Anne Marte Bergseng Archives | Page 9 of 14

Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme (SCCAP) theme: Natural environment

SCCAP objectives:
N2: Support a healthy and diverse natural environment with capacity to adapt

Is Scotland’s natural environment resilient to climate change?

Our natural environment is changing and will continue to change due to the direct and indirect impacts of climate change. The exact nature of this change is uncertain because of the complex interactions between climate and other pressures on the web of species and habitats that make up our ecosystems. In turn these pressures affect the ability of ecosystems to provide services such as flood management, food and timber resources, carbon sequestration, landscapes of cultural, recreational and tourism value and helping to regulate air and water quality.

Direct impacts of climate change include the loss of some coastal habitats such as machair, one of the rarest habitats in Europe, due to sea level rise. Projected warmer, drier springs and summers are expected to lead to an increased wildfire risk and reduced water levels and flows in lochs and rivers. The projected increased frequency of intense, heavy rainfall events will result in more frequent flooding and soil erosion. Impacts that are indirectly related to climate change include an increased threat from some pests and diseases such as Dothistroma needle blight and invasive species such as rhododendron.

Apart from climate change, the natural environment is subject to a range of other pressures. Many of these are related to land use, land management and demand for resources. The warming climate is likely to lead to more land in Scotland being suitable for intensive cultivation (arable farming). Together with projected increases in global food demand, this is likely to drive intensification of agricultural activity. Scotland’s native woodlands are under pressure from multiple sources including non-native tree planting, habitat fragmentation, invasive non-native plants and animals, plant pests and diseases, deer browsing and atmospheric pollution.

Any of these pressures may impair the ability of habitats and the species they support to withstand the impacts of climate change. To build their resilience to this threat it is important to manage those pressures that we can influence. Ecosystems, habitats and species that are in good condition will be better able to withstand climate change. Larger and better connected areas of habitat are often more resilient and can help enable some species to move location in order to find suitable areas of habitat in a changing climate.

Climate projections indicate significant areas where active peat formation may no longer occur. Therefore it is important to protect existing peat resources and ensure appropriate hydrological conditions are created. Deep peat soils represent a very significant carbon store. Losing just 1% of our deep peat would release over 16 megatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere; more than Scotland’s total annual carbon emissions. The main threat for release of carbon from peatlands arises from degradation of these soils due to factors like erosion, drainage, fire, afforestation, over-grazing, pollution and peat extraction. While land management is often at the root of these factors, this degradation can also be a ‘natural ‘process impacted to some extent by more recent shifts in climate.

The resilience of the terrestrial environment is closely linked to our water environment; for example land management practices can influence water quality and flood risk. Management actions need to be undertaken at a large enough scale to capture a complex web of ecosystem interconnections, such as landscape scale conservation or river catchment scale management.

Different views exist on the concept of resilience of the natural environment to climate change and what it means, e.g. how much resilience is enough? ‘Resilience’ is described by SNH as ‘a property which allows an ecosystem to maintain its characteristics under the impacts of novel processes and shocks’[1].

Climate projections provide us with an indication of how Scotland’s climate may change in future. As mentioned above, there is much greater uncertainty surrounding the response of natural systems to these changes. The complex interactions within ecosystems, future development of pressures such as pests and diseases and land use changes (for example associated with climate change mitigation such as renewable energy) make it inherently difficult to predict responses to climate change. So it is difficult to know whether a species, habitat or system is resilient to climate change. There is a clear need to better understand the responses of natural systems to climate change. We know that healthy, biodiverse systems in good condition are more likely to withstand external pressures. To tackle some of these fairly intractable issues, a good starting point is to identify what is known about the condition of our natural environment now, the changes or trends that have been observed and what factors might have contributed to these changes. The indicators presented here gather that knowledge together to help build our understanding.

[1] Valluri-Nitch and Stone, 2015 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1744865.pdf

Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme (SCCAP) theme: Natural environment

SCCAP objectives:
N2: Support a healthy and diverse natural environment with capacity to adapt

How is climate change affecting the pests, diseases and invasive species which threaten Scotland’s forestry and woodland biodiversity?

Pests, diseases and invasive non-native species (INNS) have the potential to disrupt key ecosystem functions and cause significant economic damage. Milder winters and warmer, wetter springs are likely to increase the risk from some over-wintering pests and diseases as a result of increased activity, reduced winter mortality and the potential to complete more generations in a season, resulting in larger populations. Other effects may be more indirect and result from a reduction in ecosystem resilience and therefore increased susceptibility to pathogens due to damage or stress as a result of drought, temperature extremes or storms. Changes in average temperature and rainfall will also alter the distribution of some native woodland species, facilitate the establishment of INNS and increase the invasive tendency of some.

Whilst the climate response function of these organisms vary, and non-climatic drivers (e.g. deliberate or accidental introduction via human activities) are often more significant, there are a number of organisms where climate is seen to be a critical driver which are already causing considerable impact to Scotland’s economy and wildlife. Two of the most significant risks come from:

Phytophthora ramorum– a fungus-like pathogen whose distribution and prevalence is to a large extent determined by climatic factors. It poses a particular threat to larch, one of Scotland’s most important timber species, causing significant damage and mortality to infected plants.
Dothistroma needle blight- which has become the most significant disease affecting coniferous trees in the UK and poses a particular threat not only to Scotland’s commercial forestry but also to native Caledonian pinewoods. It is believed that an increase in intense rainfall episodes coupled with warmer springs may have optimised conditions for spore dispersal.

Scotland’s forestry supply chain has numerous stages, from nurseries, forest management, and timber harvesting, through to transport, and processing. This supply chain needs to develop resilience in the face of climate change. However, climate change will impact on the stages of the chain in different ways, increasing the complexity of the interdependencies between the stages. Scotland’s forest sector also has interdependencies with other sectors, including agriculture and construction, which are also expected to be impacted by climate change. These impacts, and changes made in response to them, may have secondary impacts for the forest sector.

This report sets out a theoretical overview of climate change impacts on Scotland’s forestry supply chain, with a focus on forest wood products. It looks at impacts on the natural environment including forests, but also on infrastructure such as energy, water, transport and communication, and on business operations.

The lists of impacts are not and will never be exhaustive. The focus is on growers and nurseries, forest management, harvesting, transport, and wood processing. The aim is to provide a framework for discussion with forestry sector experts that:

identifies climate change impacts on the forestry supply chain, and potential consequences of adaptation practices implemented in response; and
ensures that lack of adaptive capacity at any stage does not restrict the overall resilience of the sector.

The Scottish Government is considering introducing a new Climate Change Bill, which will amend the existing Climate Change Act (Scotland) 2009 to strengthen the emissions reduction target for 2050 in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement objectives to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C

ClimateXChange, on behalf of the Scottish Government, has commissioned this Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) and synthesis of key global assessments of the costs and benefits of climate change action in order to give context to Scottish Government’s decisions and as a basis for continuing policy development.

The study focuses on literature that has emerged since the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change (Stern 2007), and seeks to build upon previous review exercises.

A key message arising from this review is that estimates of climate impacts are inherently uncertain, so that climate policy needs to be assessed in terms of risk management, rather than straight-forward cost-benefit analysis.

The balance of evidence suggests that although the mid-point estimates of abatement cost may be higher than the mid-point damage estimates, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a considerable risk of much higher-than-expected damages which would justify the cost of ambitious abatement action. This is in line with the conclusion arising from climate risk literature suggesting that reducing the risk of exceeding tipping points is a key reason to aim for strong abatement targets globally.

Countries report in different ways against different climate change targets, making both cross-country and within-country comparisons difficult. This report describes the key differences between greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting frameworks underlying international and domestic national climate change targets and reporting. The analysis uses examples from Ireland, France, Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Norway, New Zealand and Mexico.

The report clarifies how countries with national climate change targets account for progress towards these targets, relative to their internationally reported GHG inventories.

The analysis show that there is substantial convergence on the use of comparable accounting methods, driven by UNFCCC reporting. It appears that the same underlying GHG data is typically adapted for accounting against different targets. UNFCCC accounting (plus, for most developed countries, KP accounting) provides the core comprehensive dataset, from which elements can be removed or recalculated as required. The fact that UNFCCC accounting is highly standardised for developed countries ensures a high degree of consistency, whereas more variation is to be expected from developing countries.

The research has been based on a desk review of relevant documentation from each country, carried out in November 2017.

Further research in spring 2018 compares greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for leading climate change jurisdictions.

There are a number of methods available for appraising adaptation decisions. This project introduces the concept of adaptation economics and reviews traditional and emerging analysis techniques, and gives examples of how they can be used.

Looking at how to do robust cost/benefit analysis is important in relation to adaptation policies, for example in making decisions about how to implement policies and proposals in the Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme (currently out for consultation). The analysis needs to take into account the considerable uncertainties relating to climate change.

Traditional economic approaches have limitations in how they measure cost/benefit of adaptation action.

Emerging techniques may be better suited to measuring the costs and benefits of adaptation, helping to:

prioritise action with limited resources
understand the consequences and costs of not adapting;
avoid over- and under-spend in adaptation; and
plan the best approach that also leaves options available in future.

The ASCEND workshop brought together policy, business, research and other communities to discuss the challenges of whole energy systems analysis and decision-making across scales, and identify opportunities for improved analysis and strategy.

Participants first looked at the energy system as a whole, including:

model-linking across scales,
system integration across vectors,
good practice in scenario design; and
dealing with uncertainty in decision-making.

The afternoon focused on cross-scale analysis and strategy in the heat sector, looking at issues such as

linking national strategy with local master-planning,
iterating between long-term whole system pathways and emerging demonstration and pilot studies; and
how to represent new policy drivers (industrial strategy, local economic impacts, equity and affordability) in whole systems analysis.

The event, held at ECCI in November 2017, formed part of the ‘Ascend’ scoping project, supported by the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Science Research Council) and Energy Systems Catapult. The project involves the universities of Birmingham, Leeds and Edinburgh, and University College London. The workshop showcased emerging findings from project researchers and others.

For more information, please contact Dr Mark Winskel at the University of Edinburgh.

The Scottish Government has set very ambitious targets and policies in its Climate Change Plan to decarbonise the energy system. The Scottish TIMES model is as a key tool informing these new climate change policies.

TIMES is a well-known, widely used model. However, the adequacy of TIMES for energy efficiency policy analysis has not been assessed in the literature. This report sets out the potential for using TIMES to understand the system impacts of energy efficiency improvements.

The main challenges identified in the specific context of using TIMES for energy efficiency analysis are:

Energy efficiency implementation in TIMES is not straightforward. Several approaches could be followed, delivering potentially different results.
Decisions are cost driven. The cost minimisation algorithm would lead to outcomes involving extreme specialisation (corner solutions), if not prevented by user determined constraints (e.g. imposing maximum shares for different technologies).
Energy demands and actions and reactions across the wider economy impacts are not modelled within TIMES. More generally, market “problems” and other drivers for consumer behaviour are not captured.

From a policy analysis perspective, TIMES is a very powerful tool that could be used to support decision making. Therefore, building on the model’s strengths, the report discusses possible TIMES uses and ways to go forward, grouped as:

using TIMES as it is;
developing TIMES improvements; and
soft-linking with other models.

This research reviews the actions being taken by some countries and regions, aspiring to leadership on tackling climate change, and how they are dealing with the challenges of meeting ambitious climate goals.

The analysis focuses on national greenhouse gas (GHG) targets, sectoral targets, legislation, the role of carbon trading and offsetting, and the achievability of targets in some European countries (EU and non-EU), Mexico and two US states.

Reflecting on the European case studies produced by ClimateXChange, the research also considers the common themes for success in setting ambitious and aspirational climate change policy.

Key findings from the research include:

Ambitious targets are being set by a range of countries across Europe (in and out of EU), and elsewhere. These include overall and sectoral GHG targets. States and regions are also raising the bar.
Targets vary according to starting point, political situation and culture.
The influence of international agreements and blocs, including the Paris Agreement and EU, have been critical to stimulating action. Despite this, countries and regions outside blocs (Norway and Mexico) have set and are meeting stretching targets, and regions (such as US states) are retained their commitments despite national policy vacuums.
Many targets are proving difficult to meet. This shouldn’t deter from high ambition. As the economic, business and social benefits become increasingly apparent, countries and regions which embark on decarbonisation pathways will save money in the long term, deliver a more resilient society to their citizens and show businesses the policy certainty they need to make long term investments in low and zero-carbon infrastructure.
A number of countries have stated the intention to trade international credits to meet their targets and have the legal flexibility to do so.
However, of concern, the EU has stated that meeting targets is dependent on the continued action of others.

This event considered how we might determine whether policy is effective, efficient and equitable, and also how evidence is considered in the policy development process.

Mark Winskel and Niall Kerr introduced the ClimateXChange project ‘Policy Effectiveness in Energy Policy’, and Jan Rosenow and Paul Cairney presented on the policy making process, understanding policy effectiveness and the role of evidence and experts.

The event was organised with the Energy and Society group at the University of Edinburgh.