2

Cross-Scale Barriers to
Climate Change Adaptation

in Local Government,
Australia
Workshop Two Report
30 APRIL 2012
PREPARED FOR:
National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF)
AUTHORS
Jade Herriman
Natasha Kuruppu
Anna Gero
Pierre Mukheibir
CROSS-SCALE BARRIERS TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AUSTRALIA WORKSHOP TWO
UTS:INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES
30 APRIL 2012
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) was established by the University of
Technology, Sydney in 1996 to work with industry, government and the community to
develop sustainable futures through research and consultancy. Our mission is to create
change toward sustainable futures that protect and enhance the environment, human
well-being and social equity. We seek to adopt an inter-disciplinary approach to our work
and engage our partner organisations in a collaborative process that emphasises strategic
decision-making.
For further information visit:
www.isf.uts.edu.au
Research team: Anna Gero, Natasha Kuruppu, Pierre Mukheibir, Jade Herriman
COLLABORATORS
Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government (ACELG)
For further information visit:
http://www.acelg.org.au/
Research team: Stefanie Pillora
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was carried out with financial support from the Australian Government
(Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) and the National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Facility. The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views
of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for any
information or advice contained herein.
The research team would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the workshop
participants and speakers.
CITATION
Please cite this report as:
Herriman J, Kuruppu N, Gero A, & Mukheibir P, 2012 Cross-Scale Barriers to Climate
Change Adaptation in Local Government, Australia Workshop Two Report, [prepared for
NCCARF] Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

University of Technology, Sydney
PO Box 123
Broadway, NSW, 2007
www.isf.edu.au
UTS
II
CONTENTS:
CONTENTS:.............................................................................................................................................III
1
BACKRGOUND.................................................................................................................................1
WORKSHOPAIMS............................................................................................................................1
WORKSHOPPROCESS......................................................................................................................2
3.1
WORKSHOPPRESENTATIONS...................................................................................................................2
3.2
WORKSHOPACTIVITIES..........................................................................................................................3
3.2.1 Activity1:Understandingtheproblem........................................................................................3
3.2.2 Activity2a:Clarifythecausesofthebarriers..............................................................................3
3.2.3 Activity2b:Describingapreferredfuture...................................................................................3
3.2.4 Activity3:Strategiesandactions................................................................................................3
OUTPUTS.........................................................................................................................................4
4.1
UNDERSTANDINGTHEPROBLEM..............................................................................................................4
4.2
POORLEADERSHIPFROMHIGHERTIERSOFGOVERNMENT.............................................................................5
4.2.1 ClarifyingtheCauses...................................................................................................................5
4.2.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture..............................................................................................6
4.2.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses..............................................................................6
4.3
LACKOFINFORMATIONANDKNOWLEDGE..................................................................................................7
4.3.1 ClarifyingtheCauses...................................................................................................................7
4.3.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture..............................................................................................8
4.3.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses..............................................................................8
4.4
LACKOFPROBLEMDEFINITIONANDPLANNING............................................................................................9
4.4.1 ClarifyingtheCauses.................................................................................................................10
4.4.2 Descriptionofthepreferredfuture............................................................................................10
4.4.3 Strategiesandactionstoremovethecauses............................................................................10
4.5
LIMITEDFUNDINGTOPLANANDIMPLEMENTRESPONSES............................................................................12
4.6
LIMITEDCOOPERATIVEGOVERNANCE.....................................................................................................16
SUMMARY&NEXTSTEPS..............................................................................................................19
WORKSHOPFEEDBACKANDEVALUATION.....................................................................................21
APPENDIXA:LISTOFATTENDEES........................................................................................................................22
APPENDIXB:BRIEFINGNOTE.............................................................................................................................23
APPENDIXC:CASESTUDIES...............................................................................................................................29
1. LAKEMACQUARIE...................................................................................................................................29
2. WESTERNAUSTRALIA..............................................................................................................................29
3. CAIRNS..................................................................................................................................................29
4. TASMANIA.............................................................................................................................................29
5. PENRITH................................................................................................................................................29
APPENDIXD:ACTIVITY1RESPONSES...................................................................................................................40
APPENDIXE:EVALUATIONFORM........................................................................................................................43
APPENDIXF:RESPONSESTOEVALUATIONFORM...................................................................................................44
III
1 BACKRGOUND
Local Governments across Australia are confronted with an ever increasing exposure to
climate change impacts from drought to flooding, sea level rise and heat-waves. However,
even with best intentions there are significant barriers that restrict or prevent good
adaptation planning and management in the local government context. To build on the good
work that is being done, this project aims to identify what these barriers are, based on strong
stakeholder informed knowledge, and to suggest ways to enable effective climate change
adaptation in local government. The overall objective of this study is to synthesise a set of
critical barriers to adaptation planning and implementation by local government in Australia
thereby defining the adaptation interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of local
government services.
The research involves the following methods:
Desktop analysis of regulatory framework around adaptation planning and key
adaptation programmes in Australia and a synthesis of common barriers to
adaptation experienced in Australia and overseas
Key informant interviews with national stakeholders involved in adaptation planning
5 case studies from Local Councils in NSW and other states demonstrating how
particular barriers have been overcome
Three workshops with various stakeholders which include:
o Workshop 1 (January 2012): Identify critical barriers and causes with Local
Government representatives in NSW
o Workshop 2 (April 2012): Re-prioritse barriers and identify methods of
overcoming barriers with multi-level stakeholders
o Workshop 3 (May 2012): Gain consensus and barriers and causes from
national stakeholders and examine the feasibility of some of the practical
actions identified in workshop 2.
This independent research project is funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation
Research Facility (NCCARF) and being undertaken by The Institute for Sustainable Futures
(ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Key advice will be provided to the
project by the Australian Centre for Excellence for Local Government based at UTS.
2 WORKSHOP AIMS
The overarching objective of this study is to identify cross-scale barriers that limit planned
adaptation to climate change impacts within local government (LG), thereby defining the
adaptation capacity interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of LG services.
The first workshop aimed to synthesise a set of critical barriers to three key phases of the
adaptation process, namely, understanding, planning and implementation, and to identify the
processes that gave rise to these barriers.
The focus of the second workshop was to validate the cross-scale barriers and underlying
causes identified in workshop one and identify practical actions that could be undertaken to
overcome the barriers.
3 WORKSHOP PROCESS
Invitations to the workshop were sent to representatives from various Local, State and
Federal government agencies in New South Wales and Canberra. The second workshop
was attended by 17 participants (see Appendix A). Prior to the workshop participants were
sent a short briefing note outlining the activities of the workshop (refer to Appendix B).
3.1 WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS

Workshop participants heard presentations from the research team on the background to the
research, the expected outcomes and the progress to date, as well as some findings from
the five case studies (these are provided in Appendix C). The presentation on the case
studies highlighted that the key cross-scale barriers are not endemic to New South Wales
alone but are experienced nationally during adaptation planning efforts (Table 1).
The workshop concluded with a presentation by Dr David Rissik, Co-Director of NCCARF
who show-cased some of the other adaptation projects NCCARF is funding and touched on
some the policy implications of these studies.
Table 1: Summary of Case Studies and overlapping cross-scale barriers
Cross Scale Barriers:

Lack of political leadership from higher
tiers of government - i.e. no champions
Lack of evidence and data related to
climate change vulnerability
Spatial scale of the problem
- the issues are global and multi-level
High uncertainty associated with large
time scale and extreme variability
Lack of guidance frameworks (related to
regulation, legislation and methodology)
Poor definition of the problems and
therefore difficulty in identifying options
Historically entrenched development,
infrastructure, cultural values and
education
Difficulty in balancing long-term and
short-term priorities
Lack Council funding and low staff
capacity to plan and implement
responses
Lack of local political will and social
licence for change
Lack of knowledge of climate impacts,
tools and monitoring
Case
Study 1
Lake
Macquarie
Case
Study 2
WA
Case
Study 3
Cairns
Case
Study 4
Tasmania
Case
Study 5
Penrith
X
X
X
X
3.2 WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

The following section outlines the set of group activities undertaken by participants during
Workshop 2.
The activities were divided into three general sessions. Five groups comprising 4-5
participants representing different agencies were seated in separate tables according to the
five thematic barriers that were identified in Workshop 1 which include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Poor leadership from higher tiers of government

Lack of information and knowledge
Lack of problem definition and planning
Limited funding to plan and implement responses
Limited co-operative governance
Apart from the first activity, all workshop activities required participants to work in groups. At
the end of the last activity of the workshop (i.e., activity 3) participants were given an
opportunity to move around to each of the other tables and contribute to the outputs of that
particular table (i.e., world caf style). This ensured that each participant had an opportunity
to examine all five thematic barriers.
3.2.1 ACTIVITY 1: UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

As means to get the participants to begin to engage with the content of the meeting, and to
ensure that their key cross-scale barrier was captured, each participant was requested to
write down a cross-scale barrier, its causes and processes to overcome it which they
perceived as significant from their own experience in working with local government in
adaptation planning.
3.2.2 ACTIVITY 2A: CLARIFY THE CAUSES OF THE BARRIERS

In this activity, participants were encouraged to familiarise themselves with the barrier
assigned to their table, confirm whether they perceived this to be a key barrier and review
the underlying causes of the barrier as identified in Workshop 1. Participants were then
asked to include additional causes contributing to the barrier that may have been
overlooked, particularly from their own agencys experience with working across different
tiers of government in adaptation planning.
3.2.3 ACTIVITY 2B: DESCRIBING A PREFERRED FUTURE

This activity began with participants being asked to reflect on a time when the particular
barrier on their table was overcome in a different context other than climate adaptation
planning and to identify processes that made it work. Participants were then asked to
imagine a positive future in relation to the barrier on their table and then characterise what
elements would be different in the imagined future (i.e., what would work differently and what
would local governments be doing differently if the barrier was absent?).
3.2.4 ACTIVITY 3: STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

The final task of the workshop began with participants being asked to imagine that the
preferred future they described in Activity 2B had been achieved, and then work backwards
to identify the key changes that would have needed to be made along the way. Participants
were asked to describe in detail how these strategies will be implemented, by whom and
over what timeframe and what would stand in the way.
4 OUTPUTS
The outputs for the above activities have been recorded against each of the key barriers.
4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

As described in Section 3, participants were asked to individually describe what they
perceived to be the most significant cross-scale barrier to adaptation planning and
implementation by local government (see Table 2). Responses varied somewhat, however
most related to issues of governance, and absence of leadership and political support with
mixed messages adding to the confusion of responsibility. Limited cooperative governance
in terms of a coordinated approach via consistent frameworks was also raised, with some
participants noting the confusing and crowded landscape surrounding adaptation planning
and implementation at the local government level. Results from Activity 1 are presented in
Appendix D.
Table 2: Summary of individual responses
Key cross-scale
constraint
Poor understanding of
CC threats.
Lack of acceptance of a
range of and flexibility in
options to adaptively
manage
Key cause of constraint
Poor leadership &

support
Vested interests
Short political cycles
Lack of support for tough
decisions
Lack of consensus in community
about the reality of CC
Poor integration of
adaptation across all
tiers of government,
including a crowded and
confusing landscape
Poor collaboration
Constitutional barriers no
federal head of power to
mandate or nationally consistent
planning code
CC cuts across all sectors and
tiers
Absence of strategic and
coordinated approach to funding
adaptation priorities
Inconsistent approach
Short term planning
Pressures from developers and
other tiers of government
Well resourced obstructive
vested interests
Legacy issues of past planners
decisions
Poor planning &

strategic land use has
implications for
insurance claims, drop in
land values and the
potential for
maladaptation
Poor communication of CC
science
Perceptions of uncertain scientific
data, conflicting data and
projected impacts, results in
tentative decision making.
Potential solution to
overcome constraint
Concerted and coordinated
education across scales
and scale specific
Flexible tools for locally
specific plans
Sharing of knowledge and
experiences
Clearer statements at the
state level
Stronger role played by
regional coordinating
bodies for encouraging
broad local action between
LGAs
Building regional
partnerships and regional
statutory planning regimes
& frameworks
Enforcement of existing
planning policies an
regional frameworks
Overall national strategy,
that identifies highest risk
areas and ensures
Federal, State and LGAs
have detailed mapping and
identify solutions.
4
4.2 POOR LEADERSHIP FROM HIGHER TIERS OF

GOVERNMENT
Participants in this group represented State agencies, academic institutions and the private
sector, each bringing interesting experiences of adaptation planning with Local Government.
4.2.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES

The groups discussion of causes of the cross-scale barrier resulted in the group agreeing
that the causes presented in Workshop 1 as being the most significant. Additional causes
were identified but they linked closely with the causes raised in the previous workshop, as
illustrated in the table below.
Participants acknowledged that a significant underlying cause is the lack of direct
contact/communication between Federal Government and Local Government. They believed
that addressing this would result in Local Governments interests being better understood by
Federal Government and allow for improved strategic funding and planning of national
priorities. They emphasised that Local Government required a larger/stronger voice in
certain forums, rather than being overridden by the State Government. According to
participants, the funding that is sent out from the Federal to Local Government is very
piecemeal due to the limited interaction between the two. Federal Government is thus
mainly informed by the State whereby very little reflects the LG needs; this is also due to the
legal status of Local Government which is accountable to the State. This issue was also
connected to the fact that there exists increased expectations of Local Government as they
are responsible for implementing many of State policies/strategies. However when it comes
to climate adaptation, respondents felt that there is little statutory protection of Local
Government activities/initiatives (e.g., no Sea Level Rise policies that set levels at the State
level which Local Government can adopt to support their adaptation planning decisions).
Respondents also believed that adaptation was occurring because of the passion of a few
people at the State level in which adaptation was seen as something like giving in (i.e.,
mitigation was not working at different levels). This has led to less impetus for adaptation
leadership at the State level.
Causes raised at Workshop 1
Additional / related causes raised at

Workshop 2
No Statutory obligations
- No statutory protections for Local Government

(e.g., in terms of liability)
Lack of ownership of the implications of CC

impacts
Short political timeframes, agendas and cycles
which do not coincide with planning time frames,
reluctance to make long term decisions
Lack of incentives to do now rather defer cost
to future office bearers or other arms of
governance
No acknowledgement that the issues cut across
all tiers of government
- Limited emphasis on political constraints
-Lack of direct contact between Federal and

Local Governments
- No guidance from other levels of government
which is flexible enough to allow Council to use
judgement and apply local knowledge, but
rigorous enough to provide back-up and support
to decision makers.
4.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE

In this activity, participants considered the example of disaster/emergency management in
the State when reflecting on a different context in which poor leadership from above was
overcome. In such a context they acknowledged the presence of particular enabling factors
which included: greater collaborative planning between the three tiers of government, the
targeted partnerships in dealing with the extreme event and the way in which resources are
used effectively to avoid doubling up.
With regard to the barrier discussed within Group 1, the following characteristics were
suggested as being important if the barrier was to be overcome in the preferred future:
o A less hierarchical level of governance but one that promotes collaborative planning
between the three tiers of government during the adaptation planning stages
o Use of targeted partnerships for implementation through regional and or shared
impacts
o A more effective use of resources, work is not doubled up allowing for more funding
to be freed up for new work
o Better regulation office for adaptation in which adaptation expertise and information is
centralised
o An environment in which stakeholders at every level of governance are equal to
avoid labels as us and them
o Good information/knowledge sharing; this will include other stakeholders including
private organisations and communities e.g., currently there is a national database for
floods which anyone can access.
o A future in which many State agencies see adaptation as a core business area e.g.,
Rail Corp sees how trains are impacted by climate change
o An improved regulatory information office (e.g., the NSW Office of the Environment
and Heritage) specific for adaptation to build better personal relationships
o Improved building codes and planning laws that prohibit land being released in
inappropriate areas e.g., in Gold Coast there is a lot of development in high risk
areas.
o Adaptation Plans/strategies need mechanisms for maintaining agendas beyond the
three year political lifespan and carrying on promises in the Plans/strategies e.g.,
NSW MetroPlan goes up to 2030.
4.2.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES

To realise the future described above, participants reflected upon the processes and actions
needed to reach this ideal future. Brainstorming of practical actions, key stakeholders /
agents of change, timings and hurdles also occurred, and revealed the following:
Enabler
Practicalactions
Whowilldrive
thechange?
Required
timeframe
Collaborative
planning
betweenthree
levelsof
government
Establishlocal
governmentnetwork
withallCouncils
representedtoa
degree
establishsamekindof
networkforstate
agenciesandfor
Federalagencies
THEN
establishan
intergovernmental
Sixmonthsuntil
scopingmeeting
andoneyear
untilitisfully
functional
Federallevele.g., Toomuchtalking,
DCCEE
bureaucracyleading
tolimitedreal
action
Lackofdefined
purposeand
outcomes
Insufficientbuyin
fromallplayers
Continuedneglectof
disengagedorunder
resourced
Whatcouldgetin
theway?
ABetter
Adaptation
Officeto
facilitate
knowledge
sharingand
funding.
Emphasisonbest
practice.
forumwithafew
representativesfrom
eachnetwork.Same
Commonwealth
representativetosit
oneveryStates
forum.
veryimportantthat
LocalGovernmentisof
equalstatusinthe
process
potentialfor
focussingonparticular
impactsorchallenges
Defineinformation/
expertisegap
impactsrisk/
vulnerability
assessment
actionidentification
optionsassessment
monitoringand
evaluation
publicationslibrary/
database
directoryservicefor
adaptationtofind
relevantstaffin
differentagencies/
Councilsetc.
Councils/agencies
Lackofresourcesto
participateandto
implementactions
whichcomeoutof
thenetwork
Start
immediatelyon
information
identificationand
gathering.
Allowoneyears
fortheportalis
upandrunning.
Officeofthe
Environmentand
Heritage
(Impactsand
Adaptation
Section)
Hierarchical
processes
Agenciesunwilling
toshareinformation
Lackofawareness,
inadequate
communication
Limitedengagement
fromFederallevel.
4.3 LACK OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Participants in this group represented local government, and academic and research
institutions, each bringing interesting experiences of adaptation planning with Local
Government.

The groups discussion of causes of this challenges resulted in additional causes being
discussed. These have been able to be linked to causes raised at the previous workshop, as
illustrated in the following table.

No long term investment in the collection of data
Poor data sharing

Workshop 2
Poor knowledge sharing:
Limited flows between private industries, councils
and agencies.
Informal networks too adhoc
Power games between universities and agencies
Inconsistency of the available data and climate

projections lack of certainty of the data and
availability of the latest data.
Scale of the problem has not been made relevant

at the local government level
Misinformation by the media and strong industry
lobby groups
This is a new issue for some government officials
Sceptics in some councils
Inadequate training for engineers, planners and
councillors
Framing/Packaging of key information:

Greater public acceptance of variability as
compared with adaptation.
Practitioners dont even know what further key

information is required.
Decision makers need to take stronger leads in
clarifying how their decisions are made (eg using
available data) what are the info needs?
Too many stakeholder, not enough key decision
makers to define or delineate priority information
needs/concerns

Participants envisioned themselves in a future where the barrier and the causes mentioned
above were absent. The group use the introduction of fluoride into potable water, as well as
immunisation drives, to better understand how to overcome knowledge barriers. With
fluoride there was an initial resistance, and with immunisation, the administration was firstly
voluntary and later mandatory. With regard to the barrier discussed in this group, the
following characteristics were suggested as being important:
o Improved hazard maps showing extreme weather impacts from 2000 onwards.
o Governments at all tiers agree on priority data sets, of national interest, that all
parties can consistently work with.
o Improved knowledge bases support the quality of decision-making i.e. the
knowledge provided is more strategic.
o All stakeholders have a clearer understanding of their knowledge needs, and which
providers meet these needs.
o Evidence bases are more robust with regard to the value of adaptation interventions.
o Evidence for business/investment decisions is supported by Monitoring and
Evaluation criteria. This has led to clarified accountability criteria.

Enabler
Practicalactions
Whowilldrive
thechange?
Required
timeframe
Whatcouldget
intheway?
Improvedhazard
maps
Nationally
prioritizedusing
consistent
methodologies
Startmappingin
mostvulnerable
regions
consolidatethe
existing
information.
setnational
standards
DCCEE&COAG
ClimateChange
Council
Start now!
CapturecurrentLa
Ninaevents
Otherbudgeting
prioritieseg.
Biodiversity
conservation
Vestedinterests
competingfor
scaresresources
Lackofcontinuity
ofexisting
programs
Monetaryvalueof
adaptationoptions
&interventions
recorded
(acknowledgethat
engineeringoptions
arenotalwaysthe
best)
EstablishM&E
criteria
Clarifythe
accountability
of/fordecision
makerstoachieve
morerigorin
decisionmaking
Determine
minimumtypes,
scale,specificityof
information
requirements
underlyingdecisions
Getbeyond
Moreemphasison
fragmented
strategiclevel
decisionmaking
decisionmaking
througha
commitmentto
regionalstrategic
planning.
Stakeholdersgain Knowledge
providersmeetthe
clearer
needstoguide
understandingof
decisions
knowledgeneeds
government
andsources.
arrangementsare
clarifiedtoassist
decisions
institutional
capacityinitiatives
Improved
evidencefor
business/
investment
decisions
Treasury&
productivity
Commission.
Australian
EvaluationSociety
Engineers
Australia,
Standards
Australia
Vestedinterest
andpolitics
Precedentsin
planningdecisions
byLand&
Environmentcourt
inotherStates.
COAG
Professional&
industrial
associations
Shorttermism
Politicalcycles
Consultants
manufacturing
consent
Vestedinterests
Diversityof
knowledgeneeds
greaterthanthe
commonground
In understanding the types of information needed for decision making, there is a need to get
beyond the known unknowns and identify the unknown unknowns, i.e. making sense of
future uncertainty. It was noted that Geoscience Australia have recently been awarded 3 yr
project to undertake a flood map exercise across Australia ($12 Mil).
4.4 LACK OF PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PLANNING

The four participants in Group 3 Lack of problem definition and planning were from local
and state government organisations, as well as a representative from NCCARF. The group
members all contributed to robust discussion around this theme.

The groups discussion of causes of this challenges resulted in additional causes being
discussed. These have been able to be linked to causes raised at the previous workshop, as
illustrated in the following table.

Workshop 2
Lack of guidance and consistent frameworks

planning and regulatory.
Unclear whos role it is to plan
Lack of policy behind climate change initiatives

for councils and state government
Lack of a clear message to community on action
required for CCA
Difficulties in defining the extent of problem and
agreeing on a starting point
Lack of mandate (legal, political responsibility)
especially in relation to appropriate zoning to
incorporate climate change
Lack of shared understanding especially within
community, of work being done of climate change
Legal responsibilities unclear
An additional point of discussion centred around obtaining buy-in from local community, and
the lack of buy-in at the moment contributed to this barrier.

Participants envisioned themselves in a future where the barrier was absent. Given the
creative nature of this exercise, one participant suggested using the example of addressing
the HIV/AIDS issue as it emerged in the 1980s. This issue was relevant given the concerted
efforts made to address the problem, with community consensus now agreeing on the nature
of the problem and how to treat it.
With regard to the barrier discussed within Group 4, the following characteristics suggested
as being important:
o Consistent framework at state and national level and applied / adopted to the local
government level
o Community informed of adaptation need, action etc. and demand action
o The need to adapt is the norm
o Clear legal responsibilities exist / are in place
o Mandatory adoption of adaptation in all aspects of community and government
decision making and also business e.g. insurance etc.
o Social justice intervention by government to those most needy (in relation to
climate change)
o Future planning in vulnerable areas not allowed
o Economically feasible retreat plans
o Better information and understanding on climate change impacts
o Adaptive planning, robust and flexible system
o Climate change integrated into councils mainstream activities, not necessarily a
separate portfolio or activity (e.g. project planning and implementation, operations
etc.).

10
Enabler
Practicalactions
Whowilldrive
thechange?
Consistent
frameworkatstate
andnationallevel
(legislation)
Legislativereform
process,creating
newlegislation
Reachingpolitical
consensusacross
alllevelsof
government
Redefiningthe
roleofCOAG
Educationof
climatechange
impactsand
adaptation
widespread
acrosscommunity
Coordinated
education
campaigns
targetingall
sectorsofsociety
Flexibilitywithin
government
(adaptive
planning)
Incorporating
uncertaintyin
planningand
operation
Collaboration
betweensectors
andwithin
organisations
Participatory
decisionmaking
(genuine
engagementand
community
participation,
accountableetc)
Adaptation
Watchdog,
ensuring
economic,social,
culturalequityin
adaptation
decisionmaking
Communityvia
10yearsminimum
electedmembersof
government(all
levels)
Politicaltimeframes
(alllevels)
Scientists,faith
leaders,through
media,community
champions,
government
(coordinated
message)
Immediately
(ongoing)
Politicalagenda
Benignclimate
Distracting
stressors
Stateandlocal
governmentsand
industrybodies
Immediately
(ongoing)
Asabove
Lackof
coordinationacross
sections/functions
/departments
Politicians(toset
upindependent
body)
510years
Politicalinterest
Lobbygroups
Conservative
government
Community
consensusonthe
needtoactanda
shared
understandingof
theseriousnessof
climatechange
Adaptation
mainstreaming
Makingadaptation
fairandequitable
Required
timeframe
Whatcouldgetin
theway?
Participants agreed that Community Consensus on the issue and the need to respond
would need to occur first, to ensure the other steps could then follow successfully. This
would then be followed simultaneously by the other steps, as traction across all sectors of
the community would be driving the change.
Regarding the development of a consistent framework, although specifics of what this
involves were limited, participants were keen to see both carrot and stick mechanisms
11
driving the changes again assisted by the community consensus described above. The
role of COAG was also discussed, with some participants wishing to see COAG play a
greater role in better coordinating climate adaptation actions across the states.
The issue of institutional flexibility was also discussed, specifically related to mainstreaming
of adaptation. This idea stemmed from the need to incorporate climate adaptation
considerations into governance structures and be able to adjust the ways in which
organisations operate to allow for gradual and discreet changes resulting from climate
change, either directly or indirectly.
The concept of an Adaptation Watchdog received much discussion amongst the group and
agreed to be an interesting and potentially useful idea. This independent body would act like
the Productivity Commission / IPART and ensure climate adaptation activities were socially,
culturally and economically fair and equitable, and aligned with best-practice. Participants
agreed that government and politicians would need to get behind it to give it regulatory
teeth, however this was believed to be a difficult task given the divided support (or lack
thereof) for climate change initiatives across the two sides of government. Participants
acknowledged that the Watchdog idea was ambitious especially given that there remains
uncertainty related to what the best approach to adaptation would look like.
4.5 LIMITED FUNDING TO PLAN AND IMPLEMENT

RESPONSES
Participants at this table included representatives from local government, IPART and
insurance industry staff. State government (planning) and NCCARF staff also participated in
ideas about actions.

Various participants suggested that limited funds for climate change adaptation in local
government may be caused by the following phenomenon outlined in the table below.
Interesting discussions also occurred around the need for state government endorsement for
rate rises or special levies to be set. A representative from the Insurance industry suggested
that this needs to be federal government funded. Participants also acknowledged that there
is fierce community opposition currently to rate rises.
A view was expressed that federal government uses contingency funding rather than
dedicated line items in budgets to pay for emergency response it was proposed that this
maybe a deliberate strategy to hide the cost of such events, but that it skews investment
towards response rather than investing in long term mitigation / adaptation
Ageing infrastructure gains resident attention at the local scale as they often have an
immediate safety issue associated with them, taking priority over long term considerations or
new infrastructure.

Workshop 2
Prioritisation of funds at different tiers of

government, due to competing priorities, which is
exacerbated by short versus long term agendas
Lack of adaptation specific dedicated funding,

govt funding to support long term adaptation on
needs. Funding should be allocated on a priority
basis federally, based on the return of investment
12
Funding constraints at local government level for

large capital adaptation projects, partly due to
rate capping at state level.
The link between local government and federal

government the indirect channels of connection
was raised, as an issue for councils to gain
access to federal funds
Adaptation work often needs larger pools of
money that arent available within councils own
discretionary income
Small councils more grant dependent with limited
capacity to raise revenue from own sources
Potential constraints on recovering costs from
private beneficiaries-special levies/ infrastructure
charges.-political community constraints
Limited funding for R&D and pilots

cost of already sunk capital in existing
infrastructure that is now viewed as vulnerable
under CC impacts.
Balance between funding for mitigating/ preparing
for risks/ hazards/ compared to recovery moneyno systematic cost/benefit analysis
Lack of information on the costs and benefits of
doing nothing. There is also a need to look at the
costs and benefits of preparedness vs recovery

Participants envisioned themselves in a future where the barrier was absent and considered
a number of examples:
Federal government taking action currently on disability insurance, this could be
mimicked in action on adaptation.
Disability support/insurance
Maternity leave -in child care, maternity leave that government has developed national
frameworks, that industry can then also contribute to.
Carbon tax mitigation
With regard to the barrier discussed within this group, the following characteristics were
suggested as being important if the barrier was to be overcome in the preferred future:
o Leadership from Fed or State/Territory government
o Clear specification of problem & objectives
o Rigorous cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates a net community benefit
o A systematic process in place to identify the risks.
o Recognise/identify urgent/high priority adaptation needs
o Consider climate change risks within already well-established processes & funding
arrangements-as many climate change risks are increases on existing climate
variability therefore not always a need to label it as adaptation per se. (May help to
overcome scepticism/ political pushback).
o The idea that we may need national prioritisation of different geographical areas for
adaptation work to take place.
o Government outlining uniform minimum standards e.g. building standards for flood
zones
o An important element of a preferred future would be pulling the issue apart to
identify which climate change impacts are urgent, and what is not urgent (eg what
needs action to begin this year, what can wait sea level rise for example, may be
an incremental impact that can be tackled gradually, not immediately, in some
areas). Perhaps also identifying which localities are more urgent, whereas others can
be tackled over time.
13
A question was raised whether there could be a benefit in the future in not calling things
adaptation but instead risk or climate risk/ extreme events/ hazards etc. An example was
given of Newcastle City Council that refers to ocean flooding rather than sea level rise. It
was suggested that this language may help overcome the barrier of lack of funding, by
avoiding political polarization about whether to fund adaptation work, especially in councils
where there is lack of agreement about the impacts or causes of climate change. It may also
help overcome community concerns about the idea of adaptation (where this exists) and
perhaps help to demonstrate that this is a continuation of existing work, and should fit within
existing areas of responsibility rather than being a new area of work. This language shift
may also help open up other sources of funding for example, it was suggested that the
existing Regional Development Australia Fund should be able to be used for climate change
adaptation, even though adaptation benefits are not currently one of their selection criteria
for allocating funds.
A further question was raised on the sustainability of high risk local government areas if
some areas require large investment to address adaptation needs, do these costs outweigh
the benefits of staying there? A discussion ensued about the decision to stay or go and also
about the need for prioritising areas to invest adaptation funding in. For example areas
where more people wish to live in the future. Participants mentioned the need to engage the
community in this decision making, and also the complexity of involving community values in
the decision making process beyond just financial costs and benefits.
Enabler
Practicalactions
Whowill
drivethe
change?
Required Whatcouldgetin
timeframe theway?
Higher
penetrationof
insurance
Privateinsurancetoreduce
costsforcouncilsaftera
naturaldisaster/legitimate
risk
management/preventative
measurecanreduce
premiums
Insurance
comp
State/fed/
local
Government
Starting
now:5to
10years
Generatingmore
income
Statepolicy
providesthe
mechanism.
Currently
restrictionsonthis
forratesand
speciallevies
Futurefundfor
adaptation
Innovative
public/private
Specialleviestorecover
costsofadaptation.e.g.
coastalinfrastructureworks
Stategovapprovalforlocal
govtstoraisefunds
independently
Stateandlocal ASAP
govt
Fed&State/Territorygov
localgovtcontributions

Fed,State,
Local
Note:Participants
wereunsurewhether
thiswouldhelpor
not.Itmightmean
lessrelianceon
councilservicesin
recovery.Thiscould
alsoberelevantfor
businessesthatgo
buste.g.after
flooding
Stategovtconcern
aboutuncontrolled
raterises&councils
misallocating$.
Needtoexplain
clearlytocommunity
whatitsfor,benefits
ASAP
ASAP
Costofhaving
enoughmoney
14
financingoptions
1.HECStype
schemefor
fundingrelocation
and/orprotection
works)
2.Loansubsidies
forlocalgovt
infrastructure
Recognitionof
Directfundingfromfeds
LocalGovtin
constitution
Landswaps

Moreeffectiveuse Rationalizing/bringing
ofGovtfunds
togethersmallpotsof
moneyintoabiggerfund
EnsuringRegional
DevelopmentAgency
fundingincludesclimate
adaptationcriteria
Trackingwhere
Bettertrackingofmoneyin
wearecurrently
localgovt.,whatarewe
spendingmoney
spendingtodeliverthe
valuesthecommunity
nowtoserviceour
expects?
valuesand
Focusonreallocationrather
economy?
thannewmoney,(e.g.focus
doesthisneedto
onpublicgoodslikewidthof
changewith
beachratherthanseawalls
climatechange
forprivateproperty)
werenot
currentlytracking
howweare
spending,what
wearespending
on.
NewFunds
Couldpossiblybevia
Linkupwith
jurisdictions(liketheGST)or
carbontaxe.g.
competitivegrant
take5%&invest
inadaptation
Banktransaction
fees
Verysmall
amountwhichhas
lowindividual
impactbutlarge
cumulativeeffect
better
understanding
aboutwhento
investcostof
delay
Government
Private
financesector
availabletomeet
need
Treasuries
Community
misconceptionabout
CC&adaptation/lack
ofsupportfor
spendingon
adaptationactions
Moreneeded:
educationofactual
impacts(i.e.what
doesbuildingasea
wallactuallymean
forthebenefitof
overcomingof
misconceptionsin
community)
From the above table, suggestions for future actions can be broadly be grouped around
three actions which tackle:
15
Additional sourcing of funds

A need to look at different sources of funding including developer contributions. For
example, in Pittwater Council, a participant highlighted that they use a special levy for
coastal areas to fund infrastructure; that is, applying the levy to only a small portion of
the local government area, those people who are seen to benefit most from the
investment. This was suggested as a possible source of additional funding. It was
also noted if coastal properties reflected the risk we wouldnt need the levy.
Prioritizing funds
Suggestion about values based discussion with community
Shifting costs from local government to others
Insurance was discussed as a mechanism to reduce council expenditure in disaster
recovery. This included both encouraging private landholders to get adequately
insured, and using the insurance premium pricing to create a price signal which
encourages design and building that reduces risk. An example was given about
premiums that are linked to floor height in flood prone areas, where higher floors
incur lower premiums. Another element of using insurance that was discussed is the
role of more fine grained geographically sensitive premiums which again provide a
price signal about the most vulnerable areas.
A participant commented that in Warringah Council, the council does not pay for
seawalls to protect individual private homes. The policy states that there must be a
public good associated with seawall construction, otherwise the landowner is
expected to pay themselves. This was suggested as a policy that could be extended
if it is not already widespread in coastal councils.
4.6 LIMITED CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE

Participants in this groups represented Local Government and State agencies.

In examining the causes, participant agreed that some of the current communication
channels across the scales are working well: e.g. between State Planning departments and
council planners/plans.

Workshop 2
Poor communication between tiers of government
Lack of mechanism for interdisciplinary

communication (silos at all levels)
Vulnerability to political priorities/messages that
undermine clear and consistent communication change in NSW state government resulted in the
undermining of established policy and programs
(e.g., Metropolitan Plan had clear messages
about adaptation but since new govt in March,
now it is uncertain.
Status of local Govt in broader scale decisions
Lack of frameworks beyond election cycles
Inconsistent messages
Local decisions over-ridden by higher tiers

In reflection on an example in which limited co-operative governance has been overcome,
participants discussed the issue of water pollution and management of water quality in rivers
and waterways. In this context, participants mentioned that many examples of effective
cross sectoral collaboration were to be found in which positive contributing factors include
16
follow through legislation, funding, education and mechanisms for interagency work (e.g.,
Catchment Management Authorities). Other key factors included:
broad community support
visibility of the issue/direct impact on amenity
A government in NSW committing serious funds
Policy staff, scientists in State govt
In visioning a future in which this barrier was absent, participants highlighted the need for the
following elements:
o Absence of politicisation of climate science and policy/ bi-partisan support
o Public statements of commitment from state premiers
o Local efforts would be coordinated and collectively effective
o Continuity of adaptation implementation (not subject to political cycles)
o Long term investment in capacity building of whole sector

Enabler
Practicalactions
- Investigate
Workableand
existingor
provenInteragency
alternate
mechanisms(Cross
mechanisms/gro
jurisdictional)
ups
e.g.localgovtand
- Takeadvantage
planning
ofinformal
Ministerscouncil
networksacross
toshapenational
governments
planningframework
- Lookatlearnings
Effectiveregional
fromregional
mechanisms/groups
approachessuch
(e.gROCs,RDAs,
asSouthEast
CMAs)
QLD,nowa
statutoryplan
Clarityaroundroles
andresponsibilities
- Protocolsfor
collaborative
governance
Recognitionthat
- Investigate
Whowilldrive
thechange?
NCCARF
(ALGA)
Required
timefram
e
Short
term
Whatcouldgetinthe
way?
Achievingconsensus
Politicization
Research
bodieswith
regionalfocus
(e.g.new
regional
Australia
Institute)
States
Previous
departments
(orequivalent
Short
term
Scaleneedstoberight
togetconsistencyof
issues/risks
Fearofamalgamation
Medium
Premiers
Medium
fearofsharingpower/
lossof100%control
Communityapathy.
Issuesfocused
interaction
Different
understandingsof
Feds/States/Localgovts
cando
Confusionbetween
17
whereclimate
climatechangeis
changeshould
notjustan
sitforeffective
Environmental
actione.g.
issue,throughwide
planning,
scalecommunity
environment,
education/literacy
finance.
aboutclimate
- Easilyaccessible
adaptation
information.
- Alternativesto
JohnLaws/core
curriculum
beyondscience
Community
champions,
including
business
people
mitigation/adaptation
andneedforclever
language
Complexitye.g.
weather/climate/variab
leimpacts/timescales
Novisibleclimate
changeimpacts
Commercialinterests
controlling
media/talkback
18
5 SUMMARY & NEXT STEPS

The workshop process delivered a rich list of practical actions and the processes needed to
be adopted to move towards a multi-governance system that alleviates to some extent the
underlying causes of the key barriers identified in Workshop 1. There were overlaps
between some of the practical actions to overcome multiple barriers from the various
participants who engaged in the workshop. This demonstrates the significance multistakeholder dialogue and collaboration when addressing cross-scale challenges to
adaptation planning. A summary of the proposed actions to overcome cross-scale barriers
are provided in the following table (no priority has been assigned to them).
Enabler
Practicalactions
Poorleadershipfromhighertiersofgovernment
Collaborativeplanningbetweenthree
EstablishlocalgovernmentnetworkwithallCouncils
levelsofgovernment
representedtoadegree
establishsamekindofnetworkforStateandFederalagencies
THEN
establishanintergovernmentalforumwithafew
representativesfromeachnetwork.SameCommonwealth
representativetositoneveryStatesforum.
veryimportantthatLocalGovernmentisofequalstatusinthe
process
potentialforfocussingonparticularimpactsorchallenges
ABetterAdaptationOfficetofacilitate
Defineinformation/expertisegap
knowledgesharingandfunding.Emphasis impactsrisk/vulnerabilityassessment
onbestpractice.
optionsassessment
monitoringandevaluation
publicationslibrary/database
directoryserviceforadaptationtofindrelevantstaffin
differentagencies/Councilsetc.
Lackofinformationandknowledge
Nationallyprioritizedusingconsistentmethodologies
Improvedhazardmaps
Startmappinginmostvulnerableregions
consolidatetheexistinginformation.
setnationalstandards
Monetaryvalueofadaptationoptions&interventions
Improvedevidenceforbusiness/
recorded(acknowledgethatengineeringoptionsarenot
investmentdecisions
alwaysthebest)
EstablishM&Ecriteria
Clarifytheaccountabilityof/fordecisionmakerstoachieve
morerigorindecisionmaking
Determineminimumtypes,scale,specificityofinformation
requirementsunderlyingdecisions
Getbeyondfragmenteddecisionmakingthrougha
Moreemphasisonstrategiclevel
commitmenttoregionalstrategicplanning.
decisionmaking
Knowledgeprovidersmeettheneedstoguidedecisions
Stakeholdersgainclearerunderstanding
governmentarrangementsareclarifiedtoassistdecisions
ofknowledgeneedsandsources.
institutionalcapacityinitiatives
Lackofproblemdefinitionandplanning
Consistentframeworkatstateand
Legislativereformprocess,creatingnewlegislation
nationallevel(legislation)
Reachingpoliticalconsensusacrossalllevelsofgovernment
RedefiningtheroleofCOAG
Communityconsensusontheneedtoact Educationofclimatechangeimpactsandadaptation
andasharedunderstandingofthe
widespreadacrosscommunity
19
seriousnessofclimatechange
Coordinatededucationcampaignstargetingallsectorsof
society
Adaptationmainstreaming
Flexibilitywithingovernment(adaptiveplanning)
Incorporatinguncertaintyinplanningandoperation
Collaborationbetweensectorsandwithinorganisations
Makingadaptationfairandequitable
Participatory decisionmaking(genuineengagementand
communityparticipation,accountableetc)
AdaptationWatchdog,ensuringeconomic,social,cultural
equityinadaptationdecisionmaking
Limited funding to plan and implement responses
Higherpenetrationofinsurance
Privateinsurancetoreducecostsforcouncilsafteranatural
disaster/legitimateriskmanagement/preventativemeasure
canreducepremiums
Generatingmoreincome
Specialleviestorecovercostsofadaptation.e.g.coastal
Statepolicyprovidesthemechanism.
infrastructureworks
Currentlyrestrictionsonthisforratesand Stategovapprovalforlocalgovtstoraisefundsindependently
speciallevies
Futurefundforadaptation
Fed&State/Territorygovlocalgovtcontributions
RecognitionofLocalGovtinconstitution
Directfundingfromfeds
MoreeffectiveuseofGovtfunds
Rationalizing/bringingtogethersmallpotsofmoneyintoa
biggerfund
EnsuringRegionalDevelopmentAgencyfundingincludes
climateadaptationcriteria
Trackingwherewearecurrentlyspending Bettertrackingofmoneyinlocalgovt.,whatarewespending
moneynowtoserviceourvaluesand
todeliverthevaluesthecommunityexpects?
economy?
Focusonreallocationratherthannewmoney,(e.g.focuson
publicgoodslikewidthofbeachratherthanseawallsfor
privateproperty)
NewFunds
Couldpossiblybeviajurisdictions(liketheGST)orcompetitive
Linkupwithcarbontaxe.g.take5%&
grant
investinadaptation
Bank transaction fees - very small levy
whichhaslowindividualimpact but large
cumulative effect
Limitedcooperativegovernance
WorkableandprovenInteragency
mechanisms(Crossjurisdictional)e.g.
localgovtandplanning
Ministerscouncil
toshapenationalplanningframework
Effectiveregionalmechanisms/groups
(e.gROCs,RDAs,CMAs)
Clarityaroundrolesandresponsibilities
Recognitionthatclimatechangeisnotjust
anEnvironmentalissue,throughwide
scalecommunityeducation/literacyabout
climateadaptation
- Investigateexistingoralternatemechanisms/groups
- Takeadvantageofinformalnetworksacrossgovernments
- LookatlearningsfromregionalapproachessuchasSouthEast
QLD,nowastatutoryplan
- Protocolsforcollaborativegovernance
- Investigatewhereclimatechangeshouldsitforeffective
actione.g.planning,environment,finance.
- Easilyaccessibleinformation.
- AlternativestoJohnLaws/corecurriculumbeyondscience
Participants were engaged actively and were interested to learn more about approaches that
other organisations were taking in overcoming cross-scale barriers to other challenges
encountered within their respective agencies. In evaluating the workshop participants were
appreciative of the opportunity to take timeout to reflect on a future that was barrier free and
also network with peers and other organisations; suggesting that information exchange may
be an important mechanism for addressing some of the knowledge gaps and co-ordination
challenges in the sector.
20
A few participants questioned whether adaptation should be seen as a separate issue or be

mainstreamed into existing plans and strategies of Local Government if we are to overcome
some of the cross-scale barriers. Other participants emphasised the need provide greater
clarity around each barrier (e.g., what does poor leadership from above really mean) and
noted that there has been significant work already done in this space by Local Government
to alleviate some of the underlying causes.
The next workshop will include a broad range of participants from other states in Australia
representing the three tiers of government. It will also include some of the participants who
have been involved in both workshops 1 and 2. The results from workshop 2 and key
informant interviews that have been undertaken by the research team with national
stakeholders will be used to guide the methodology and structure of workshop 3. The aim of
workshop 3 will be to examine whether the practical actions identified in workshop 2 can be
up-scaled to other states, test the feasibility and impact of these actions and gain consensus
on a useful process to demonstrated the barriers and actions.
6 WORKSHOP FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

The workshop concluded with participants completing a workshop evaluation form (see
Appendix E). The evaluation form asked participants to rate various elements of the day.
The ,majority of the respondents thought the workshop was very useful for connecting with
peers working on similar issues, hearing about new resources and research that might help
with their work, and for discussing, reflecting and learning.
Additional questions and their responses can be found in Appendix F.
Specific feedback received related to Workshop 2 included:
What would you most like to see emerge as a result of this project? with responses
including:
It would be good to see an active response to the findings and suggestions of this
study - instead of another project which isn't effectively utilised
Stronger cross-governmental commitment to CCA. Ambitious?
Impetus to resolve the challenges transmitted to decision makers
Solutions, evidence to "empower" change and actual effective adaptation
Additional feedback in our question asking Any suggestions for next time? included:
More time workshopping ideas
Some "nut-shell" descriptions of key findings from the 5 case studies (provide basis
for reflection by other LG practitioners on their contexts and needs)
No - it was really well run
Format for workshop was excellent - broader representation of agencies would have
been good, understand that is a bit out of control of the organisers though!
21
APPENDIX A: LIST OF ATTENDEES

Name
Role
Organisation
PhilipBooth
UNSW/ACCARNSI
PaulHackney
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CarmelHamilton
ResearchAssociate
SeniorProjectOfficer Environmental
Outcomes
SustainabilityCoordinator
GeoffEvans
EnvironmentalSecurityCoordinator
LakeMacquarieCityCouncil
KarenDouglas
SustainabilityOfficer
WyongShireCouncil
BobWebb
VisitingFellow
ANU
KatieO'Neal
ANCORSClusterResearchAssistant
UniversityofWollongong
JenniferHearn
ClimateChangeImpacts&Adaptation
OEH
ParramattaCityCouncil
PenrithCityCouncil
GeorgeKaragiannakis HeadofGovernment&IndustryRelations
InsuranceAustraliaGroup(IAG)
BrookeO'Rourke
InsuranceAustraliaGroup(IAG)
GregGreene
TeamLeader,LandUsePlanning
SydneyCatchmentAuthority
DavidRissik
DeputyDirector(GeneralManager)
NCCARF
FrankStadler
ResearchCoordinator
14 DavidMitchell
PlanningOfficer
15 AmandaNeirinckx
16 AnaMarkulev
17 GeoffWithycombe
SeniorResearchEconomist
NCCARF
NSWDepartmentofPlanning&
Infrastructure
NSWDepartmentofPlanning&
Infrastructure
ProductivityCommission
ChiefExecutiveOfficer
SydneyCoastalCouncilsGroup
22
APPENDIX B: BRIEFING NOTE
Crossscalebarrierstoclimateadaptationinlocal
government,Australia
Workshop2AgendaandBackgroundDocument:
This workshop background reading pack is for confirmed participants of the research
workshop being held on Tuesday 3rd April 2012 by the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF).
It contains venue and event details, a workshop overview, and more details about each of the
workshop activities.
Participants of the workshop will be acknowledged in the final report, which will be sent to all
interested participants.
We look forward to seeing you on the day.
Eventandvenuedetails
When:
Tuesday, 3rd April 2012

Registration at 9am for 9:30am start, close by 1pm (followed by a light
lunch)
Where:
University of Technology Sydney:

Aerial Function Centre Wattle Room
Level 7, Building 10
235 Jones St, Ultimo
Getting there: UTS is a 7 minute walk from Central Station. Limited metered street
parking is available near to UTS.
Contact details: anna.geromailto:@uts.edu.au or (02) 9514 4605 or 0402 227 662 on
the day.
Make your valuable input on the critical barriers to adaptation planning by local
government in Australia. Prior to the workshop, we ask you to familiarise yourself with
the cross-scale barriers and causes identified in Workshop 1 (see Table 1) and think
about how you can contribute to each of the group activities mentioned below.
23
Workshopoverview
Scopeandformat
The day will feature a presentation on a set of national case studies which showcase the processes adopted by various Local Councils in overcoming some of
the critical cross-scale barriers identified in Workshop 1.
The workshop will involve participants from local government and key
stakeholders from government and non-government agencies who work closely
with local government in adaptation planning.
The workshop will be future focused in identifying a set of practical strategies
that would alleviate the 5 key barriers identified in Workshop 1 to adaptation
planning and implementation by local government in New South Wales.
The day will conclude with a presentation from NCCARF related to how the
research links with other NCCARF projects and how the results from the
workshop and research will be used to inform policy.
Session1Settingthescene
The session will commence with an introduction and background to the research,
including a discussion on the research results to date. A presentation on a set of
nationally focused case studies examining the processes of overcoming the cross-scale
adaptation barriers will follow. The session will conclude with an explanation of activities
that are to follow.
Session2WorkshopActivities
The session will involve mostly working in small groups to undertake the following
activities relevant to the research objectives:
1. Stakeholder perspective on understanding the problem
> Identifying a key cross-scale barrier, its causes and strategies to overcomes it
through each participants experience in working on adaptation planning with local
government.
>
2. Describing a future
> a) Discussing a specific barrier and reviewing the underlying cross-scale causes
identified in Workshop 1 (Table 1). Examining whether additional causes may be

significant contributors.
> b) Beginning to imagine a positive future in relation to this barrier how would
things operate if the barrier was absent? Imagining a time when this issue was
overcome in another topic or sector what did that look like?
>
3. Identifying Enablers -Working back from the preferred future, discussing the
enablers that would alleviate the barriers and move the situation into the one
described for the future. This will focus on identifying practical actions.
24
ProjectBackground
1) What is this research about?
Local Governments across Australia are confronted with an ever increasing exposure to
climate change impacts from drought to flooding, sea level rise and heatwaves. However,
even with best intentions there are significant barriers that restrict or prevent good
adaptation planning and management in the local government context. To build on the good
work that is being done, this project aims to identify what these barriers are based on strong
stake-holder informed knowledge and to suggest ways to enable effective climate change
adaptation in local government. The overall objective of this study is to synthesise a set of
critical barriers to adaptation planning and implementation by local government in Australia
thereby defining the adaptation interventions to move to a climate resilient delivery of local
government services. Specifically, the study aims to address the following objectives:
a) Identify the mechanisms to cope with climate variability at the Local Government level
which provide a proxy to identify limitations to respond to climate change impacts
b) Identify the underlying processes and structures that gives rise to these barriers, for
example, process and governance structures, and how do actors and the context of the
system of concern contribute to the barriers?
c) Suggest options of how barriers will be overcome through end-user engagement,
thereby defining the adaptation capacity interventions to move to a climate resilient
delivery of Local Government services
2) Why is this research important
Research to date has identified common barriers to adaptation planning within Local
Government in Australia which include leadership, competing priorities, planning process,
information constraints and institutional constraints (Measham et al., 2011). Similar insights
are drawn from international studies (Dessai S, Lu X, 2005). Although these studies have
recognised the cross-scale integration and collaboration needs, many of these studies have
focused largely on local government itself and internal barriers, rather than understanding
the broader multi-governance system and cross-scale barriers that shape adaptation
responses at the Local Government scale.
3) What data collection methods does this research adopt?

The research involves the following methods:
Desktop analysis of regulatory framework around adaptation planning and key
adaptation programmes in Australia, synthesise of common barriers to adaptation
experienced in Australia and overseas
Key informant interviews with national stakeholders involved in adaptation planning
5-8 case studies from Local Councils in NSW and other states demonstrating how
particular barriers have been overcome
Three workshops with various stakeholders which include:
- Workshop 1 (January 2012): Identify critical barriers and causes with Local
Government representatives in NSW
- Workshop 2 (April 2012): Re-prioritse barriers and identify methods of
overcoming barriers with multi-level stakeholders
- Workshop 3 (May 2012): Gain consensus and barriers and causes from
national stakeholders.
25
4) What theories is this research adopting?

The research will be guided by theories related to multi-level governance and Earth Systems
Governance. Theories from multi-level governance are used to describe the management of
collective issues, the various stakeholders involved and the processes used to influence
adaptation actions and outcomes (van de Meene et al., 2011). It emphasises the
significance of cross-scale (both horizontal and vertical) interactions among structures and
processes across multiple spatial scales. Multi-level governance literature which has its
roots in the political sciences was developed to capture the networked and multi-scale
jurisdictional nature of policy making and demonstrate that the outcomes at the local level
are shaped by institutions at multiple levels (Smith, 2007; Bisaro et al., 2010).
5) What conceptual framework guides the research methodology?
The work by Moser and Ekstrom (2010) provides a useful diagnostic framework for
characterising and organising barriers at different phases of the adaptation process across
space and time and locates possible points of intervention to overcome a given barrier (see
Figure 1). Moreover, it questions how best to support adaptation at all levels of decisionmaking; and thereby improve the allocation of resources and strategically design processes
to address the barriers.
6) Who is carrying out the research?
This independent research project is funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation
Research Facility (NCCARF) and being undertaken by The Institute for Sustainable Futures
(ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Key advice will be provided to the
project by the Australian Centre for Excellence Local Government based at UTS. ISF was
established as a flagship research institute of the University of Technology, Sydney in 1996.
Their mission is to create change towards sustainable futures through independent, projectbased research. More information about ISF can be found by visiting our website:
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au
7) What if I require further information? If you would like any further information please feel free
to email Dr Pierre Mukheibir at ISF on pierre.mukheibir@uts.edu.au or call him on 9514 4962.
26
Table 1: Cross scale barriers and their underlying causes: priorities from w/shop 1
Understanding
Planning
Implementation
Poor leadership from above (Cross cutting)
No Statutory obligations
Lack of ownership of the implications of CC impacts
Short political timeframes, agendas and cycles which do not coincide with
planning time frames, reluctance to make long term decisions
Lack of incentives to do now rather defer cost to future office bearers or other
arms of governance
No acknowledgement that the issues cut across all tiers of government
2) Limited co-operative governance (Cross cutting)
Poor communication between tiers of government
Inconsistent messages
Local decisions over-ridden by higher tiers
5) Limited funding
4) Lack of definition of
3) Lack of information and
problem and planning
knowledge
Prioritization of funds
at different tiers of
Lack of guidance and
No investment in the
government, due to
consistent frameworks
collection of data over
competing priorities,
planning and
the long term
which is exacerbated
regulatory.
Poor data sharing
by short vs long term
Unclear whos role it is
Inconsistency of the
agendas
to plan
available data and
Funding constraints at
climate projections
Legal responsibilities
local government level
unclear
lack of certainty of the
for large capital
data and availability of
adaptation projects,
the latest data.
partly due to rate
Scale of the problem
capping at state level.
has not been made
Limited funding for RD
relevant at the local
and pilots
government level
cost of already sunk
Misinformation by the
capital in existing
media and strong
infrastructure that is
industry lobby groups
now viewed as
New issue for some
vulnerable under CC
Skeptics in some
impacts.
councils
In adequate training for
engineers, planners
and councilors
1)
27
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for examining cross-scale barriers ( adapted from Moser &
Ekstrom 2010)
Identifying and characterising barriers according the phases

of adaptation (i.e., understanding, planning & implementation)
Influenced by the broader context

Workshop
1
Locating points of intervention
Points of intervention
Workshop
2
28
APPENDIX C: CASE STUDIES

1. Lake Macquarie
2. Western Australia
3. Cairns
4. Tasmania
5. Penrith
29
CaseStudy1:LakeMacquarieCityCouncil
BriefdescriptionoftheImpactsandresponses:
TheCityofLakeMacquarieisaLocalGovernmentArealocatedinthesouthernsuburbsof
NewcastleinNSW.Itspopulationof200,000residesontheshoresofLakeMacquariewhichisa
largecoastallakecovering112km2(1).Assessmentoftheimpactsofsealevelrise(SLR)indicated
9800propertiestobeatriskofinundationorfloodingwitha0.9mriseinsealevel2,whichisthe
projectedincreasein2100andthebenchmarkusedintheNSWStateGovernmentsSeaLevelRise
Policy3.TheNSWGovernmentbenchmarkisfora0.4mriseinmeanseallevelby20503.Lake
MacquarieCityCouncil(LMCC)isbeginningtoplanforfuturerisknowtoavoidsignificantlossesin
yearstocome.LMCCrespondedearlybyadoptingitsSeaLevelRisePolicyandActionPlanin2008,
andalsointegratingSLRconcernsacrossitsplanningportfolio.
State:NSW
Stageintheprocess:
Understanding
Planning
Implementation
Barriersencountered:
Lackofpoliticalleadershipfromhighertiersofgovernmenti.e.nochampions
Lackofevidenceanddatarelatedtoclimatechangevulnerability
Spatialscaleoftheproblemtheissuesareglobalandmultilevel
Highuncertaintyassociatedwithlargetimescaleandextremevariability
Lackofguidanceframeworks(relatedtoregulation,legislationandmethodology)
Poordefinitionoftheproblemsandthereforedifficultyinidentifyingoptions
Historicallyentrencheddevelopment,infrastructure,culturalvaluesandeducation
Difficultyinbalancinglongtermandshorttermpriorities
LackCouncilfundingandlowstaffcapacitytoplanandimplementresponses
Lackoflocalpoliticalwillandsociallicenceforchange
Lackofknowledgeofclimateimpacts,toolsandmonitoring
X
X
X
X
X
Causesacrosslevelsofgovernment:
ThesignificantprogressLMCChasmadeinitsresponsetoclimatechangeimpacts,particularlySLR,
hasnotcomewithoutchallenges.AttheFederal,StateandLocalGovernmentlevel,SLRregulations
arecontainedinnumerouspoliciesandguidelines1,presentingahighlycomplexlegislative
landscapewithinwhichtooperate.
WhiletheNSWcoastalplanningandprotectionlegislationandguidelineshaveassistedby
identifyingplanninglevelsforSLRadaptation,LMCCnotesthatTheexperienceinLakeMacquarie
showstheNSWplanningframeworkcanbeasignificantbarriertogoodadaptation.4Standard
planninginstrumentssuchasLocalEnvironmentalPlan(LEP)templateshavepresentedbarriersto
LMCCbylackingflexibilitytoincluderisks,complexityanduniqueneedsassociatedwithSLRand
coastalzonemanagement.
AttheStatelevel,intentionstoreduceunnecessarybureaucracyhaveresultedintheState
1
Giles, G. and Stevens, H. (2011) Sometimes I wonder how we keep from going under: Planning for sea level rise in established
communities. Paper presented at Coastal Conference, 8-11 November 2011, Tweed Heads NSW.
2
NSW Department of Planning (2008) High resolution terrain mapping of the NSW Central and Hunter Coasts for assessments of potential
climate change impacts. Sydney: NSW Department of Planning
3
DECC (2009) NSW Sea level policy rise statement. Sydney. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change
4
Giles and Stevens (2011), p9
30
EnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(SEPP)forExemptandComplyingDevelopmentwhichremovesthe
needforDevelopmentApplicationsforlowhazardareas.5LMCCnotestheneedforlocal
governmenttoensurethisdoesnotundermineitsabilitytocontroldevelopmentandimpose
restrictionsondevelopmentrelatingtoSLR1.
Causesofadditionalcrossscalebarriersrelatetofinancialchallengesfacedbylocalgovernmentsas
aresultofratecappingandcostshiftingofgovernmentbudgets,withlocalgovernmentnowpaying
forservicespreviouslycoveredbyStategovernment1.Thisrelatestochallengesassociatedwith
timescales,giventhemostsevereSLRimpactsaremostlikelytomanifestpost2050.Planningand
financialallocationsatthesetimescalescanbedifficulttojustifygivenshorttermpressuresand
needswithinlocalgovernments.
TimescalechallengesalsorelatetotheplanninghorizonsofCouncil,andtheneedtobalance
developmentopportunitieswithsafeguardingcurrentandfuturedevelopmentagainstprojected
climatechangeimpacts.UncertaintyrelatingtoexactSLRprojectionshasledtomediareportsthat
havehighlightedthediscrepancybetweenhistoricSLRandprojectedSLR6.TheNSWState
GovernmentisreviewingitsSLRPolicy,whichmaycomplicateLMCCsabilitytoenforceitslocal
approachtoSLR.
Overcomingthebarriers:
LMCCwasabletoovercomethecomplexityofthelegislativelandscapebystrategicallyensuring
complianceagainstrelevantlegislativeinstruments.Forexample,limitationsofLEPswereovercome
byengagingaflexibleapproachandworkingwitharangeofplanningtemplatestoensureSLR
requirementswereincluded.Morespecifically,giventhelimitationsofthestandardLEPtemplate
(e.g.itremovescoastaldevelopmentzones),LMCCusedtheE3EnvironmentalManagementZone
templatetoensureinclusionofthecoastalzone.Thiswasnotconsideredcompletelysatisfactory
giventhelattersexclusionoftheuniquenatureofthecoastalzone.1
LMCCisalsoactivelyengagedacrossanumberofclimatechangeadaptationprojects,includingwith
theHunter&CentralCoastRegionalEnvironmentalManagementStrategy(HCCREMS)ina
DepartmentofClimateChangeCaseandEnergyEfficiencyfundedprojecttodevelopadecision
makingframeworkfocusingonvulnerablecoastalcommunities.LMCCisalsoundertakingcoastal
hazardsassessmentsandrelatedcoastalplanning.Otherinternalprojectsincludeasoftengineering
project(AdaptationbyDesign)andlocalareaplansforvulnerableareasdevelopedinconsultation
withresidentsandinfrastructureagencies.
Othercomments:
LMCChasbeensubjecttopoliticalbacklashbyanetworkoflocalresidentswhohavechallengedthe
scientificandpolicybasisforCouncilsSLRpolicy.AlocaldeveloperhasthreatenedtosueCouncil
andhassponsoredapublicmeetingaddressedbyscientistswhochallengeconventionalclimate
science,somewithlinkagestowellfundedclimatechangescepticorganisationsintheUS.7These
challenges,andCouncilsdefenseofitspolicies,havebeenprominentlycoveredintheNewcastle
andSydneyMorningHeraldnewspapersandhighlighthowlocalissuesandchallengesmayhave
globalinteractions.8
Acknowledgements
ResearcherswouldliketothankSustainabilityandIntegratedPlanningstaffatLakeMacquarieCity
Councilfortheirtimeincontributingtothiscasestudy.
5
DCCEE (2011) Climate Change risks to coastal buildings and infrastructure a supplement to the First Pass National Assessment.
Canberra Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
6
See Newcastle Herald, 06/03/2012 Developer may sue to trigger rethink on sea level rises.
7
See Sydney Morning Herald, 16/02/2012 Scientist accepts cash for climate
8
See Newcastle Herald, 19/03/2012 Mayor draws line over sea level rise attacks.
31
CaseStudy2:WesternAustralia:PeronNaturalistePartnership
ObservedchangesinweatherpatternsandclimatechangeprojectionsforthesouthwestofWestern
Australiaarewelldocumented,andthereisahighdegreeofconsensusamongsttheglobalclimate
modelsthattherelativelyabruptrecentreductioninrainfallintheregionisaresultof
anthropogenicclimatechange9.Sealevelriseintheregionispredictedtobehigherthantheglobal
average,withobservationaltrendsindicatinganincreaseof7.4mm/yrbetween19902010,
comparedtoaglobalaverageof3.1mm/yrbetween1993200310.Inresponsetotheseandother
climatechangeprojectionsforthearea,andcoupledwiththeregionsinherentvulnerabilityto
erosionandinundation,ninelocalgovernments11betweenCapePeronandCapeNaturalistehave
respondedcollectivelyviaaregionalapproachcalledthePeronNaturalistePartnership(PNP).The
PNPscurrentproject,DevelopingFlexibleAdaptationPathwaysforthePeronNaturalisteCoastal
RegionofWesternAustralia20112012hasreceivedstateandfederalsupport(viatheCoastal
AdaptationDecisionsPathwaysProject(CAP)12)toprovideaneconomicassessmentofregional
adaptationresponses,andtodemonstratesuchoptionsatthelocalscale.
State:WA
Stageintheprocess:(shadeblock)
Understanding
Planning
Implementation
X
X
X
X
Crossscalecauses:
Localgovernmentsarefacedwitharangeofissuesrequiringintervention,withadaptingtoclimate
changeemergingasanadditionalchallengegivencapacityconstraintsintermsoftechnical
knowledge,financialandhumanresources.Thereremainsalackofguidanceframeworksforclimate
changeadaptationinterventionsfromthestateandfederallevelintermsofrelevantpoliciesand
planstoassistintheimplementationoflocal,effectiveadaptationinitiatives.Itisforthisreasonthat
Localgovernmentsmustdevisestrategicwaystoaddresslocalneedsbothintheshortandlonger
9
Climate Commission (2011) The critical decade: Climate science, risks and responses. Commonwealth of Australia
(Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) 2011.
10
National Tidal Centre: http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/ntc/ntc.shtml
11
Bunbury, Busselton, Capel, Dardanup, Harvey, Mandurah, Murray, Rockingham, and Waroona
12
See the Minister of DCCEEs announcement: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/greg-combet/2011/mediareleases/June/mr20110621.aspx
32
terms.
AlongwiththeStateDepartmentofTransport(whohasresponsibilityforthemanagementofthe
coastalzoneinWA),theWestAustralianLocalGovernmentAssociation(WALGA)supportedthePNP
anditsapplicationforCAPfunding.WALGAhavesincewithdrawnsupport,givencompeting
prioritiesandlimitedcapacity.ThisdemonstratesthedifficultyinprioritisingCCAandrelated
initiatives,andthelimitedcapacityforemergingchallengessuchasclimatechange.
Lackofpoliticalwill(atthestateandfederallevel)isseenasanothercausetoseveralbarriersinthe
abovetable.Ifclimatechangeadaptationisnotprioritisedappropriatelywithinstatepoliciesand
planningregulations,itbecomesagreaterchallengeforlocalgovernmentstodevelop,implement
andenforceinitiatives,withnoregulatoryframeworkuponwhichitcanbaseitslocalapproach.
ThePNPwasestablishedtoovercometheseandotherbarriers,byprovidingaregionalapproach
andastrongervoicetoadvocateforchangeatthelocalgovernmentlevel.Smallerlocal
governmentswithinthePNPwithlesscapacityandlessprogresstowardsdevelopingadaptation
plansgaintheskills,knowledgeandlearningsfrommoreexperiencedcouncils.Moreexperienced
councilsgainfromtheregionalapproachviatheiraccesstofurtherinformationandlocalknowledge
acrosstheregion,andwiththeincreasedmomentumandbenefitsfrompositivelyinfluencing
practicesinneighbouringlocalgovernmentareas.Theregionalapproachprovidesastrongercase
forfunding,giventhescaleatwhichoutcomeswillberelevantandbenefitsshared.
WestAustraliasStatePlanningPolicy(SPP2.6)iscurrentlyunderreview,withsubmissionsopen
untiltheendofMay201213.ThePNPsregionalapproachprovidesaneffectiveavenuetoadvocate
morestronglyforappropriateplanningcontrolsandguidelines,withtheimpactsofclimatechange
onthelocalregioninmind.TheregionalapproachtakenwiththePNPisanapproachinitselfin
overcomingthechallengeslocalgovernmentsfaceinadaptationplanningandimplementation.By
amalgamatinglocalcouncilsintoonepartnershiparrangementwithcommongoalsandobjectives,
issuesassociatedwithlackofvoiceandvisibilityare(atleastinpart)addressed.
ThePNPsvisibilityandprogresstodatehasalsobeenassistedbytheprogressiveandwell
connectednatureofseveraloftheMayorsinthepartnership.SomeofthePNPsMayorsare
representedonrelevanttaskforcesandroundtables(e.g.NationalSeaChangeTaskforce),allowing
thePNPsvoicetobeheardinrelatedforumsandgainingfurthermomentumoutsidetherealmsof
thePNPanditsCAPproject.
Giventhelackofframeworksandguidelinesatthestateandnationallevel,thePNPprovidesabest
shotapproach,andalearningbydoingmethodthatisassumedtobebetterthannothing.The
PNPsactiveprojectaimstoacknowledgeandidentifygaps,andworkwithinthetimeandbudgetary
constraintsoftheCAPprojecttoproduceanoutputthatistransferrabletootherregions.Itishoped
thatlearningsfromthisandtheotherCAPprojectscanbesharedtodevelopanapproachtolocal
governmentadaptationthatisgroundedinbestpractice.
Othercomments:
AlthoughthePNPsMemorandumofUnderstanding(MoUuponwhichthepartnershipisbased)
statesthatacollectiveregionalvoiceisausefulmechanismtodrivechange,arrivingatanagreed
perspectiveonsomeissueshasprovendifficult.SomeindividualcouncilswithinthePNPhavebeen
reluctanttosignoffonregionalapproaches,suchastheSPPsubmissionprocess.Thisillustratesthat
whilearegionalapproachcanbebeneficialinsomesituations,therearetimeswhenindividual
viewsfromcouncilsareprioritised.
Acknowledgements:
ResearcherswouldliketothankJoanneLudbrookofthePNPforhertimeincontributingtothiscase
study.
13
See: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/6231.asp
33
CaseStudy3:CairnsRegionalCouncil
CairnsRegionalCouncilinitiatedaclimateadaptationriskassessmentaspartoftheLocalAdaptation
PathwayProgram(LAPP)fundedbythefederalgovernment.Thekeyclimaticimpactsprojectedfor
theCairnsregionincludedanincreaseinthenumberoftropicalcyclonesinthemoreintense
categories(35),inundationfromsealevelriseandchangeinrainfallpatterns.AnAdaptationAction
Planwasdevelopedasaresultwith47actionsdocumented.Theseactionsfellintothefollowing
categories:CorporateGovernance,LandUsePlanningandDevelopment,AssetsandOperations,
NaturalDisasterPlanningandResponse,EnvironmentandCommunityHealth.Followingthisreport,
CouncildevelopedaClimateChangeStrategytoconsolidateCouncilsclimatechangeresponse
underleadership,mitigation,adaptationandtransition.ThisStrategywasadoptedbyCouncilin
August2010andcomprises70actionswhichattributeresponsibilitytoeachaction.Sinceits
adoptionCouncilhasbeenworkingontheimplementationoftheseactionsacrosstheorganization.
CouncilhasmadethemostsignificantprogressonstrategyactionswithintheLeadershipand
MitigationsectionoftheStrategy.NotablyclimatechangehasbeenincludedintheCorporateRisk
RegisterwithmitigationstrategiesandhaveensureditisconsideredinCoreAssetManagement
Plansforfuturetechnologychanges.Itisestimatedthatanannualbudgetof$700,000isneededto
fundtheimplementationofactions.
State:Queensland
Understanding
Planning
Implementation
x
x
x
x
x
x
Causesacrosslevelsofgovernment:
Evidence/datarelatedtoclimatechangevulnerability&Timescale/uncertainty:Climatechange
scenariosproducedbythestateandfederalgovernmentsareofteninconsistentwhichconstrain
theadaptationplanningdecisionsofCouncile.g.,sealevelrisescenarios.Theseinconsistencies
influencethetimehorizoninwhichadaptationistooccur;communitieslooktoCouncilforguidance
andleadershipastowhentheprojectedchangesarelikelytooccurandwhenbesttoadapt.Council
couldbeliableifincorrectprojectionsareused.
Scale&Lackofguidanceframeworks:Thereisnoconsolidatedpolicyresponsetoadaptationfrom
thefederallevelwhichhasledtoinconsistentadaptationplanningregimesacrosstheStates.
PoliciesconstantlychangeanditisdifficultforCouncilstokeepabreastof.Forexample,the
34
introductionofthenewQueenslandCoastalPlanrequirescoastalareasatrisktostormtide
inundationtodevelopadaptationstrategiesforhighhazardareas.However,thereislittleguidance
astohowtodevelopthisorwhoistopayfortheimplementationofsuchstrategies.
Historical(culturalvalues):ResidentshaveexperiencedextremeweatherbylivingintheCairns
regione.g.,tropicalcyclonesandfloodingsopeopleareoftendesensitisedaboutclimatechange
impacts.Asapositivethismeansresidentsintheregionarepotentiallymorepreparedforextreme
weatherandseasonalclimaticvariabilityhoweverlesslikelytothinkclimatechangeisabigdeal.
Funding:Localgovernmentsrequiregreatersupportfromthestateandfederalgovernmentforthe
implementationofadaptationactionsregardinglanduseandplanning.
Inovercomingtheinconsistenciesinclimatescenarios,particularlyaroundsealevelrise(SLR),Cairns
RegionalCounciladoptedSLRscenariosproducedbytheQueenslandgovernmentratherthan
nationalaverages.Indoingso,CouncilisabidingbyStatutorymeasuressetbytheStategovernment
whichreducesriskoffuturelitigation.CouncilisanactivememberoftheQueenslandCoastal
CouncilsTaskforce(CCAT)establishmentcommitteewhichbringstogethercoastalcouncilsacross
Queenslandtoidentifycommonrisks,barriersandneeds.ItenablesCouncilstowork
collaborativelyonsharedissues.ThiscommitteewillassistCouncilsinovercomingproblemsaround
inconsistentclimatedataandwillplayanadvocacyroleforconsistentadaptationplanningregimes.
ThecommitteehasbeenavaluableforumtodiscusstheimplicationsofthenewQueenslandCoastal
PlanformanyoftheCouncils.Onepositiveoutcomewillbetheparticipationinapilotprojectto
examinethekeyconcernsrelatedtotheCoastalPlaninwhichthefindingswillbesharedamongst
thegroupofcouncils.
Councilhastakenaproactiveroleinseekingfundingfrombothexternalandinternalsourcesto
assessclimaticrisksandimplementadaptationactions.FundingthroughtheLAPPprogramenabled
aclimatechangeriskassessmentandadaptationactionplanasapriorityissueforCouncil.Since
thisinitialassessmentCouncilhasbeenincreasingitsownstaffcapacitytoaddressclimatechange,
particularlytocontextualiseadaptationattheCouncillevelandtobecomelessrelianton
consultants.UpuntilnowCouncilhashadtwofulltimeequivalentstaffworkingacrossissuesof
climatechangeandsustainability.Ithasrecentlyincreasedtothree.WhilstdevelopingtheClimate
ChangeStrategy,councilstaffbuiltnetworksandrelationshipswithotherCouncilswithintheregion
andalsoresearchedotherlocalgovernmentadaptationplans/ClimateChangeStrategiesinother
statesandoverseas.ThisensuredthatCouncilbuiltonpastexperienceandlessonslearnt
elsewhere.Communicationisseenasparamounttosuccessfuloutcomeswithregardstoclimate
change,fromaninternalorganisationalperspectiveandwithexternalstakeholders.Internally
CouncilhasensureditsExecutiveteamandmanagersareinformedandinvolvedinthegovernance
forsuchprojects.CurrentlyCouncilisworkingonestablishingareservefromitscapitalbudgetto
financeitsclimatechangerelatedactions.CouncilhasrecentlyestablishedaClimateChangeand
SustainabilityGrantstreamtofundlocalorganizationstoundertakeprojectsinordertobuild
resilienceinthecommunity.
Othercomments:
InadoptingandimplementingaClimateChangeStrategy,CairnsRegionalCouncilisacknowledging
theriskstotheregionasaresultofclimatechange.Ithasadoptedthestrategyasaleadership
responsetoanimportantissue.WhiletheStrategyhasbeenadopted,Councilrecognizestheneed
foramultistakeholderresponsetobarriersforadaptationstrategiesespeciallywithregardtoland
useplanning.TheadaptationactionswithintheClimateChangeStrategyposethegreatest
challengeforCouncil.
Acknowledgements:
ResearcherswouldliketothankMareeGrenfellatCairnsRegionalCouncilforhertimein
contributingtothiscasestudy.
35
CaseStudy4:RegionalCouncilsCCAdaptationPlanning
ThesouthernregionofTasmaniapresentsadiverselandscape,whichfundamentallyinfluencesthe
social,economicandculturalwelfareofthepopulation.Itisthelargestandmostdenselypopulated
ofTasmaniasthreeregionswithapopulationof252543or50%(ABSNov2011)oftotalTasmanian
population.Itcomprisestwelve(12)localgovernmentareas:Brighton,CentralHighlands,Clarence
City,DerwentValley,GlamorganSpringBay,GlenorchyCity,HobartCity,HuonValley,Kingborough,
Sorell,SouthernMidlandsandTasman.Theimpactsofclimatechangeareprojectedtovaryacross
theregion,reflectingthediverseCouncilareastheprojectcovers.Theseinclude:coastalerosion
andinundationfromsealevelriseandstormsurge,increasedseverityandintensityofdroughtsand
floodsimpactingbothruralandurbanareas,andimpactstocoastaltourism.TheRegionalClimate
ChangeAdaptationProject(RCCAP),initiatedin2011,isapartnershipwiththe12Southern
TasmanianCouncilstoaddressclimatechangeadaptationatboththelocalandregionallevel.The
projectwhichisdueforcompletioninApril2012iscomplimentedbythefollowingkeyproject
outputs:Council(corporate)ClimateChangeAdaptationPlans(CCCAP)foreachofthe12southern
councils;ARegionalClimateChangeStakeholderReport,acompaniondocumenttotheCCAPsand
theStrategy;andAClimateChangeAdaptationToolkitforreviewofCouncilsClimateChange
AdaptationPlansandextensiontoCradleCoastandNorthernRegionalCouncils.RCCAPwasfunded
bytheAustralianGovernmentsLocalGovernmentReformFund(LGRF),whichisadministeredby
theDepartmentofRegionalAustralia,LocalGovernment,ArtsandSport.TheHobartCityCouncil
alsoprovidedafinancialcontributionof20%oftheoverallprojectfunds.Theprojectisbeing
deliveredbytheSouthernTasmanianCouncilsAuthority(STCA)inpartnershipwiththeTasmanian
ClimateChangeOfficeandtheLocalGovernmentAssociationofTasmania.
State:NSW
Understanding
Planning
Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Crossscalecauses:
Manyofthebarrierslistedabovehavebeenexperiencedduringdifferentstagesoftheprojectand
wereoftencatalysedthroughtheinteractionofafewkeybarriers.Thebarrierrelatedtoclimate
dataandevidencewasnotexperiencedastheAntarcticClimateandEcosystemsCRCClimate
FuturesforTasmania(CFT)projecthadmodelledclimateimpactsunderanA2andB1scenario
acrosstheStateat1degree(14km2)intervals.TheprojectengagedCFTtoproducearegionaland
36
municipalareaclimatechangeprofile/s,TheStateGovernmentsubsequentlyengagedCFTto
producethesefortheotherregions.Theseprofiles,whichexamined147climaticvariables,werea
valuabledatasetthatinformedtheriskassessmentstageoftheproject.Thelocalevidencebased
dataalsocontributedtoovercomingnegativeperceptionsanduncertaintysurroundingclimate
changebyvariousstakeholdersinvolvedintheproject.WhilsttheCFTclimateprofileshavebeen
releasedbythestategovernmentithasnotbeenformallyendorsedwhichleadstowardsan
additionalpoliticalbarrierinthatpotentialliabilityrestswithlocalgovernmentforoperational
decisionsrelatedtoclimatechangeadaptation.Afurtherbarrierwasthelackofadaptation
frameworksspecifictolocalgovernmentthatencompassthewholeprocessofadaptationi.e.,from
planningtoimplementation.Thelackofframeworksmeantthatsomeoftheriskassessment
processeswerenotinformedbyappropriatestakeholders.Forexamplewhenitcametoranking
andassigningresponsibilityforadaptationactions,theprojectwouldhavebenefitedbyhaving
executivelevelstaffwhohaveauthoritytomakekeydecisionsandareresponsibleforfunding
withinCouncilratherthanoperational/technicalstaff.
Thelackofleadershipfromthefederalandstategovernmentsandinconsistentmessagingon
climatechangemeantthatsomememberswithinthepartnershipremainedscepticalaboutclimate
adaptationanditsrealbenefits.Thiswasalsoshapedbythetypeandqualityofclimate
informationthatwasaccessibletothediverseCouncilstoinformadaptivedecisionmakinge.g.,rural
versusurbanCouncils.
ItisoftenintimidatingforCouncilstoplanforadaptationalone,particularlygiventhemultiscale
natureofadaptationinwhichsuccessfulplanningatthelocalleveliscontingentoneffortsacross
otherspheresofgovernment.TheRCCAPwasanapproachwherebythiswasovercomethroughthe
partnershipsthatwerebuiltbothhorizontallyacrossthe12CouncilsaswellasverticallyacrossState
agenciestofacilitatecrossscalecoordinationandsharingofknowledgeandskills.Crossscale
barriersparticularlyrelatedtouncertaintyaboutclimateinformationandclimatescepticismwas
alleviatedthroughthepeerpressurecreatedbypartnershipmembersandthefundingfromthe
statelevelreconfirmedthesignificanceofadaptationplanning.TheRCCAPpartnershipapproach
notonlyaddressedcommonregionalvulnerabilitiesbutthedevelopmentofCorporateClimate
ChangePlansensuredrisksspecifictoeachCouncilwasnotoverlooked.Toprovidegreaterweight
totheadaptationissueandtosteeradaptation,theRCCAPalsodevelopedaClimateChange
AdaptationPolicyforallthe12CouncilstoadoptaspartoftheirCorporatePlans.
TheRCCAPhassetthestandardforadaptationplanningfortherestofTasmania.Intheabsenceof
contextspecificadaptationframeworks,theRCCAPpartnershipdevelopedtheirownmethodsofrisk
assessmentandprioritisationadaptationoptions.Themethodscutacrossvariousbiophysicaland
socialstressorsthatthe12Councilswereprojectedtoexperienceunderchangingclimate.Climatic
impactswerecontextualisedinordertoidentifypracticaladaptationactions;questionswereasked
aroundwhattheimpactswerefortheCouncilskeybusinessareasandwhoarethekey
stakeholders,howdoesclimatechangeimpactonCouncilsrolesandresponsibilities.Akey
outcomeofthisprocesswillbethedevelopmentofastepbysteptoolkitcomprisingspreadsheets
andtemplatesforadaptationplanningtailoredTasmanianCouncils.Additionallythistoolkitbenefits
fromthefactthatithasbeenpilotedandvalidatedtosomeextentthroughtheexperienceofthe12
Councils.TheStateGovernmenthasprovidedfundingrecentlytotheRCCAPtopilotthetoolkit
amongstfourotherCouncilsinTasmania.
Acknowledgements:
ResearcherswouldliketothankKatrinaGrahamJointProjectManagerRegionalCouncilsClimate
AdaptationProjectandHobartCityCouncilforhertimeincontributingtothiscasestudy.
37
CaseStudy5:PenrithCityCouncil
In2009,thePenrithCityCouncil,anurbanCouncilinWesternSydney,engagedconsultantsto
undertakeaclimatechangeriskassessmentandadaptationplanningproject.Theprojectengaged
stakeholdersfrombothwithinandexternaltoCouncil,inordertofirstidentifytheriskspresented
byclimatechangeforthePenrithregion,prioritisethoserisks,andthenidentifyandevaluate
measurestomanagethoserisks.Asaresultofthisprocess,atotalof59riskswereidentifiedand
prioritised,andaDraftAdaptationActionPlanincorporatingstrategiestomanagethoseriskswas
developed.Increasedincidenceofheatwaves,increasedrainfallintensitiesandincreaseincidence
ofbushfireswereidentifiedasthekeyimpactsofCouncilsservicesandcommunities.Sincethe
developmentoftheDraftAdaptationPlan,Councilhasrecognisedthatmanyofthestrategies
identifiedinteractwithbroadersustainabilitygoalsoftheorganisation,andisnowtakingthe
approachofincorporatingthesestrategiesintotheredevelopmentofitsbroadscalesustainability
plan.
State:NSW
Understanding
Planning
Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Crossscalecauses:
Evidence/datarelatedtoclimatechangevulnerability:Thereislimitedlocallyrelevantinformationto
informtheriskassessmentandadaptationplanningprocess,andverylittleinformationisshared
fromthestateagencies.
Scale:Thesheersizeoftheissueandthebreadthofimpactsmakeitdifficulttoaddress.Inturn,
responsesaredifficulttoimplementduetothenumberofstakeholdersinvolvedandtheirvarious
roles.Manyoftheadaptationstrategiesarecontingentuponthecrossscalecoordinationeffortsof
variousstakeholders.
TimeScale:thebreadthoftheimpactsalsocreatesabarrierintermsofmonitoringadaptation
activitiesastheyarenotalwayslabelledassuch,butareinsteadlabelledaccordingtothe
particularimpacttheyareaddressing(ieflood)ortheservicetheyrelateto(ieplanning).
38
LackofGuidance/Frameworks:thereisverylittleinthewayofframeworks,policy,orlegislationto
assistlocalgovernmentinaddressingclimatechange,ortorequireotherstakeholderstoconduct
theiractivitieswithappropriateconsiderationforclimatechangeimpacts.
PrioritisingShort/LongTerm:resourcing/fundingconstraintsandalackoftoolstoassess
costs/benefitsandthelikelihoodofrisksmakesitdifficulttoknowwheretofocusattention.
Lackofknowledge:thereisanabundanceofbroadscaleinformationrelatedtoclimatechange
whichmakesitdifficulttokeepuptodate,butsimultaneously,therearestillalotofquestionsasto
whatisthebestwayforwardandhowtocontextualisethistothelocallevel,particularlywithinthe
scopeofCouncilsownlimitations.
Manyoftheabovementionedbarriersbroadlyrelatetothesharingofinformationandaccessto
knowledgeacrossscales.AkeymethodCounciladoptedinovercomingthisbarrierwasthrough
utilisingexistingnetworksthatwerestronglyconnectedtoCouncil.Constraintsrelatingtothe
limitedavailabilityoflocallyrelevantdatawasovercomethroughtargetingthecorrectcontactsin
agenciesthatCouncilhadacloseworkingrelationship.BoththeNSWLocalGovernmentShires
Association(LGSA)andtheHawkesburyNepeanCatchmentManagementAuthority(CMA)were
particularlyhelpfulinprovidinglocallyspecificdatatosupporttheriskassessmentprocess.The
LGSAatthetimealsohadadedicatedClimateChangeMitigationandAdaptationProjectOfficer
whoprovideddirectionastokeycontactsinotheragenciestosupportadaptation,andcoordinated
theClimateChangeActionPackontheLGSAwebsitewhichprovidedapoolofresourcesfor
Council.
Theconstraintrelatedtoscalewaspartlyaddressedduringtheadaptationplanningprocessthrough
atargetedengagementapproach.Attheonsetoftheprocesstargetedinterviewswereconducted
withthekeystakeholdersbothinternalandexternaltogaugecurrentperceptionsofclimatechange
impactsonthedeliveryofservicesandpossiblepointsofinterventiontoadapttothoserisks.The
resultsoftheseinterviewstheninformedtheriskidentificationandadaptationplanningworkshops
withCouncilstaff.Someexamplesofthecollaborativeadaptionactionsidentifiedrangedfrom
workingwithareahealthnetwork(SWAHS)toaddressheatstressinvulnerablecommunities
throughtoworkingwiththeOfficeoftheEnvironmentandHeritagetoundertakebiodiversity
monitoringtoovercomethekeyriskoflosingendemicspecies.Councilfoundthatundertakinga
climatechangeriskassessmentatthelocalgovernmentlevelwasbeneficialasitplacedthe
significanceoftheissueonthetableidentifyingthekeycrossscalecollaborationsthatwerevitalfor
implementingthepriorityadaptationactions.
Withalackofguidanceframeworksortoolsavailableforprioritisingadaptationoptionsaccordingto
theircosts/benefits,Councilreliedonguidancefromtheconsultantengagedfortheproject.
Prioritieswereassignedfollowingaprocessofassigningcolourcodedtrafficlightsbasedonthe
urgencytoactandwhetherfurtheranalysisorinvestigationswererequired,combinedwithan
assessmentoftherelativevalueofeachoftheproposedactionswhichconsideredboththebenefits
andcostsagainsteconomic,social,environmentalandgovernanceorcertaintycriterion.
Othercomments:
SincethedevelopmentofCouncilsplantheClimateAdaptationOfficerpositionattheNSWLGSA
doesnolongerexist.Informationtools,packagesandcasestudiesarestillavailableontheLGSA
websiteforCouncilstouse.TheLAPPguidelinesandtheAustralianRiskAssessmentStandardfor
ClimateChangedoesnotprovidearankingmethodologyforweighingupandcostsandbenefitsof
implementingspecificadaptationactions.
Acknowledgements:TheresearchersoftheprojectwouldliketothankBernadetteRiad
SustainabilityCoordinatoratPenrithCityCouncilforhertimeandcontributiontothedevelopment
ofthiscasestudy.
39
APPENDIX D: ACTIVITY 1 RESPONSES

This activity required participants to individually consider a key cross-scale constraint, its
cause and a potential solution to overcome it. Responses are provided below.
Key cross-scale
constraint
Key cause of
constraint
Potential solution to
overcome constraint
Lack of shared understanding of

climate impacts and threats
between sections of the
community, business, faiths and
council / LG.
Consequences: Debate and no
action; council lacks mandate to
adapt; partial and uncoordinated
adaptation under guise of
sustainability
Lack of leadership support: LG
political,
Councillors unwilling to make or
discuss the difficult decisions to
be made about development in
vulnerable locations
State government at risk,
uncertainty; lack of strong policy
position; lack of vocal support
Strong drive from community to
adapt to long term issues and
even short term climate
variability
Communication of climate
science, impacts and
adaptation options; vested
economic interests: business,
private, citizen
Concerted and coordinated

education across scales and
scale specific
- Short political cycles

- Difficulty of the task
- No easy answers
- Own agendas
- lack of popular support for
implementing tough decisions
(land use planning decisions)
Apathy, willingness not to pay,

blame game
Building adaptation
mechanisms to assess
climate variability. Dont
push too hard about a 3
degree temp increase as
this makes people less likely
to act
- State / national funding
- ?? of LGSA, other
coordination bodies
Lack of integration of adaptation

planning across LGAs (and to a
degree lack of involvement of
councils in state wide or nationwide adaptation planning)
As an example, best (?)
experience to local councils,
how to get engagement
occurring
Lack of regional scale planning
of governance arrangements to
match the notion of the issue
that needs to be addressed
especially when it comes to
decision making authority and
coordination
Planning eg strategic and land
use
- local political agenda

- governance restrictions
- lack of data
- own backyard perspective
CC is pervasive in its impacts

(cross sector) and responses
are needed at broad scale
than the individual council
Regional statutory planning

regimes? (Top down);
building partnerships and
alliances (Bottom up)
- uncertainty and inconsistency

- lack of financial guidance
and ??? therefore lack of
consistency and no traction
Commitment and
implementation of existing
policy (eg SLR benchmarks
and legislation (eg NSW
40
10
11
12
Regional frameworks
- Financial costs impact of
increased insurance costs for
existing residents in areas
affected by CC flows onto
affordability of housing
Planning and legal uncertainties
surrounding responsibilities for
maladaptive DAs who will
bear the costs of unwise
planning approvals that have
permitted developers in coastal
and or floodplain zones?
Why should developers be able
to sue councils for (reluctantly)
permitting them to be
maladaptive?
I agree with the observation in

the background report that the
numerous guiding documents,
sectoral strategies and
approaches to legislation and
policy contribute to a crowded
and confusing landscape
Community support (lack
thereof); lack of understanding
of why implementing adaptation
(i.e. CZMPs) either from 1. Nonbelief in CC and/or 2. Lack of
trust in science and government
and external consultants (where
are you from mentality) in
making decisions about their
place and 3. From 1 and 2 is the
attitude of not wanting to take
on ??? science based
explanations
Resistance to change including
denial of impacts, lack of
acceptance of many options to
adaptively manage, lack of
flexibility in options/ lack of trust
in government / community
Moving from a theoretical,
academic understanding to
implementing concrete actions
and ??? community and

political support
- well resourced vested
interests with media and
political connections
Increased costs, decreased
value of land
a) Short term planning regimes

b) Pressures from developers
and land owners to issue
permits
c) Perceptions of uncertain
scientific data, conflicting
evidence, reliance on
projected impacts (inherently
uncertain)
d) Constitutional barriers no
federal head of power to
mandate or nationally
consistent planning code
This will be discussed in
todays workshop but the issue
is around inadequate
governance arrangements
between all levels of
government, including
protocols for communication
1. Media, personal,
misunderstanding
EP&A Act) i.e. nothing new

really needed just
enforcement of what we
have
Clearer governance /
frameworks / criteria to
manage this problem
especially in relation to
communities who are more
vulnerable
Legislative and legal
changes to shift ultimate
financial responsibilities to
developers and caveat ???
It would be worth
considering a submission to
the COAG that contained
recommendation solving
this.
Communication (clear
many comments in
community meetings) and
education
- Denial
- Fear
- Poor communication of
possible solutions
Collaborative engagement
Flexible tools for locally
specific plans
Well researched info
- Newness of adaptation
- Complexity of problem
- Need for a systems approach
- Success of implementing
actions is difficult to
- Targeted funding of
implementation
- Promotion of case studies
- identified measures of
success
41
demonstrate
13
Limited cooperative governance

across the 3 levels of govt and
industry eg insurance,
developers
14
Lack of political support / active

opposition to CCA in LG
15
Sense that the problem / issue

will be solved by particular
actions at a particular scale (this
is a state problem rather than
LG)
Scale issue is huge and
involves so many players that its
easy to use that as a reason to
delay action.
All of the risks identified through
our process are not unique to
our LGA and to get effective
action it would be most useful to
coordinate action for economies
of scale
Absence of strategic and
coordinated approach to funding
adaptation priorities particularly
natural disaster mitigation
across fed, state and LGs. This
exacerbates funding
deficiencies.
Inadequate skills, training,
technical knowledge to identify
or implement appropriate
adaptation responses eg in
managing the risks of SLR on
property (both for new and
existing settlements)
16
17
18
- Legacy issues of past

planners decisions
- reluctance by Federal and
State govts to take leadership
on it ??? funding
- Not fully understanding the
problem and / or the solutions
Lack of consensus in
community about the reality of
CC
Lack of coordinating
framework at the state level
As above
- New issues councils have

not had to address before
- No precedent /
implementation / testing of
approaches
- Skills shortages
- Capacity building / training

for LG practitioners
- Overall strategy of national
???
- Identify highest risk areas
and ensure federal and
state and LGA have detailed
mapping and identify
solutions
Stronger direction from state
govt that LG must consider
how to adapt to CC
Clearer statements at the
state level
Stronger role played by

WSROC in coordinating /
encouraging broad local
action between LGAs
This would also assist in
bringing on board other key
stakeholders eg Health,
CMA etc as the scale
required by these agencies
would be in place
-
- Learning by doing /
sharing of knowledge
good practice case studies
- Resource sharing / joint
projects
- Contracting out specialists
- Training
42
APPENDIX E: EVALUATION FORM

NCCARF Local Government Workshop:
Cross scale barriers to climate change adaptation
Tuesday 3rd April 2012
Evaluation Form
1. Overall, how would you rate todays workshop in terms of: (Please Circle)
Connecting with peers working on similar issues, creating networks etc.
Very Useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Hearing about new resources and research that might help with your work
Very Useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Discussion, reflection and learning

Very Useful
Useful
2. What would you most like to see emerge as a result of this project?
3. Any suggestions for next time?
43
APPENDIX F: RESPONSES TO EVALUATION FORM

Q1. Overall, how would you rate todays workshop in terms of:
a)Connectingwithpeersworkingonsimilarissues,
creatingnetworksetc.
VeryUseful
Useful
Somewhatuseful
Notuseful
b)Hearingaboutnewresourcesandresearchthat
mighthelpwithyourwork
VeryUseful
Useful
Somewhatuseful
Notuseful
c)Discussion,reflectionandlearning
VeryUseful
Useful
Somewhatuseful
Notuseful
44

2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross-Scale Barriers to

Climate Change Adaptation

UTS:INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

Research team: Stefanie Pillora

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

3.1 WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS

Cross Scale Barriers:

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

3.2 WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

Poor leadership from higher tiers of government

3.2.1 ACTIVITY 1: UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

3.2.2 ACTIVITY 2A: CLARIFY THE CAUSES OF THE BARRIERS

3.2.3 ACTIVITY 2B: DESCRIBING A PREFERRED FUTURE

3.2.4 ACTIVITY 3: STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

Key cause of constraint

Poor leadership &

Poor planning &

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

4.2 POOR LEADERSHIP FROM HIGHER TIERS OF

4.2.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES

Causes raised at Workshop 1

Additional / related causes raised at

- No statutory protections for Local Government

Lack of ownership of the implications of CC

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

- Limited emphasis on political constraints

-Lack of direct contact between Federal and

4.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE

4.2.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

4.3 LACK OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

4.3.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES

Causes raised at Workshop 1

Additional / related causes raised at

Inconsistency of the available data and climate

Scale of the problem has not been made relevant

Framing/Packaging of key information:

Practitioners dont even know what further key

4.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE

4.3.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

4.4 LACK OF PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PLANNING

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

4.4.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES

Causes raised at Workshop 1

Additional / related causes raised at

Lack of guidance and consistent frameworks

Lack of policy behind climate change initiatives

Legal responsibilities unclear

4.4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED FUTURE

4.4.3 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE CAUSES

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

4.5 LIMITED FUNDING TO PLAN AND IMPLEMENT

4.5.1 CLARIFYING THE CAUSES

Causes raised at Workshop 1

Additional / related causes raised at

Prioritisation of funds at different tiers of

Lack of adaptation specific dedicated funding,

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

Funding constraints at local government level for