Following the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25) in November 2019 in Madrid (Spain), which was presided over by Chile, this journal Water Management featured an article by Harou et al. (2020) reflecting on the role of water at the conference. The authors laid out the theme of water at COP25 within the context of climate change, and its role in both mitigation and adaptation (Harou et al., 2020). It is two and half years since COP25 and two years since this commentary has been published; in the intervening time the world has experienced a global pandemic, a delayed COP26 (held in Glasgow, UK) and US$337 billion of damages (EM-DAT, 2022) from water-related natural hazard events. However, also during this period, significant UK and international reports on climate change science and adaptation progress have been published. In this Editorial, we reflect on the progress made in the intervening years in relation to water-based adaptation and discuss whether the original conclusions are still valid.
The original article by Harou et al. (2020) concluded that there was a pressing need to increase the resilience (intended as ‘the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions, withstand and re-cover rapidly from disruptions’ (Ayyub, 2014: p343) and more recently the recognition that systems may need to transform to increase resilience (McClymont et al., 2019)) of the water–environment–human system in the face of climate change to enable climate adaptation. It concluded that that this transformation could be delivered through robust planning, effective and responsive governance and aligned finance and financial services. The authors argued that future planning needed to be robust and flexible, where the given solutions were effective across a range of futures. This planning would require a move away from traditional single answer models towards ensemble possible futures in order to assess performance over a range of possibilities. Governance and policies to support this would be necessary and the ability to understand the possible co-benefits that come from different solutions.
In the past two years, between 2020 and 2022, the international science community has come together to review the recent progress made in science, policy and practice for climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) (IPCC, 2022) stated that combining climate resilience with protection and regeneration of our environment is the only way to simultaneously mitigate the worst risks and adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change while improving human well-being and sustainability. Since the Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014), policies and laws addressing mitigation have consistently expanded (IPCC, 2022). International agreements are incrementally supporting higher levels of national ambition and encouraging development and implementation of climate policies, although gaps remain. For example, AR6 shows an increase by up to 60% of the annual tracked total financial flows for climate mitigation and adaptation between 2013/14 and 2019/20 (in 2015 USD). However, these financial flows are uneven (more focused on mitigation than adaptation) and heterogeneous across regions and sectors. In addition, all intervention strategies face implementation challenges, such as technology risks, scaling and costs.
Meanwhile, national governments have also examined the status of their own climate change readiness. For example, the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCC, 2021) is a UK-wide report involving scientists, economists, government departments and stakeholders that develops a full analysis for all the climate change risks and opportunities for the UK. The latest evidence shows that the gap between the level of risk and of adaptation underway has widened (since the previous report in 2014). Although the UK has the capacity and the resources to respond effectively to these risks, adaptation investments have not kept the pace with the worsening climate risk. The report also evidenced that acting now is cheaper than dealing later with the consequences. A full set of 61 risks and opportunities are identified, spanning from the natural environment to industry, and are to be considered in the next set of national adaptation plans (due 2023).
It is evident that a new paradigm for water management practice is needed, which is functional enough to cope with a world whose climate is changing, and flexible enough to deal with a high degree of uncertainty. Low-regret, adaptive and mitigative strategies should investigate a range of possible future conditions, with the aim to transform societies into more resilient systems to future climate and weather extremes. For example, in this issue, Hou et al. (2022) developed a study to identify differences in the performance of low-impact development measures in arid and humid cities, using Yinchuan and Guangzhou in China as case studies. The results showed that a combination of various measures (permeable pavements, rain gardens and green roofs) provided the largest reduction in runoff in both cities. This work is an example of how adaptation could improve the resilience of cities in both arid and humid areas. However, research outcomes are only one facet of water management, and design and practice need to go further with the support of strong policy and flexible governance approaches. The pace of change must increase if we are to address the growing climate emergency by 2030.
In conclusive reflection, over the last two years little concrete progress has been made to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A brief drop in carbon dioxide emissions was appreciated around the world following the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic, which rapidly rebounded in 2021 (Tollefson, 2021). International targets on carbon dioxide in the global north (e.g., EU targets of 55% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, carbon-neutrality by 55%) are getting closer, and despite this race to reduce emissions global warming is continuing. This warming will require adaptation efforts at a similar pace to mitigation interventions. Consequently, the urgency to intervene, particularly in the water management sector, is only increasing. The progress on adaptation and mitigation is limited despite existing knowledge, tools and understanding to transform design and practice. This gap is evidenced by the IPCC, as well as more locally in governmental assessments such as the UK's CCRA.
This Editorial invites reflection on what it might take to change the way the water sector works. Improving connections between academia and practice could be part of the answer; for example, knowledge-exchange partnerships, where theory and practice come together. In addition, a stronger commitment of governments to enhance policies for more robust planning seems key to encompass future uncertainties and implement legislation that incorporates green finance models. Finally, research needs to improve the evidence base for the effectiveness of potential solutions (such as renewable energy, nature-based adaptation), given that the economic benefits of reducing emissions would be greater than the costs of further warming (IPCC, 2022). New technologies are continually evolving to support research and practice in this area. There is urgency to apply these new advancements to achieve emissions reductions, while increasing the resilience of society in the face of climate uncertainties in parallel. This mission is the recommendation of this Editorial.
