Part of the work programme on “Implementing Adaptation in OECD countries”. Builds upon the ideas presented in – and feedback received on - the scoping note circulated after the last WPCID meeting. Aim: guidance on how governments can facilitate climate resilient infrastructure. Evidence sources: survey paper (briefly presented now), expert workshop (this afternoon) and case studies (to discuss with delegates)
Source for global infrastructure investment needs: (NCE, 2014) These investments will be driven by factors including: the ageing of existing infrastructure, changing demographics, as well as policy objectives such as greenhouse gas mitigation. By building climate resilience into these investment decisions, there is the scope to enhance resilience and avoid the risk of costly retrofitting in future.
Sandy: all tunnels connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan were flooded along with other important transportation means including several trains and subway lines. Consequently, weekday riders were stranded without means of transportation (City of New York, 2013). 80% of services restored within a week.
Examples found while conducting research for the survey. Brisbane: This level exceeds both the minimum level recommended by engineering consultants (3.5 metres) and the current 1-in-100 year storm tide level (2.3metres). In addition, the tidal channels and a new sea wall along the northern boundary of the airport were built, and the taxiways linking the new runway with the apron areas were also designed to withstand a 1–in-100 storm surge event.
Australian Government (2013), Australia’s Sixth National Communication on Climate Change- A report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_natcom_/application/pdf/aus_nc6.pdf Republic of Poland (2014), 6th National Communications http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/application/pdf/pol_nc6.pdf City of Copenhagen (2012), Cloudburst Management Plan. http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/665626/cph_-_cloudburst_management_plan.pdf
No questionnaire sent. That means that some things might be happening, but they’re not reported upon. Research based on publicly available documents. Mainly OECD countries but some examples from development providers (both national and multilateral).
All countries have assessed either quantitatively (20) or qualitatively (14) their climate risks to infrastructure, and made localised climate data available. OECD countries have also invested in capacity-building and creating tools to assist infrastructure practitioners. Evidence from multilateral institutions (EIB), and OECD development providers investing in infrastructure in developing countries… But little evidence available for institutions investing domestically. Some literature on effectiveness… mainly in developing countries Use of spatial planning regulations and technical standards in particular (1/3 of OECD countries are revising at least one national technical standard(s) for infrastructure). Less so economic regulation. But little evidence on implementation outcomes and effectiveness. Currently marginal for policy-makers (few reporting schemes in place), but growing interest from investors, and momentum building for industry-led standards on climate risk. But growing interest from investors and insurers
EUFIWACC: European financing institutions working group on adaptation to climate change (EUFIWACC) are all development institutions, bar EIB.
Despite this proactive approach, the integration of climate risk management to traditional project investment procedures has encountered some difficulties. In particular, multilateral development banks have reported difficulties in the implementation of their in-house tools The main challenges have been the integration of these tools into project risk analysis, and providing adequate technical support and training for task managers (AfDB, 2013; IDB, 2014).
An example of public standard institution is the USA National Institute of Standards and Technology, which set up a “Panel on disaster-resilience standards for buildings and infrastructure”. E.g. Hungary (where EBRD operates) is planning to revise the regulation of construction design and land use from the aspect of climate change. 6 countries are updating their transport standards, including 4 on road drainage (Sweden (2008), Norway (2011), Denmark and Korea (2015))
References can be shared if that’s of interest.
Our work provides a useful framework for action.
It focuses on national-level action, as a start, but urban areas concentrate wealth, vulnerability and regulatory/planning powers to drive resilience.
In particular, innovative approaches pioneered for investment in developing countries (e.g. from MDBs like the WB) for investment screening
2016 GGSD Forum - Parellel Session A: Presentation by Ms. Lola Vallejo. Policy Analyst, Environment Directorate, OECD
Analyst– Climate Change Adaptation & Development
Environment Directorate, Climate Water and Biodiversity Division
10 November 2016
Green Growth and Sustainable Development Forum
OECD Headquarters, Paris
• Global infrastructure investments needs:
USD 90 trillion for 2015-2030
• Climate-related disruptions:
– 2012 superstorm Sandy (US): 5.4 million
– 2007 summer floods (UK): 350 000 people
without access to main water supply for 17
Making infrastructure climate resilient
• Construction of second runway at the Brisbane
airport in Australia 4.1 meters above sea level
• Construction of drainage infrastructure in
Copenhagen through a network of permeable
roads, greenspaces and waterways
• Modifying the maintenance regime of France’s
nuclear power plants to face summer heats
Examples of climate-resilient
• Research questions
– In which ways can governments ensure their
infrastructure is climate-resilient?
– What’s the current state of adaptation action?
• Focusing on national-level action in OECD
• Building a framework for action
Policy levers How much are they
Evidence provision High Capacity-building
Accounting for climate
risks in projects financed
Enabling resilience through
policy and regulation
Disclosure of climate risks Low Coordination with
• Screening and decision-support tools
– Prevalent in development banks: Multilateral (EBRD, Nordic
Investment Bank, ADB, WB), bilateral (JICA, AfD, KfW)
– Rare evidence in OECD domestic investment (EU structural
funds commitment, EIB)
• Contractual arrangements
– Belgium’s state and national railway operator (SNCB)
– Australian local governments infrastructure plans
Accounting for climate risks in projects
financed by governments
- Procurement/concession framework may be an obstacle… but hard to influence
- Several tools developed by those investing in most vulnerable countries
• Sectoral regulation
– Technical e.g. nuclear power in France, hydropower in
– Economic e.g. UK energy, rail and water sectors
• National and international climate-resilient standards
– Governance (ISO, UK, USA, Oz) or technical (Eurocodes)
– Led by industry (PIANC, CIBSE) or by public standards
– Mostly across sectors, but the specific ones focus on transport
(particularly road drainage)
Enabling resilience through policy and
- Growing use of national standards, which can take many shapes
• Increasing levels of action in OECD
countries for resilient infrastructure
– Urban areas: right scale for further innovation
• Lessons to be learnt on risk screening
from investments in developing countries’