Putting Plans into Action: Navigating Obstacles and Opportunities for Implementation

and Opportunities for

Implementation27

E

27 _{Lead authors: Marni Koopman and Patty Glick.}

several of which are highlighted below. Because each situation is unique, they need to be considered within the relevant local, regional, cultural,

historical, and ecological context.

10.1. Overcoming Obstacles

A number of factors have been implicated as obstacles to the implementation of adaptation strategies, from concerns about scientific

uncertainty to a void of institutional mandates and leadership (Repetto 2008, Moser 2009, U.S. GAO 2009, Jantarasami et al. 2010, Cote 2011). In this section, we address some of the most commonly identified obstacles and provide options and examples for how to move past them for successful implementation. Interestingly, many obstacles and opportunities relate back to communications and framing of the issue. In addition to the discussion here, information on effectively communicating about climate change adaptation can be found in Chapter 15.

10.1.1. Uncertainty and Model-

Based Projections

Uncertainty about climate change, its

consequences, and what adaptation measures may be most effective are often cited as significant barriers to moving from planning to action.

Although uncertainty is inherent in all natural resource planning, climate change adds an

additional layer of uncertainty that many managers are not accustomed to working with. Chapter 12 provides a general discussion of how to deal with uncertainty in the context of decision-making and climate-smart conservation. Here, we address how to move managers and others past the inertia often associated with uncertainty about climate change and its impacts.

Many resource managers report that the

uncertainty inherent in model-based projections is a particular obstacle to taking action. Different models use different input variables and analytical processes, and can vary substantially in their outputs and future projections. In addition, many computer-based models are complex and can be difficult for people (especially laypeople) to fully comprehend and understand. Unfortunately, mistrust of models and model-based projections can lead some decision-makers to leave even well-substantiated climate change projections out of their decision-making process and hinder implementation of adaptation actions. There are a number of ways to help overcome implementation issues related to uncertainty and discomfort with model-based projections. One useful approach is to emphasize the direction and rate of already observed and documented changes, and connect those observational records and trends with the

model-based projections. It can also be helpful to make the connection between routine use of model projections elsewhere in natural resource management (e.g., wildlife population models, forest growth models) and in other sectors (e.g., urban planning, economics, transportation planning) to help demystify the use of these tools in climate adaptation planning and implementation. Future conditions are sometimes not as uncertain as they may at first seem. For example, in recent workshops with the California Landscape Conservation Cooperative and U.S. Forest Service, models that differed in their projections for precipitation in the Sierra Nevada range were in general agreement that soil moisture was expected to decline substantially. Indeed, in many instances, there is broad agreement and strong confidence in the direction of changes, even if there may be some uncertainty in the rate and magnitude of those changes. For instance, almost all data and models agree that the average sea level is rising and that the rise will accelerate (Horton et al. 2008, Church and White 2011). Although it is natural to focus on sources of uncertainty, emphasizing areas of agreement and strong confidence can help overcome this barrier to implementation.

Even when there is not agreement among projections, there are mechanisms to help

managers move toward implementation. Scenario- based planning (discussed in more detail in Chapter 12) offers a powerful approach to decision- making when future conditions are uncertain. Scenarios can reflect narrative visions of plausible future conditions that can be easy for laypeople to understand. Clearly articulating these possible futures, and selecting strategies that are robust across scenarios (Section 3.4) can help managers overcome their concerns about acting in the face of uncertainty. Similarly, adopting strategies that have benefits in the near term—as well as in the more uncertain longer term—can be helpful for promoting implementation.

10.1.2. Limited Conservation

Resources

Another commonly cited obstacle is the lack of adequate resources (time, staff, and funding) to take on the challenge of climate change adaptation, let alone meet other conservation needs (Moser and Tribbia 2007). As highlighted in Chapter 9, climate change adaptation will have both costs and benefits, and in an era of limited conservation funds, there necessarily will be trade-offs in what we can do. Indeed, just how much it will cost to implement adaptation measures for natural resources is difficult to determine in the aggregate, as there are many factors at play. While a thorough discussion of the “economics of adaptation” is beyond the scope of this guide, one thing to recognize is that estimates will vary considerably depending on the methodologies and assumptions used (e.g., how future costs are discounted; whether and how nonmarket values are included; how the costs of inaction are calculated) (ECA 2009). In addition, there are likely to be wide variations in cost among different sectors and within and across different regions.

In many cases, investing in climate change adaptation does not necessarily require new resources. For instance, mainstreaming climate change adaptation into existing conservation and management efforts (Section 10.2.1) offers opportunities to take advantage of existing expenditures, and allocate these investments in more climate-informed ways. Conversely, conservation actions may ultimately be more costly in light of climate change (Shaw et al. 2012), and especially so without consideration of adaptation early on. One way to think about this is to consider the potential value of damages avoided by adaptation (e.g., the value of timber or other natural resources that would have been lost, or the extra costs of restoring habitat for valued species) (Stern 2006).

For actions that do warrant additional

expenditures, there is no question that managers face an uphill battle given the current constrained fiscal environment. By addressing cross-sector benefits (Section 10.2.2) and building new and diverse partnerships (Section 10.2.3), funding streams that are not specific to conservation might be available for collaborative projects. Proponents of climate change action also have pursued ways to provide new sources of funding specifically for adaptation. At the international level, adaptation funding has been a central issue among Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, particularly for support of adaptation actions in developing countries. To that end, the Global Environment Facility, managed by the World Bank, has established a number of funding mechanisms to finance developing country adaptation efforts. In the United States, several legislative proposals in Congress, including the America’s Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009, included provisions to generate dedicated

funding for climate change adaptation (see Chapter 14). Although these national proposals ultimately did not become law, there are state examples of climate change legislation (e.g., California’s AB 32) that already are generating revenue potentially available for adaptation funding. There also have been notable sources of funding and in-kind support for U.S. and international adaptation efforts from nongovernmental entities, including the business community (e.g., Munich Re) and charitable foundations (e.g., the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Kresge Foundation).

10.1.3. Public Perception and

Lack of Political Will

Another key challenge managers face in taking meaningful action on climate adaptation is divergence of social perceptions of climate change and a lack of political will. In some natural resource agencies there can be a difference

among various levels of staff in the perceptions of climate change and level of commitment to addressing climate impacts. When staff charged with resource management and

decision-makers responsible for policy or budget allocations disagree about the reality and/or seriousness of climate change impacts, effective implementation of adaptation plans is unlikely. Differences in political, national, organizational, religious, and intellectual cultures drive disagreements on climate change,

and many of these cannot easily be settled by scientific evidence or analysis (Hulme 2011). Even when there is consensus on the science of climate change, there is room for disagreement about the implications of the science and appropriate policy (Vogel et al. 2007, Gifford 2011).

For some people, there may simply not be a sense of urgency. As we have noted elsewhere, people tend to sharply discount the future, and may not believe that climate change will adversely affect them personally. They may not believe that anything can be done. Or, they may believe that the “cure will be worse than the disease.” Thus, there are multiple layers of differing values and ideas that can affect peoples’ motivations in relation to implementing adaptation strategies (Kunreuther and Weber 2012). Of course, scientific information about the impacts of climate change alone will not necessarily change these perceptions (Vogel et al. 2007). Making climate change

adaptation meaningful and relevant will require action on multiple fronts. Again, this is where effective communication will be crucial—but that communication must follow multiple tracks, be sensitive to and respectful of diverse values, and be informed not just by science, but by economics, social norms, and other issues that influence human behavior.

Communicating climate change in a risk

management frame is one way to facilitate action on climate change while allowing for different

ideologies and viewpoints. Risk management is a common approach to decision-making that resonates with most people. As mentioned in Chapter 6, risk is calculated by weighing both the likelihood (either perceived or actual) of the event and its potential consequences. Even when the likelihood is considered to be low (e.g., someone who doubts climate change science), action may be warranted if the costs of inaction are regarded as unacceptably high. Indeed, promoting precautionary actions against low-probability but high-consequence events is a primary focus of public policy for many natural hazards, supported by regulations such as building codes and insurance requirements. As we discuss further in Chapter 14, ensuring that such policies incorporate the additional risks associated with climate change is an important consideration for adaptation.

10.1.4. Institutional Barriers

Despite some notable progress in acceptance of and attention to climate adaptation among government agencies in the United States, there are a number of institutional factors that have hindered significant adoption of adaptation in the public sector. These include: short-term planning horizons; a tradition of basing management decisions on historical data; jurisdictional limitations; and inflexible policies and management protocols (Repetto 2008; Stern and Wilbanks 2008; Adger et al. 2009; Biesbroek et al. 2009; Moser 2009; Jantarasami et al. 2010; Moser and Eckstrom 2010, 2012; Ellenwood et al. 2012; Bierbaum et al. 2013). As Jantarasami et al. (2010) point out, some agencies are more “institutionalized” than others, in that they have very specific rules and norms that govern decisions. Without specific mandates, managers may not have

Multiple layers of

differing ideas affect

peoples’ motivations

for implementing

adaptation

the authority—let alone the impetus—to embrace some of the more proactive elements of adaptation planning. Furthermore, there are both formal and informal institutional barriers to using relevant climate change information (e.g., resistance to using climate forecasts for water resource management decisions due to perceived “poor reliability”) (Rayner et al. 2005, Dilling and Lemos 2011). One of the most important ways to address institutional barriers is through leadership—not just from the top down, but from all directions (Moser 2009, Moser and Eckstrom 2010, Smith et al. 2010, Bierbaum et al. 2013). As we discuss further in Chapter 14, several new policies have been put in place at the state and federal levels that provide strong impetus for adoption of adaptation strategies, including actions by key natural resource agencies (U.S. GAO 2013). For example, in November 2013, President Obama issued an executive order (EO 13653) intended to accelerate actions to prepare the nation for the impacts of climate change, and which included specific direction to manage lands and waters for climate preparedness and resilience.

Implementation of climate change adaptation strategies is also likely to be bolstered by dedicated efforts to better bridge scientists and managers through partnerships both within and among government agencies, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations, such as those being supported by the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Department of Interior Climate Science Centers. The U.S. Forest Service, in particular, has emphasized the establishment of science–management partnerships as a means for facilitating planning and implementation of climate adaptation efforts (Peterson et al. 2011). Collaboration between climate change and ecological scientists and resource managers can help ensure that scientific information is targeted in a way that answers key management concerns, and that managers readily have access to the best available science to inform their decisions—both of which can make developing and implementing

appropriate adaptation responses more effective (Mastrandrea et al. 2010, Littell et al. 2012, Raymond et al. 2013).

10.2. Creating

Opportunities for Climate-

Smart Conservation

Despite the difficulties of implementing adaptation efforts, both real and perceived, some plans and projects have tapped existing or new opportunities to carry out climate-smart conservation. Drawing from these experiences, we summarize some key ways to overcome hurdles to adaptation and to move from planning to action.

10.2.1. Mainstreaming

Adaptation

One of the overarching themes for this guidance to climate-smart conservation is to integrate adaptation into existing work (Section 2.5). One of the best ways to facilitate successful implementation of adaptation strategies is through “mainstreaming” adaptation into existing processes. Mainstreaming takes advantage of planning and implementation mechanisms that already are in place within an agency, county, watershed council, or other decision-making body. Implementation through mainstreaming generally does not require new decision-making structures, planning efforts, or funding streams. Mainstreaming of adaptation strategies can occur in two ways: (1) ongoing decision-making processes can take climate change into consideration as planning and implementation are carried out; or (2) adaptation strategies can be developed separately and then inserted into ongoing plans that already are slated for implementation. An example of the first is the U.S. Forest Service, which has incorporated a consideration of climate change into the process for required revisions to national forest plans. In contrast, Washington

State is assessing opportunities for integrating the findings of the Washington Habitat Connectivity Working Group into county, state, and federal land management and conservation policies and plans (Marinello 2010). While mainstreaming adaptation does not guarantee implementation, it greatly increases the likelihood it will occur because climate considerations are incorporated into established and already funded management processes.

10.2.2. Focus on Cross-Sector

Benefits and Synergies

Most natural resource management or conservation plans spell out their expected benefits to focal species, populations, or habitats, but historically have not been well integrated with plans to solve pressing problems facing human communities. The concept of “ecosystem services” as an important rationale for conservation is on the rise, however,

and there are numerous examples of potential synergies between natural resource conservation and the resilience of human communities (Postel and Thompson 2005). This approach exemplifies the climate-smart characteristic of “safeguarding people and nature” (Section 3.8) and can serve as an important criterion for evaluating among adaptation alternatives (Section 9.2.2). At a time of accelerating climate change and decreasing funding streams, opportunities for cross-sector project implementation and cost sharing should be fully explored. Human communities are already being increasingly impacted and stressed by climate change, and these effects are expected to continue. Stressed communities may have reduced capacity for conservation activities. Thus, preparing both natural and human communities for climate change in a co-beneficial manner will help maintain not only the natural systems that people rely on, but also the local community’s capacity to support and restore natural systems over time.

One approach to identifying synergies between human communities and natural resource conservation is to explore local values and goals. The city of Medford, Oregon, for example, struggles with meeting water quality goals for its intake facility on the Rogue River. Upstream of the intake, an ecological restoration effort on Little Butte Creek recently was implemented, resulting in the return of a historical meander that provides habitat for salmon and increased floodplain connectivity. Water resource managers noticed reductions in water turbidity after the restoration effort, prompting interest in future collaborations that can strategically place restoration areas where co-benefits to natural systems and human communities can be realized. As climate change impacts to water resources and other natural resources continue to worsen, interest in conservation techniques that provide human benefits (i.e., ecosystem services, green infrastructure) is likely to increase as an alternative to more expensive “gray” infrastructure such as dams or levees (Roth 2013).

10.2.3. Engage Diverse

Partners Early On

When people with diverse values and goals are involved in the planning process at an early stage, a variety of benefits can be gained, as highlighted in Chapter 5. First, it allows for building trust, which can greatly enhance the implementation of adaptation strategies. Potential conflicts among different sets of values and goals can be resolved early in the process, reducing the likelihood that unexpected conflict will derail implementation. Diverse engagement also increases the likelihood that a variety of partners will support the implementation effort, which can lead to support by decision-makers and funders. In order to facilitate project implementation, some important partners to collaborate with during the planning process might include community leaders, business leaders, federal and state agencies, county planners, local and regional scientists and experts, county commissioners, ranchers and farmers, water

managers, and tribes. Effectively engaging such diverse groups requires careful consideration of the ways in which one communicates about the issue, a topic discussed further in Chapter 15. Finding ways to effectively communicate and collaborate with relevant and diverse constituencies, a skill that is not always natural for natural scientists, will often be important to build support for implementation of adaptation actions and plans.

One valuable type of partner is the local conservation “champion.” This is someone who is a leader in the region, is able to communicate effectively with other diverse partners and key decision-makers, recognizes the values of different groups, and strongly and passionately understands the importance of the project from many different perspectives. Champions are not necessarily affiliated with conservation organizations—they can come from surprising affiliations that are not historically aligned with conservation.

Involving those with vital roles in implementation, including both project execution and funding decisions, in the planning process can also greatly enhance the likelihood of success. These individuals may even help shape adaptation strategies to better reflect realities in project delivery and cost. Having entities that ultimately will be