy 2.6 State Coastal Planning. Department of Planning, Western Australia Planning Commission. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/1168.asp].

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

Byron Shire Council’s coastal management of Belongil beach has been the subject of litigation initiated at various times by private landowners (in favour of the construction of protective measures) and concerned community groups (opposed to such measures) for well over seven years.

In August this year Council announced that a settlement had been reached between it and owners of land at the beach to resolve a long running Supreme Court case commenced in 2010. Essentially, the case initiated by the landowners alleged negligence on the part of Council in its management of coastal erosion issues at Belongil beach. Specifically, the claims related to the construction of a structure/rock wall intended to protect the southern (main) beach in the 1960s-1970s. This structure was alleged to have caused erosion at Belongil to the north west. Council was also alleged to have been negligent in its ongoing management of the area and specifically in the policies expressed in draft planning instruments and a draft coastal zone management plan prepared in 2009 which gave effect to its policy of “planned retreat”. This policy had the effect of preventing landowners from installing permanent protective measures or maintaining measures already in place.

Early in 2016 Council undertook public consultation for a revised Coastal Zone Management Plan (Draft CZMP) and this plan was lodged with the Minister for Planning for certification under the Coastal Protection Act 1979. The Draft CZMP permits landowner initiated emergency protective measures at Belongil beach and proposes the construction of a seawall at the beach. The estimated construction cost exceeds $14 million, $13 million of which is to be borne by the landowners.

The Draft CZMP has not yet been certified by the Minister. Coastal management in NSW is in a state of reform with a new Coastal Management Act 2016 enacted but not yet in force. Commencement of the legislation is being deferred until the Guidelines and SEPP underpinning the Act have been finalised and undergone public consultation. The new legislation establishes an alternative regime for the preparation of Coastal Management Programs by Council in accordance with the proposed detailed government guidelines. If the Minister certifies the Draft Byron CZMP within six months of the commencement of the Act, then Council will be entitled to act on it until December 2021.

As the matter was settled out of court, it makes no new law and provides no guidance as to how a court might determine a negligence/nuisance claim against a local council in similar circumstances.

The circumstances at Belongil, however, demonstrate the challenges for local government in balancing private property interests with community interests, the complexities of coastal management and the pressures that can be exerted by very well resourced and persistent landowner litigators.

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

We can stimulate a process of reframing by considering timing of decisions, adaptation pathways, and the values, rules, and knowledge that constrain or permit particular decisions and pathways.

As the climate continues to change, the impacts on species and ecosystems will become significant and widespread and many current approaches to conservation will become increasingly difficult and ineffective. The timing of biological changes is not always clear, but we can anticipate which aspects might change and which might persist. This provides the basis of practical approaches for anticipating the implications for biodiversity, and the ecosystem benefits and services that society enjoys (see Dunlop et al. 2013).

Thinking about the timing of decisions along a pathway helps people frame adaptation as a series of decisions over time, instead of a once-off choice (see Stafford Smith et al. 2011). Adaptation options selected now, without considering alternative futures, may become ineffective or even maladaptive in the future. Thinking about decision timing draws people’s attention to the importance of path dependency in adaptation decision-making. This helps people understand how important it can be to take a long-term perspective in order to avoid inadvertently setting out along an undesirable path. The concept of Adaptation Pathways emphasises the importance of both decision timing and decision context, and frames adaptation as the evolution over time of the decision contexts that enable and constrain adaptation decisions (see Wise et al. 2014). Instead of seeing pathways as only a sequence of decisions, the Adaptation Pathways concept helps people view adaptation in terms of the evolution of systems of values, rules, and knowledge. This helps broaden the perspective on adaptation away from narrow framings of decision problems and helps us to understand the importance of uncertainty and learning as integral parts of the adaptation process.

Prevailing systems of societal values, rules and knowledge define the context in which decisions are made (see Gorddard et al. 2016). The interaction of values, rules and knowledge (VRK) both creates and limits the set of decisions that are practical and permissible in a given decision context. This means that successful adaptation may require changes to prevailing systems to enable new decisions to be made. The VRK model can be used to help diagnose constraints in decision processes. This means that adaptation initiatives can be reframed to reveal new approaches to developing adaptation responses to more complex problems.

In some cases, even while societal attitudes may shift, the rules for supporting species adaptation may not be suitable, and so legal frameworks may need to change (see McDonald et al. 2016). An example of developing options for adaptation that are technically suitable, institutionally possible, and socially acceptable has been developed for use with marine species (see Hobday et al. 2015; Alderman and Hobday 2016).

References and further reading
Alderman, R., and A.J. Hobday, 2016: Developing a climate adaptation strategy for vulnerable seabirds based on prioritisation of intervention options. Deep-Sea Res. II: Topical Stud. in Ocean . Accessed 23 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064516301850].

Dunlop M., H. Parris, P. Ryan, F., and Kroon, F 2013: Climate-Ready Conservation Objectives: A Scoping Study. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, pp. 102. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: https://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/climate-ready-conservation-objectives-scoping-study].

Gorddard, R., M.J. Colloff, R.M. Wise, D. Ware, and M. Dunlop, 2016: Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context. Environ. Sci. & Policy 57: 60-69. Accessed 23 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115301210].

Hobday, A.J., and G.T. Pecl, 2014: Identification of global marine hotspots: sentinels for change and vanguards for adaptation action. Rev.Fish Biol. & Fish. 24, 415-425. Accessed 23 January 2017. [Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257315797_Identification_of_global_marine_hotspots_Sentinels_for_change_and_vanguards_for_adaptation_action].

Hobday, A.J., L.E. Chambers, and J.P.Y.Arnould, 2015: Prioritizing climate change adaptation options for iconic marine species. Biod. & Cons. 24, 3449-3468. Accessed 23 January 2017. [Available online at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-015-1007-4].

McDonald, J., P.C. McCormack, A.J. Fleming, R.M.B. Harris, and M. Lockwood, 2016: Rethinking legal objectives for climate-adaptive conservation. Ecol. and Soc. 21, 25. Accessed 23 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art25/].

Stafford Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey, and C. Hamilton, 2011: Rethinking adaptation for a 4°C world. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, Math., Phys. & Eng. Sci., 369, 196-216.

Wise, R. M., I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S.E. Park, H.C. Eakin, E.R.M. Archer Van Garderen, and B. Campbell, 2014: Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Env. Change. Accessed 23 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801300232X].

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >

There are a few questions tied up in this “question”. Some easier to answer than others, and with a lack of context I will have to make some assumptions in my response. Firstly, the term “best practice” for anything to do with climate change adaptation is a moving target. The adaptation milieu is still in its infancy and any claims of best practice should be regarded with caution. I’ll replace this with “good practice”.

Response to Question 1a
The most fundamental principle for evaluation to support an increase in the overall knowledge of the adaptation sector is to foster a system that allows the transparent sharing of information. In essence this is what the intention of the CoastAdapt tool is. Climate change adaptation is about informed decision-making and not very much of that seems to occur at the moment. One of the barriers to adaptation is the fact that organisations are too afraid (or sometimes legally constrained) to share information.

There is a great framework called the Collective Impact Model that originated in Stanford (see here). One of the five key principles is related to information management – and I think is relevant to your question:

Shared measurement system: Developing a shared measurement system is essential to collective impact. Agreement on a common agenda is illusory without agreement on the ways success will be measured and reported. Collecting data and measuring results consistently on a short list of indicators at the community level and across all participating organisations not only ensures that all efforts remain aligned, it also enables the participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other’s successes and failures (Kania & Kramer 2011).

As we are now in the information age it should be reasonably simple to establish systems for the above. Organisations must recognise that data are a critical piece of infrastructure and be prepared to invest in systems and staff that will allow them to implement activities to support adaptation evaluation.

For local governments, protocols can be put in place for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) through climate change adaptation policies (e.g. corporate standards) – see what Kingborough Council (Tasmania) have recently done here. In essence what Kingborough Council are doing is establishing corporate standards around the application of adaptation. This consistent methodology allows for the sharing of consistent information internally. The challenge will be sharing/comparing information with other councils that have differing standards or risk thresholds.

However, systems/frameworks that support shared monitoring and evaluation across jurisdictions and time scales are almost impossible to find. This is why I invented one a couple of years ago, which is being used for over 100 local governments and State Agencies in Australia (see here).

M&E for climate change adaptation is a rapidly evolving space (as is anything to do with climate change). A great resource that highlights the range of M&E principles and methods, written by Dennis Bours and others, can be found here. Actually anything written by Bours on M&E is a great starting point, so I suggest you subscribe to his blog (see here).

Assumption 1: Your question doesn’t seem to focus on an answer for good practice evaluation principles in general – just the ones that ensure that “what is learnt can contribute to the overall knowledge of the adaptation sector”? So I have focussed on that.
Assumption 2: The “adaptation sector” is a very big sector with each having its own specific adaptation process. It can encompass all practitioners of adaptation from local government staff through to designers of agricultural insurance – and everything in between. Given that question 1b refers to local government I have assumed you mean - contribute to the overall knowledge of the “local government” adaptation sector (including those who engage with local governments).

Answer to Question 1b
Everyone wants to make no-regrets approvals and investment decisions; doing so is another matter. Guaranteeing no-regrets is challenging as any decision-making comes with trade-offs, even if you can’t see them in your lifetime (and climate change adaptation is a complex space). What local governments need to do for asset management with a climate change lens is to firstly ensure that they have an internal corporate standard that directs them to minimum information requirements and how that information is used (see my response to question 1a with Kingborough Council’s adaptation policy). Local governments should ensure that climate change is explicitly mentioned in any asset management plans – this then, will link to strategic plans, corporate plans and long term financial management plans. In reality climate change should be in all of these corporate documents.

As I mentioned in the previous response (see 1a), climate change is about informed decision-making. So for asset management, local governments need to ensure that there is an up-to-date spatial inventory of the assets. That may sound like simplistic advice but I know many do not do this. Once a spatial inventory exists, local governments then need to undertake an exposure assessment and quantify how many units (e.g. kilometres of road, number of buildings, etc.) are exposed to differing hazards at differing timescales. Once units are quantified then the cost is usually straight forward, as your organisation will have (or should have) a set replacement value. Once again I direct you to Kingborough Council (Tasmania) as they have done this very thing for the coastal community of Kingston Beach (see here). This quantification process allows the CFO and asset managers to use this information in their existing asset management methods (e.g. for depreciation and maintenance regimes, etc.).

Local governments should also realise that it may not be their assets that present barriers to adaptation – for example in Tasmania water and sewerage are managed by a separate entity. Local governments need to ensure that they are maintaining conversations and collaborations with these and other utilities (e.g. electricity and ICT) as failure to consider climate change in their asset management may limit the ability to service a community in the future.

Also, traditional asset management practices may not be enough. Local governments should also take stock of their green infrastructure, as protecting catchments and the local environment may extend the life of existing assets. A good example of this is how New York saves money and extends the life of existing water treatment facilities by protecting the surrounding ecosystem (see here).

An NCCARF report on local government asset management can be found here.

References and further reading

Balston, J.M., J. Kellett, G. Wells, S. Li, A. Gray, and I. Iankov, 2013, Quantifying the Costs of Climate Change on Local Government Assets, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, 215 pp. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/Balston_2013_Quantifying_cost_of_climate_change_impacts.pdf].

Bours, D., C. McGinn, and P. Pringle, 2013: Monitoring and Evaluation for Climate change Adaptation: A Synthesis of Tools, Frameworks and Approaches. SEA Change Community of Practice and UKCIP. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/SEA-change-UKCIP-MandE-review.pdf].

Kania, J. and M. Kramer, 2011: Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact].

Kenny, A., 2006: Ecosystem Services in the New York City Watershed. Ecosystem Marketplace. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/ecosystem-services-in-the-new-york-city-watershed-1969-12-31-2/].

Kingborough Council, 2014: Climate Change Adaptation Policy. Kingborough Council, Tasmania. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Policy%206.11%20Climate%20Change%20Adaptation%20Policy.pdf].

Kingborough Council, 2015: Kingston Beach Integrated Climate Change and Natural Hazards Project. Kingborough Council, Tasmania. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: http://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/KB%20Int%20CC%20NH%20Project%2026%20May%20V1.2%20(23mb).pdf].

Mathew, S., S. Trueck, and C. Truong, 2016: Methods for Evaluation the Results of Monitoring Adaptation Projects and Programs. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast. Accessed 19 January 2017. [Available online at: /how-to-pages/methods-evaluating-results-monitoring-adaptation-projects-and-programs]

Discuss this on CoastExchange  >