CRPR talk on UK NAS and Dawlish case study

On Tuesday 2 December 2014, Duncan Russel and I gave a presentation in our CRPR discussion series, introducing the BASE project to our colleagues. And presenting our findings so far on the role of the UK National Adaptation Strategy (NAS), and the challenges in climate change adaptation at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish. Because of time constraints, we decided to focus on the Dawlish case. Hopefully we can go more in depth into the Dartmoor case study next time.

One of the diagrams that shows the complexity of the setting at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish, is the figure below. We interviewed the actors as depicted below, and asked them: “Who do you think is the key decision making actor about climate change adaptation at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish?” The diagram below visualises all the different answers we received to that question:

We intend to make similar diagrams or visualisations of the answers we received to questions around perception of sufficient availability of knowledge, perception of whether sufficient actions are currently in place, and if not, what would be needed, and what the main barriers and enablers are, and why, according to the interviewees.

After the presentation, we received various feedbacks from the audience. Dawlish happened to be in the news the same week. DEFRA’s flood minister Dan Rogerson indicated that alternatives to the current line should be considered (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30292756). In the Western Morning News, a businessman prominent in the Southwest region expressed his frustration that national government did not want to consider a fast and resilient line to connect to Plymouth (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Government-s-handling-Westcountry-mainline/story-25445267-detail/story.html). And indeed, Prime Minister Mr. Cameron has indicated earlier (on 7 November 2014) that alternatives should be reconsidered, after Network rail had dismissed alternative routes:  “Mr Cameron told the WMN an extra line had not been ruled out despite Network Rail’s report questioning its value for money.” (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Prime-Minister-fears-South-West-8220-reliant-8221/story-24330645-detail/story.html#ixzz3MFStMvrX). A news item yesterday (17 Dec 2014) further confirmed the national government will investigate options for alternative lines (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/PM-says-7bn-South-West-rail-plan-taken-forward/story-25728881-detail/story.html). Although it remains unclear how enhancing the current line along Dawlish will be investigated and eventually decided upon, and how a possible alternative will be assessed.

A colleague from the business school who attended our CRPR session, mentioned that at an event about “Better Connected! A business led review of the Strategic Connectivity requirements for the South West” (on 3 Dec 2014), there was some discussion about how local enterprises could consolidate the fragmented perspectives on the future of the railway line, and connectivity of the Southwest. Another prominent regional businessman (Jim French) had presented at that event, stressing that a long term strategic vision is needed for the Southwest region, and that resilience, speed and capacity should be enhanced for road, rail and broadband. Although it did not immediately propose something about how such a long term strategic vision should be developed. Considering the fragmented and scattered setting around decision making regarding climate change adaptation at Dawlish, it is not entirely clear which government or governmental bodies could or should develop such a long term strategic vision for the Southwest.

Another colleague, from the politics department, indicated that our work on the Dawlish case study may link up to other research in the politics department around responsibility and lack of responsibility of arms-length agencies. In that research, accountability (i.e. capacity to explain and justify decisions) of executive (arms length) agencies in the UK to government and to citizens is being analysed. And it may also associate to recent research form the politics department around confusion over who/which agency is responsible, and whether eventually central government is held responsible by the public, even when certain services are outsourced and contracted out to a private company.

ECCA session on real world experiences with participation

I’m happy to announce the following session below at the ECCA conference 12-14 May 2015 in Copenhagen is now open for submissions.

The ECCA conference intends to be a “platform for researchers, policy makers, and businesses to share new research results, novel policy developments, and practical implementation experiences regarding climate change impacts and adaptation, as well as highlight opportunities for business innovations aimed at supporting the transition to low carbon societies.”

You are very welcome to submit your reflections on and understandings of experiences with public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation, to the session below.

Please feel free to forward this announcement to those who may be interested.

***

ECCA Conference 12-14 May 2015 Copenhagen

Session Cluster: 7. Social science and participation 

Session Title: VI. Real world experiences with public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation

Increasingly, scientists and policymakers are teaming up to study and address climate change adaptation. Moreover, members of the public and local stakeholders groups are increasingly considered as important participants in policymaking processes for climate change adaptation. In academic discussion about public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation, some take up the role as advocates of public participation and actively aim to promote and organise public participation in such a project. While other researchers rather prefer to study and understand public participation in policymaking projects for climate change adaptation, from an observatory point of view.

However, in academic debate, not much is known or understood yet about actual experiences and challenges that may be encountered in dealing or aiming for public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation. For example what if the ‘public’ is so heterogeneous it cannot be summarised as one group, includes groups which are in conflict with each other, or who are not interested in participating? Does it work under all circumstances? Are there settings in which public participation maybe more suitable than others in addressing climate change adaptation? Does public participation necessarily lead to better adaptation policy outcomes? What is the role of the scientist in this? What are the real world experiences with public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation?

This session provides a platform to share experiences with and reflections on public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation. These could be for example experiences that may be interesting to other projects; that may include lessons learned about how to deal with certain struggles; that may include sharing yet unresolved issues (which are relevant to be aware of when dealing with public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation); and, reflections on the role of the scientist involved in this. We invite scientists, policymakers and practitioners to share their experiences with and reflections on public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation.

Expected format and length

¼ day, aiming for 3-4 speakers of 15 minute presentations, brief moment for clarification after each talk, then at least 20-25 min plenary discussion after talks.

Expected outcome

Gain more knowledge and insight into real world experiences with public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation.

Planning to involve?

We invite scientists, policymakers and practitioners to share their experiences on with public participation in science-policy projects for climate change adaptation.

How to submit?

Go to: http://www.ecca2015.eu/abstract-submission

Deadline for submissions is 1 February 2015

Questions about session?

Contact Roos den Uyl at: r.m.den-uyl@exeter.ac.uk

(Un)clarity and responsability

Three weeks ago (on 31 October 2014), I was in Utrecht, the Netherlands, to attend the PhD defence by Heleen Mees, and a symposium about “The Governance of Adaptation to Climate Change”. Heleen Mees’ thesis is titled “Responsible climate change adaptation. Exploring, analysing and evaluating public and private responsibilities for urban adaptation to climate change”. One of the points Heleen brings forward in her thesis, is that clarification of responsibilities among actors involved is expected to help climate change adaption in urban settings. In response, Andy Jordan raised the issue during the discussion, that responsibility tends to be something that is continuously renegotiated, Something that seems to shift rather than something that stays put. In addition, Dave Huitema added to the discussion that unclarity of responsibilities may help to keep stakeholders engaged. For if a task is clearly assigned to someone else, a stakeholder who it is not assigned to, may be less inclined to bother.

This discussion got me thinking about one of the case studies we are studying for the BASE project, climate change adaptation at the South Devon Coast around Dawlish. Thinking whether increased clarity of responsibilities would help climate change adaptation in this setting. Or whether unclarity would help to keep all stakeholders somehow engaged in the process.

In the case of the South Devon Coast around Dawlish, the main issue appears to be unclarity about a decision about how to enhance the resilience of the current sea wall and railway line, about who will make that decision, and who will pay for the measures decided upon. In short, Network Rail owns the sea wall at the Dawlish coast, and is mainly interested in maintaining the seawall at a level to minimise train service interruption. They are currently investigating what the costs will be of maintaining the current state of the sea wall, and what the costs will be to enhance the resilience of the sea wall (after having decided that rerouting inlands is apparently not an attractive option: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/weather-and-climate-change-resilience/west-of-exeter-route-resilience-study/). The Environment Agency (which answers to DEFRA) is usually in charge of dealing with storm surges and erosion, but is not pro-actively involved here. As it is not the owner of the main defence in this case, for the sea wall is in hands of Network Rail. They have stated they will follow the development of the proposal by Network Rail, but will not attempt to get actively involved. DEFRA states that the local authorities are in charge of coastal management, including dealing with erosion and storm surges. The local authorities state that it’s up to Network Rail to decide on how they want to enhance the seawall. One representative from the local authority stated they have very trust in Network Rail that “they will do what’s necessary to maintain the seawall”. Another representative stated that they will closely follow the decisions and plans by Network Rail, but do not aim to actively influence the decision making process. Network Rail answers to the Department for Transport, which seem to have mainly delegated the task of preparing a decision to Network Rail (…) – Are you still there my dear reader? – Oh, and just to add: a deliberative liaison has been recently initiated (just before the summer), between Network Rail, the local authority and the Environment Agency about the future of the Dawlish Coast. It will be interesting to see how this liaison develops, and whether it will influence the proposal by Network Rail for the Dawlish seawall. And, I think it’s also interesting to see that Department for Transport (which is responsible for infrastructure) and DEFRA (responsible for coastal and storm surge management) do not seem to be coordinating any decision about investment in the seawall.

Now, dear reader, what do you think? Would enhanced clarification of responsibilities help in this situation? I think it would, but especially in the sense of clarification of possible climate change impacts, and who is responsible of taking care of which impacts. And also, or perhaps moreover, there seems to be a gap between impacts at local level (at the Dawlish coast), which may affect the regional level (last winter the railway was out of service of two months, disconnecting Plymouth and the whole of Cornwall from any train services), and likely needed investments which have to be decided upon and funded by national government (perhaps a co-funding by Department of Transport and DEFRA?). So, wouldn’t it also help to clarify who is responsible of addressing which impacts at which geographical and institutional scale level? And, as costs – and particularly who should pay for them – are an important complicating factor in this setting, clarification of how to calculate costs of climate change impacts, of measures to address these impacts, of which time scale should be taken into account, and who is responsible for which costs and why?

Of course, I do not expect that it will be realistic to clarify all these kinds of unclarity (among others about responsabilities), but I do think that these unclarities help to explain why climate change adaptation is so difficult at the Dawlish coast. Dear reader, if you have any thoughts on this, let me know! I would be happy to hear your view on this.  

BASE Newsletter story on Dawlish

A story (I wrote) on the events and issues at the Dawlish coast, was featured in the Spring & Summer Newsletter from the BASE project, and available here: http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e272059be468313ed32294007&id=18c98b27bd&e=[UNIQID]

(Header photo credit: Roos den Uyl, University of Exeter) Issue # 2, Spring & Summer 2014 On behalf of the EU funded FP7 project 'BASE', we are happy to welcome you to the second issue of the biannual European Adaptation Newsletter. Here you will find latest research and activities from the BASE project as well as climate adaptation news and events from across Europe.

BASE General Assembly

Earlier this week, the BASE project held a “General Assembly” meeting in Delft, the Netherlands (22-23 September 2014). It was hosted by Deltares, a Dutch institute specialised in water management. About 35-40 people attended. There was not a fixed number, as some arrived later, some left earlier, some only attended a part of the meeting. The idea for this General Assembly was to function as a sort of mid-term review. The director of the project, Hans Sanderson, expressed his wish for everyone to be critical this meeting, to enable to identify possible issues and to be able to address them in time.

The rhythm was quite a typical conference rhythm, with some plenary sessions to inform everyone about developments and about upcoming things (such as the ECCA conference in May in Copenhagen), and some breakout sessions to specifically discuss certain “Work Packages”. The work in the BASE project is organized in 8 Work Packages. You could see that the focus during the plenary sessions varied. During some parts everyone was awake and alert, and during other parts really everyone had a laptop screen in front of them, and the majority of the screens not devoted to making notes…        

The breakout sessions I attended varied in character. For example, one session was more exploratory about a Work Package that is going to start in October. That is Work Package 7, which is aimed to study and advice on policy making for climate change adaptation by the European Commission in Brussels. Other sessions were about organization and coordination of a Work Package on case studies of climate change adaptation. It was very interesting to hear about all the other case studies (about 25), and to learn more about how other researchers approach their case studies. The discussion in one of these sessions was in a fast forward tempo, and many choices and decisions had to be made. Everyone had to pay close attention. The discussion was mainly oriented towards identifying how the case studies are related, and how the linkages could be improved. And how to link case studies which are not clearly linked yet to other case studies. Which applies to one of case studies I’m studying, i.e. climate change adaptation in Dartmoor National Park. We shall have to find a way to link Dartmoor to at least one, but preferably more, other case studies. The other case study I’m studying for the BASE project, the South Devon Coast around Dawlish, was already grouped with four other coastal cases.

In the meantime, I’m reading “Can Science Fix Climate Change?” by Mike Hulme (2014), in which he convincingly critiques geo-engineering techniques aimed to diminish climate change impacts. And an article on “Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments” by Schroeter et al. (2014) in Conservation Letters.

At the beginning of this week (23 September), there was also an international meeting (“Climate Summit”) from the UN in New York, to discuss climate change. And on Sunday 21 September, there were various protest marches worldwide (in more than 160 countries) to ask for more attention for climate change. Both events received attention in the international media, though hardly any in the Dutch media.

 

An unexpected role for the military

Retired military senior staff may not be the first  actor group that comes to mind when thinking of flood risk management. But recently, an interesting example was mentioned by the Environment Agency. In England, the Environment Agency assists communities in setting up local measures to enhance their capacity to deal with floods. For example, constructing a flood gate or raising a dike. The Environment Agency assists in the initial stage, to set up and plan construction the measures. After that, the community has to able to deal with activating the measure themselves in case of an actual flood risk. Also inspection and maintenance has to be done by the community themselves.

And this is where the retired military staff comes in. The Environment Agency indicated that former senior military staff have shown to play a successful role in local flood risk resilience. That is, because they are used to do regular thorough inspections and stay alert for events which may not happen often but which may have severe consequences, because they are trained taking the lead in a hectic complex situation, and because they accept leadership from other flood authorities, if these would come in and take over in a situation. Also, the Ministry of Defence appears to be interested in connecting their former staff to new functions and roles in society. So, retired military staff may not be the immediate group you would think of in flood risk management, but they could play a role; I wonder if that could also work out in other countries in a similar way as in England.

Interviews

The empirical part of my research for the BASE project brings me to all sorts of people and all sorts of places. Some are based in Exeter, some take a train or bus ride to a place somewhere in the Southwest, usually reasonably nearby, and some even come down from their place to the university for the interview. Every time I’m on my way to an interview, I’m curious how it will be. You never quite know how it will turn out. How the person will be like, how the story or viewpoint will be, which information you will get. Whether the interviewee will be comfortable sharing his/her stance and speaking about issues encountered, or whether the interviewee will be sometimes hesitant or maybe even wary. Luckily for me as a researcher, most people in the Southwest are relatively easy speakers, and not unaccustomed to researchers coming over to hear them out J It is always striking to hear different answers to the same question. And as interviews represent different groups and interests, and have their own experiences, you may also come across sensitivities which you have to deal with in the interview. It also interesting to see what the interviewee may say, add or reveal once you’ve switched off the recorder.

For the Dartmoor case study (about ecosystem services and climate change adaptation in Dartmoor National Park), I’ve done 7 interviews so far, and hope to do 3 more in September. For the Dawlish case study (about adaptation around the railway line which runs straight along the shore), I’ve done 4 interviews, and hope to do 6 more after the Summer. Through the interviews, the picture of the situation is more and more unfolding, and starts to get more depth and details. Most of the questions are set around understanding what influences the policy and decisionmaking process to adaptation, who the key actors are and why, and what barriers and enablers are to adapt to climate change. Possible barriers and enablers may include a lack of clear responsabilities, lack of political priority and lack of knowledge (e.g. on risks and costs and benefits). The data from these interviews will be compared to data from documentation on these two case studies, and perhaps with data coming from a focus group. Included below some pictures, recently taken on Dartmoor near Princetown (15 June 2014) and at the Dawlish coast (6 July 2014).

It's busy in research country

The BASE project is (off course) not the only research project currently operating in the field of climate change adaptation. I recently came across several other research activities in the field of governance for climate change adaptation in Europe, most of them also from a comparative view.

For example, colleagues from the VU University Amsterdam (Eric Massey and Dave Huitema), in cooperation with Wageningen University (Robbert Biesbroek) and University of East Anglia (Andrew Jordan), have recently analysed national adaptation strategies in 29 European countries (from a perspective of policy innovation and dissemination).

The Dutch research programmes ‘Knowledge for Climate’ and ‘Climate changes Spatial Planning’ have recently resulted into a special issue in the journal Regional Environmental Change on climate change adaptation, titled 'From climate research to climate compatible development: experiences and progress in the Netherlands' (http://www.kennisvoorklimaat.nl/publicaties/specialissueKvKKvR). In their editorial of this special issue, Veraart et al. (2014) observe that: “… a trend can be observed in which a ‘top-down’ climate impact assessment approach is increasingly combined with a ‘bottom-up’ approach”. And they observe:  “Climate adaptation research finds itself in between global systems knowledge on the one hand and practical needs and experiences at the local, regional and national level on the other. This demands the utmost from all actors involved to enable an efficient and constructive flow and use of knowledge and expertise.”.

Elsewhere in the Netherlands, comparative research of adaption to impacts of climate change is also interest. In Groningen they recently advertised a PhD position (at the department of Spatial Planning and Environment, under supervision of Johan Woltjer) on capacities to manage resilience to river floods and based on “… a comparative, qualitative case-study between the NL and the UK to investigate governance capacities to address these risks. The study would also point to opportunities for policy innovation and institutional design” (http://www.rug.nl/about-us/work-with-us/job-opportunities/overview?details=00347-0000005579).

Researchers in Austria (including Christoph Clar, at the Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna) are currently also working on a research project on climate change adaptation strategies. On behalf of the German Federal Environment Agency, they compare climate change adaptation strategies in 6 countries, 6 metropolitan regions, and 2 transnational regions. They indicate that they are particularly interested in factors that determine the success of adaptation strategies, to what extent and how these factors can be 'managed', and how/if the strategies are linked with adaptation strategies at different levels of government.

And I am sure there are more research activities currently undertaken to study adaptation policy and adaptation actions in and across European countries.

Although studying dynamics between different 'bottom-up initiatives' and 'top-down policies' was an initial starting point of the BASE project, the focus appears to shift towards studying participation, knowledge use, risk assessments, cost benefit analysis, and impact assessment modelling. In my perspective, the way for BASE to contribute to the various other research activities currently undertaken in the field of governance for climate change adaptation (and in line with the observation as mentioned above by Veraart et al. 2014), is by means of understanding the institutional dynamics between policy initiatives at different levels. That is, understanding in which way and why conflicts and synergies arise between the European adaptation strategy, the national level adaptation strategies, and various local initiatives. In which way do national adaptation policies help or hinder local initiatives for adaptation? The BASE project does have a good potential in that respect, as 8 national level adaptation strategies are researched, and about 25 empirical case studies in 9 countries (concerning coastal issues, ecosystem services, urban areas, health and agriculture); and all within the context of the EU.   

Is it ethical?

 A while ago a fellow researcher (from Denmark) asked me whether it is ethical to ‘just observe’ how stakeholders interact and develop plans for climate change adaptation, when you suspect they are not addressing possible risks and vulnerabilities? In his view, it is also a task of the researcher to inform stakeholders about possible risks and vulnerabilities when addressing climate change adaptation. This question has been on my mind, and I do have a definite answer yet. I do have some thoughts about it. What if you would inform stakeholders with information about risks and vulnerabilities that later turns out to be wrong, is that ethical? What if you would inform stakeholders with information about risks and vulnerabilities, which is used by some stakeholders in their advantage and used to disadvantage other stakeholders? Is that ethical? And what if, what you want to find out is, why certain information on risks and vulnerabilities is not used and brought into a discussion on climate change adaptation? Is it practical then to interfere in a policy making process and actively present information on risks and vulnerabilities? Perhaps to monitor afterwards which information is being picked up and by who, and which information is being neglected, and try to discover the motives of the actors to use certain information or not? Anyhow, advocating that a researcher should actively present information on risks and vulnerabilities to trigger or assist in discussions on climate change adaptation, refers to the assumption that this information will be used in a more or less ‘neutral’ way, and that actors will discuss and consider this information, and will strive to find a solution to address such risks and vulnerabilities.

However, I wonder whether in practice that will always be the case. For example, I am thinking of the South Devon Case around Dawlish, where the railway has collapsed due to the February storms. A lot of information and studies are available about the possible impacts of climate change on that area of the coast and on the railway line, but that information didn’t function as an incentive to adapt that area of the coast and railway, in order to prevent the recent severe damages and disruptions. And now, after the impacts of the February storms, the discussion has sparked again in the media about the future of Dawlish railway. This recent discussion mostly focuses on different options of rerouting the rail line more inlands, or repairing and maintaining the current line. If the railway would be rerouted, would the sea wall be reinforced to protect Dawlish from possible flood risks and erosion? Or would other adaption options be considered to do so? Strikingly, the current rerouting discussion does not refer to consequences for increased possible flood risks and erosion in Dawlish, when the railway would be rerouted.

So, I do wonder whether in a case such as the Dawlish case, actively presenting information on risks and vulnerabilities (which is already available for those interested in getting it) would assist actors in identifying which adaptation actions would be promising to apply to address those risks and vulnerabilities, because there so many actors are involved with different priorities and with different ideas of ‘what the problem is’.

A visit to Dawlish

The recent storm impacts in Dawlish have received a lot of media attention. Various news items have been published by newspapers such as The Guardian, The Times and The Independent, mentioning the expected 6-week closure of the railway line for repairs, the evacuations of the houses behind the sea wall, the impact on the economy of the train disconnection between Cornwall and South West Devon to the rest of England. The BBC has also published various news items on the recent events at the Dawlish coast, including an interesting item on 'How to fix the Dawlish problem?' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26068375).

Last Sunday (the 16th), I went out to visit Dawlish and see some of the impacts of the recent storms for myself. The site where the major damages have happened to the sea wall and the railway, and where the houses are evacuated due to flood and landslide risks, has been closed off to the public. What it looks like to a visitor is like a big construction site, closed off by fences, with a lot of construction trucks and concrete grinders, and many construction workers in orange suits and helmets walking around. While being there, I realised how invasive it must probably feel for the inhabitants of Dawlish to have such a large part of their village turned into a construction site. I took some pictures that maybe give an impression on the situation: 

 

 

& The sea wall broke...

As an update to yesterday's post: the sea wall at Dawlish has collapsed overnight; leaving the houses behind it very vulnerable to flooding, and the railway damaged and even inaccessible to start repairs. See this news item at the BBC website, which includes a short video and several pictures illustrating what's happened (pictures below come from this BBC site): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26042990












And here another short you tube movie from today (Feb 5th) of the waves coming over the sea wall at Dawlish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSfr6U4chfI

First Great Western, the railway company, has even increased their warning notice about the train service west of Exeter (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/): 
Wednesday 05 February 2014.

Disruption to First Great Western Services

Severe Weather Notice.

All lines between Exeter St Davids and Penzance are now closed - Update at 1200

We are unable to offer a  train service West of  Exeter St Davids towards Penzance due to further overnight severe weather conditions. We are working with Network Rail to evaluate the rail conditions in many areas. Some Branch Line services in Devon and Cornwall are now operating . We are unable to procure road transport as many of the roads have been affected by the weather conditions.

We would strongly advise customers not to attempt to travel for the rest of today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please check  JourneyCheck website and Twitter feed @FGW for up to date information before attempting to travel.

High waves & no trains

Is climate change something that we should anticipate on because of future impacts? Sometimes impacts can be experienced in the very present. Whether attributable or not to human-induced climate change, or 'just an extreme weather event', the Southwest of England and the Midlands are currently experiencing the impacts of sea level rise and heavy precipitation for a relatively long period. Especially the county of Somerset has been severely hit by flooding last month. The Met Office (i.e. the weather forecast and climate research institute in the UK) has issued several weather warnings in the last month about flood risks in these areas, and expects the heavy weather to continue in the next week. 

The impacts of a high sea level can also be strikingly observed in one of our case studies, the South Devon Coast between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth. The combination of a high tide and strong winds, pushed the waves so high that the railway tracks along the Dawlish sea wall were damaged. A news item from the BBC explains that the supporting ballast under the railway tracks has been washed away by the waves (photo below from the BBC site): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26038912




Here a short movie on you tube from the waves at Dawlish on February 4th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0fWDSz5DM

The railway company First Great Western, which runs the main train services along this part of the coast, issued the following statement today:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/

Tuesday 04th February 2014.

All lines blocked between Exeter St Davids and Newton Abbot - Update at 1200

Train services between Exeter St Davids and Newton Abbot continue to be suspended due to yesterday's high seas and strong winds that caused significant damage to the track along the Dawlish sea wall.  Network Rail have already started to carry out repairs but we do not expect the affected lines to reopen until Friday 07th February at the earliest. Road transport is now operating between Exeter St Davids and Newton Abbot serving all stations on half hourly shuttle service.

To assist customers with journey's, all ticket restrictions have been lifted for all First Great Western services from, to and within Devon and Cornwall until further notice.

Before travelling, please check our JourneyCheck website and Twitter feed @FGW for up to date information.

This also shows how vital this part of the train line is for connecting Cornwall and the west of Devon to London and the rest of England. The map below shows the train lines in Cornwall and in the west of Devon in the lower left corner, marked in pink color (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Your-journey/Route-Updates/All-services-in-Devon-and-Cornwall). It shows how important the connection is between Newton Abbot and Exeter, which runs along the Dawlish sea wall.

Limits to adaptation, knowledge and power, institutional capacities, and working together

I had made some notes for a blog post just before the Christmas Holiday, but didn’t have the chance to post them then. So, here a few notes from December.

On Monday 16 December, I attended a lecture by Frans Berkhout, from King’s College in London, about limits to climate change adaptation. He explained that he and several co-authors studied limits to climate change adaptation as a concept, in a chapter for the Working Group 2 part of the coming IPPC report (scheduled to be released end of March 2014). They developed this concept of limits to adaption on the notion of discontinuity of current practices. That is, adaptation limits have been reached when adaption actions can no longer secure the practices and objectives strived for by an actor; and when losses due to climate change are considered intolerable. Afterwards, the discussion centred around the question: but who is to decide and identify what unacceptable damages are, and based on what? The announcement poster with an abstract of the presentation can be found here: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/includes/documents/events/2408/101-Limits_to_adaptation_to_climate_change.pdf

There were two papers that week, which had caught my attention. The first one I found on the blog from Art Dewulf (from Wageningen University in the Netherlands). This is the link to his blog: http://artdewulf.blogspot.co.uk/. He announced that an article on ‘The role of knowledge and power in climate change adaptation governance: a systematic review’ authored by Martijn Vink, himself and Catrien Termeer, has recently been published in the journal Ecology & Society (link to the article: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art46/). In this article, they observe that knowledge and power are discussed in rather a static way in the far majority of the literature on governance for climate change adaption. They argue that a more dynamic understanding of knowledge and power would better reflect the complex and ambiguous context of climate change adaptation.

The second paper that got my attention was an article on ‘The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society’, by Joyeeta Gupta, Catrien Termeer, Judith Klostermann and five other co-authors, published in the journal Environmental Science & Policy in 2010. In this paper, the authors propose an assessment framework assisting “academics and social actors to assess if institutions stimulate the adaptive capacity of society to respond to climate change” with six dimensions, being: variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, availability of resources and fair governance (Gupta et al., 2010, p. 459).

On Wednesday the 18^th, Duncan Russel and I had a skype meeting with our colleague Tim Taylor to discuss the approach to study the UK climate change adaptation cases, for the BASE project. Our colleague Tim Taylor also works for the University of Exeter, though not in Exeter. He is located at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health, in Truro, in Cornwall; which is a 3-hour-journey from Exeter. Tim Taylor will study climate change adaptation in relation to human health, for the case of Cornwall, and for the case of the UK. We made a start in coordinating the research approach; we will work on further, and meet again early February. The meeting in February will be a live physical meeting, and Duncan Russel and I will go down to Cornwall. I haven’t been in Cornwall yet and I am very much looking forward to doing so!