Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England Sarah Burch a,*, Pam Berry b, Michele Sanders c a

Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada b Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX13QY, UK c Zoology Department, University of Oxford, Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road, OX1 3PS, UK

article info

abstract

Article history:

While mitigation has been the dominant policy response to climate change in the global

Received 1 June 2012

community, practitioners and scholars have argued that significant climate change will

Received in revised form

occur even in the event of dramatic emissions reductions in the near term, thus adaptation

2 July 2013

is vital to address these impacts and to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience to multiple

Accepted 25 August 2013

stresses. Increasingly the need to mainstream this adaptation into development planning,

Available online xxx

sectoral decision-making and policy making is being recognised. This paper explores the

Keywords:

other priorities, specifically biodiversity conservation. By investigating the case study of

Climate change

recent efforts by Defra and the England Biodiversity Group to embed climate change

challenges faced in trying to mainstream climate change adaptation policy in the context of

Adaptation

adaptation principles into their biodiversity conservation work and the insights gained

Biodiversity

into the barriers faced, we propose specific strategies that may be employed to overcome

Mainstreaming

these barriers and speculate about the transferability of the lessons into other policy contexts. Key barriers include uncertainty about the future of funding and climate change

Barriers

as a policy priority, organisational silos leading to insufficient communication of the relevance of adaptation to conservation, and legacy of policies that deliver sub-optimal outcomes in the event of a changing climate. Ecosystem-based climate change adaptation and mitigation may serve to overcome some of these barriers by delivering on multiple priorities simultaneously, and embedding adaptation in job descriptions/standard operating procedures may help to build new modes of practice. # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Both adaptation and mitigation are considered necessary to reduce the impacts of projected climate change on human and natural systems. Since mitigation addresses the causes and adaptation seeks to protect against the effects of climate change, these two types of responses are often viewed as

complementary (Mata and Budhooram, 2007; Yohe and Strzepek, 2007). Significant impacts of climate change on biodiversity have been observed already (Mitchell et al., 2007; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009) and future potential changes in climate will adversely affect species and habitats (Maclean and Wilson, 2011; Pereira et al., 2010). It is now widely recognised that climate change will occur even if global emissions are dramatically reduced in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 888 4567x31932. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S. Burch), [email protected] (P. Berry), [email protected] (M. Sanders). 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014 Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

2

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

the near term (Biesbroek et al., 2010; CEC, 2009), thus adaptation is vital to address these impacts and to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience to multiple stresses (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005). Increasingly the need to mainstream this adaptation into development planning, sectoral decision-making and policy making is being recognised (Klein et al., 2007). Mainstreaming can be defined as a ‘‘means to integrating climate concerns and adaptation responses into relevant policies, plans, programmes, and projects at the national, sub-national, and local scales.’’ (USAID, 2009, p. 47). This needs to be undertaken for key sectors (Olhoff and Schaer, 2010) and in the EU, following the publication of the White Paper, ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action’ (CEC, 2009), there is an emphasis on mainstreaming adaptation measures into EU sectoral policies, including agriculture, forestry, health, biodiversity, ecosystems and water. This commitment to mainstream adaptation into EU policies and programmes has been reaffirmed in the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (CEC, 2013), which points out that adaptation is now mainstreamed into legislation (e.g. marine and transport), with further legislative mainstreaming planned for sectors including agriculture, forestry, health and environment. This mainstreaming can increase the effectiveness of climate policy, but for it to be successful it will require operationalisation at a practical level (Kok and de Coninck, 2007). While there are examples of successful integration, particularly of climate change, much still needs to be done to embed adaptation into practice. In the case of biodiversity, this embedding of adaptation into conservation policy and practice presents both opportunities and challenges. There are a number of adaptation options for biodiversity and possibilities to address both mitigation and adaptation through ecosystem-based adaptation (Vignola et al., 2009), thus achieving win–win– win situations (Paterson et al., 2008; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). Examples include the creation of wetlands to filter storm water or address rising sea levels, while also serving as critical habitats and sequestering carbon. Often, however, there are challenges to implementing these and to embedding adaptation into established practice and policy priorities. Often these barriers are not technical or economic in origin, but rather represent powerful sources of path dependency, or inertia, that reinforce customary institutional and individual behaviours (Burch, 2010a, b; Pierson, 2000). In other contexts, examples of barriers have included isolated organisational units, antagonistic organisational ethos, outdated or restrictive policy and regulatory tools, limited or conflicting jurisdictions, and a host of others (Burch, 2010a, b; Swart and Raes, 2007). These barriers may interact with and reinforce one another: ecosystem-based adaptation, for instance, requires a particular variety of technical and cross-sector knowledge, the collaboration of a wide range of practitioners and stakeholders, and potentially longer-term definitions of returns on investment. This paper explores the challenges faced in trying to mainstream climate change adaptation policy in the context of other priorities. We then present the case study of recent efforts by the United Kingdom’s Department of Environment,

Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the England Biodiversity Group to embed climate change adaptation principles into their biodiversity conservation work, the insights gained into the barriers faced, specific strategies that may be employed to overcome them and the transferability of the lessons into other policy contexts.

2. Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity work 2.1.

Mainstreaming climate change

A number of guidance documents have been developed on measures to support the integration of climate change adaptation into biodiversity planning by governmental environment agencies (e.g. Vonk et al., 2010), non-governmental biodiversity conservation organisations (RSPB, 2007) and multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009) and Ramsar (e.g. Ramsar Resolution VIII.3, 2002). The European Commission has also recognised the importance of adaptation and in addition to the White Paper it has stated the need for Member State action on developing Adaptation Strategies. It has also stressed the importance of an ‘‘integrated impact assessment approach and a comprehensive adaptation strategy at the EU level by 2013’’ (Biesbroek et al., 2010). While some member states are actively seeking to mainstream climate change, others are at an earlier stage and often barriers are encountered, both at the national and more local level. These barriers relate both to the initial development of climate change policy, as well as the integration of this policy with other environmental, social, and economic priorities. The section that follows will address these barriers in greater detail.

2.2.

Barriers to climate change policy development

The disciplines of social psychology and political science have given rise to important insights into the human context within which climate change and biodiversity policy grow and are put into practice. The ‘new institutionalism’ in political science, for instance, offers an interpretation of politics and governance that highlights the influence of habits and norms on the logic of action and individual (and ultimately institutional) behaviour (March and Olsen, 2006; Olsen and March, 1989). This fundamentally diverges from a more rationalist view of institutions as systems of rules and incentives that structure the behaviour of utility-maximizing individuals (Rhodes et al., 2006). If these insights are applied to the challenge of embedding climate change adaptation within biodiversity work, we see that there may be more effective methods for guiding behaviour than, for instance, articulating the probability of climate change impacts or the costs of inaction. Rather, a case could be made for building an organisational culture of innovation and embedding climate change concerns in standard operating procedures (cf. Jasanoff, 2005; O‘Riordan et al., 1998). Running alongside this trend in political science is a parallel set of insights in social psychology: while individuals

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

are certainly capable of making careful, reasoned, calculations, this cognitive process is slower and less intuitive than emotional, intuitive decisions or judgements that occur

conservation planning in England. The following table outlines the core elements of this framework, which are utilised in the analysis that follows.

Category of barrier/enabler

Description and biodiversity example

Sample of relevant research

Cultural/behavioural:

Influence of customs, values, beliefs, interests and personalities of individuals in critical positions within a group.

(Kaiser and Wolfing, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 2000; Stern and Dietz, 1994; Stern et al., 1999)

Structural/operational

Regulatory/legislative

Contextual

Capacity

3

Example: Territoriality or competitiveness between departments or organisations that address climate change, energy, and biodiversity (which may all be inter-related). Obstacles posed by the characteristic structures and procedures of institutions and organisations. These procedures shape the way these groups function and how they identify and achieve their goals, and thus can influence against new initiatives. Example: No organisational mechanism by which planners/ engineers focused on extreme weather events and emergency management can collaborate with biodiversity conservation experts Hurdles related to jurisdiction, regulatory and policy tools at the disposal of the agency or community. Example: Absence of regional or ‘landscape’ planning authority to address the challenge of ecosystems that cross boundaries (such as local or municipal jurisdiction). External forces to which a government or organisation is subject and the priorities to which it must respond. These include public awareness and broader political/economic trends. Example: Broader economic crises, such as the global recession beginning in 2008, shifting focus away from environmental priorities. The lack of resources, namely technical, human, financial, or other, that can bring difficulties in the integration of a new initiative into a group’s strategy.

(Lee and Perl, 2003; Schipper and Pelling, 2006; Young, 2002)

(Adger and Vincent, 2005; Immergut, 1992; Kok et al., 2000)

(Baber, 2004; Leiserowitz, 2006; Lorenzoni et al., 2007)

(Brooks et al., 2005; Burch and Robinson, 2007; Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Haddad, 2005; Tompkins and Adger, 2003; Yohe, 2001)

Example: Limited expertise in the complex field of ecosystembased adaptation, and lack of funds necessary to support significant up-front costs with longer-term payback periods.

almost instantaneously (Kahneman, 2011; Peters and Slovic, 1996; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Slovic et al., 2007). Thus, emotional or intuitive responses may either inhibit or facilitate responses to climate change, but will most certainly affect decisions that may have been thought to be solely based on a careful calculation of costs and benefits (Burch, 2010a, b). For individuals, attitudes, worldviews, and social context are also critical precursors of behaviour (see for example: Kaiser and Wolfing, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 1992, 2000), and thus may either inhibit or facilitate responses to climate change (Burch, 2010a). Building on these insights, Burch (Burch, 2010a, b) developed and applied a framework for exploring the institutional and behavioural barriers to climate change policy development and implementation. This framework, having been applied in a variety of empirical contexts (see Burch, 2010a, b; Burch et al., 2010), was adapted and applied in the case that is the subject of this paper: namely, the success with which climate change adaptation has been embedded in biodiversity

In the face of these barriers, the dual challenges of climate change and biodiversity conservation suggest the need for strategies that unite disparate organisational units, and plant the seeds for new, more sustainable modes of practice. Many of the barriers described above have a critical characteristic in common: legislative tools, institutional structures, and even organisational culture tend to reinforce themselves over time, recreating similar conditions, often out of expediency, and delivering similar outcomes. In various fields, this has been referred to as path dependency, or the institutionalisation of a set of practices which makes previously likely alternatives progressively less likely (Mahoney, 2000; Pierson, 2004; Thelen, 2003). Conservation organisations and national governments (including, in the UK, Defra as well as the Department of Energy and Climate Change) deeply influence the context within which responses to climate change are designed and implemented, because they are part of the path-dependent structures that have been shown to limit the options of actors (Burch, 2010b; Thelen, 2003). This may be particularly crucial with regard to

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

4

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

embedding climate change adaptation within existing biodiversity plans and practices; as new climate science emerges and the landscape of biodiversity shifts, a system with fewer path dependencies may be able to more efficiently respond (Burch, 2010b; O’Riordan and Jordan, 1999).

3. Case study: embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation in England 3.1.

Case background

The impacts of climate change have been increasingly embedded into UK biodiversity strategy, for example, as part of the revision of the Biodiversity Action Plans. Attention has now turned to adaptation, which is needed to reduce the projected potential impacts of climate change (DEFRA, 2006; Huntley, 2007; Walmsley et al., 2007). Several of the policy options for UK nature conservation identified as part of a recent priority setting exercise are also relevant to adaptation, including enhancing protected areas, no net loss of biodiversity and measures to develop and maintain ecologically coherent networks (Sutherland et al., 2010). Defra has been engaged with climate change adaptation for a number of years, with the review of the first four years of implementation of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) recommending that one of the outcomes for the climate adaptation work programme be the initial integration of adaptation actions into all EBS workstreams and processes by 2010 (DEFRA, 2006). Thus Defra and its delivery partners have sought to embed climate change adaptation principles into all activities coordinated by the Strategy Implementation Groups (SIGs) or workstreams of the EBS. Also, the Government’s Adapting to Climate Change Programme required each Department to produce Adaptation Plans and it acknowledged the importance of the natural environment in adaptation1,2. A further context is provided by the Government’s Structural Reform Plan for Defra3, which identified three key priorities, all of which are relevant to climate change and biodiversity, but one of which is particularly focussed on biodiversity – to ‘‘enhance and protect the natural environment, including biodiversity and the marine environment, by reducing pollution and preventing habitat loss and degradation’’. Two of the underlying supporting actions identified under the heading of ‘helping communities and wildlife adapt to climate change’ are to:  Assess the scope for actions to offset the impact of development on biodiversity.  Publish a Natural Environment White Paper, setting out measures to protect wildlife and promote green spaces and wildlife corridors.

1

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/ taking-action.pdf. 2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/ natural-environment-adaptation.pdf. 3 http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/about/our-priorities/.

It is clear from this that the protection of biodiversity is deemed to be important at the structural reform level. The Natural Environment White Paper4 lays out proposals for improving the quality and increasing the value of the natural environment, and both this and the Structural Reform Plan are seen to offer further opportunities to take account of climate change adaptation. Throughout the Defra Biodiversity SPs and England Biodiversity SIGs, actions are already being taken that contribute to climate change adaptation. A clear example is the prioritisation exercise carried out by the Marine SIG to identify which adaptation actions are most relevant to their workstream deliverables and most pressing in terms of the climate change agenda. Another example is the work done by the Water and Wetlands SIG to assess the impacts of climate change, and the adaptation options available, in the context of the creation of a wetland vision (a key deliverable in 2006). This last example demonstrates that some adaptive actions may have been taken in advance of the circulation of the adaptation principles, but contribute to climate change responses nonetheless. Despite these successes, interviewees reported a variety of institutional and behavioural barriers to embedding adaptation. The sections that follow address these barriers, before suggesting ways to move forward.

3.2.

Methods

Three core methods were used to gather data: document analysis, short electronic questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The purpose of the questionnaire was to reach a broader audience than was possible through interviews, thereby obtaining greater coverage of the individuals responsible for developing and implementing the England Biodiversity Strategy. The focus of the document analysis and both surveys was specific progress on each of the adaptation principles and associated actions and these data are presented and analysed elsewhere (Berry et al., 2010). The interviews, in contrast, allowed key individuals within Defra and the England Biodiversity Group the opportunity to provide a more nuanced description of perceived barriers and strategies for overcoming them. It is on these data that the following sections will focus. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the chairs of each SIG, the leads of each Defra biodiversity subprogramme, and some additional delivery partners as suggested by members of the steering committee5. These interviewees were chosen based on their knowledge and experience (Cresswell, 2003; Denscombe, 2007) of the Defra 4 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/ 8082.pdf. 5 The SIGs covered by interviews included: Marine, Climate Change Adaptation, Local/Regional, Agriculture, Woodlands, Towns and Cities, Coastal, Education, and Economics. SPs covered by interviews included: Climate Change, International Biodiversity, Developing the Evidence Base, Wildlife Protection and Management, Invasive Species, Enthusing People, Embedding Biodiversity, and Protected Areas. Individuals were also interviewed from the Ministry of Defense, the National Trust, the overarching England Biodiversity Group, and the Association of Local Government Ecologists.

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Biodiversity Programme and the England Biodiversity Strategy. Key contact individuals within Defra sent out requests for interviews. In total 27 interviews were administered. The interviews allowed for private, extended, and comprehensive conversations to take place, giving participants a safe space in which to reveal their understanding of adaptation principles and the barriers they have faced in implementing them. Given time pressures, all interviews were held over the phone rather than in person. While this was an efficient method of data gathering, it prevented the development of a strong rapport between the interviewer and interviewee. Occasional technical difficulties and distractions may have similarly diminished the quality of the interviews. All interviews were informal and of varying duration, but most lasted between 30 and 60 min. They were started in a conversational manner so that interviewees were made to feel that they should speak freely and not give short yes/no answers. Questions were open-ended to enable people to provide more detailed answers. In order to enable respondents to open up, confidentiality was guaranteed by informing interviewees that their individual answers would be combined with those given by others. Each interview was recorded and transcribed, and the contents of each interview were then analysed in order to focus on:  Awareness of the adaptation principles and their associated actions;  Evaluation of relevance of principles to respondent’s work programme;  Barriers encountered while attempting to embed the principles;  Key strategies for overcoming these barriers.

3.3.

Findings: barriers to embedding adaptation

Interviews suggested that, while members of the SIGs and SPs are generally aware of the climate change adaptation principles, significant steps have often not been taken to explicitly and systematically embed them in ongoing biodiversity work. The existing literature on both collective (i.e. organisational) and individual behaviour change suggests that individual psychological and contextual or collective factors play critical roles in shaping our behaviour (see above). This literature was used as a lens through which to view the responses gathered through interviews with SIG and SP members. It is unhelpful to assume that a lack of behaviour change is only due to an individual’s unwillingness to act differently, nor is it accurate to claim that actions so determined by the organisations within which individuals work that they are out of their control. This research showed that significant barriers may be preventing SIGs and SPs from embedding climate change adaptation principles in their deliverables and objectives. These barriers vary depending on the organisation that is tasked with different aspects of delivery, and the specific principle and associated actions that are being embedded. The sections that follow present evidence, gathered through interviews, regarding the specific nature of barriers to

5

embedding climate change adaptation principles in the biodiversity work of both Defra and the larger England Biodiversity Group.

3.3.1.

Governance and leadership

The current circumstances created by a change in government and shifting priorities were raised by many interviewees as potential challenges to new action on adaptation for the conservation of biodiversity. While most interviewees felt that climate change remained a key priority for the current government, many indicated deep uncertainty and anxiety about the future of funding for adaptation initiatives and the likelihood that troubling economic times have superseded concerns over climate change. For many, this led to a hesitancy (or lack of opportunity) to dramatically alter deliverables or objectives, especially given perceived uncertainty about the science of climate change impacts (i.e. timing, scale, severity, and location of impacts). Similarly, this contributes to a hesitancy to adopt approaches that are completely new and untested. Even in the presence of clear government priorities, however, underlying issues (such as the perception that good conservation work is sufficient for adaptation, and the lack of a clear directive to implement an ongoing process of embedding adaptation; all discussed in greater detail below) may be the true barriers to new action. While there is commitment to address climate change (e.g. the UK Biodiversity 2020 Strategy6), it is likely that fears about future funding have been realised given budget cuts across almost all Government departments. Some of the perceived uncertainty on impacts may have been addressed through the publication of a biodiversity and climate change report card (Morecroft and Speakman, 2013). Even so, a manifestation of the uncertain terrain resulting from a shift in government is the ‘localism’ agenda, or the shift towards empowering local authorities and away from regional planning. Two interviewees specifically stated that transferring additional responsibilities to local authorities and organisations, whilst removing incentives for regional collaboration and planning, directly contradicts the imperative to develop landscape-scale biodiversity plans and accommodate potential shifts in habitats that may occur as a result of climate change. While most respondents felt that the climate change principles were generally robust and valid, the majority of them cited a lack of a firm high-level directive to embed the adaptation principles as the reason why few changes had been made. Three interviewees suggested that, while the message had been sent that climate change adaptation is broadly important, no specific instructions (paired with incentives and reporting requirements) had been given by either the England Biodiversity Group or Defra to undertake a systematic review of objectives and deliverables in light of the principles. As such, most respondents felt that a general consideration of the principles was sufficient, especially given the fact that many thought that good conservation work would typically tackle most of the principles implicitly.

6

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity2020-a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services.

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

6

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

3.3.2.

Organisational structure

The organisational structure of the England Biodiversity Group, Defra, and DECC was raised by many interviewees as a challenge to embedding new information on adaptation in their biodiversity actions. While it was generally accepted that climate change and energy issues are complex and pressing enough to warrant their own department, the separation of DECC from Defra, both organisationally and physically, may lead to silos between biodiversity and climate change policy. A related communication issue concerns the availability of mechanisms for communication between closely related EBG workstreams, but a dearth of opportunities to work closely with the Defra SPs. For organisations participating only peripherally in the EBG, there was very little knowledge of the activities of Defra, and of progress made towards integrating adaptation into biodiversity work. Natural England, however, which is tasked with implementing much of Defra’s Biodiversity Programme, demonstrated higher levels of understanding of the work of the Defra Biodiversity SPs and the adaptation principles more specifically. The relatively low levels of momentum behind embedding adaptation in biodiversity may be in part the result of these organisational issues, as well as the leadership challenges discussed above.

3.3.3.

Legislative/policy history

All biodiversity partners must function within particular legislative and policy contexts, which have been extremely labour-intensive to produce and may be very difficult to shift. This is a specific manifestation of ‘path dependency’, or inertia behind policy practices and patterns of behaviour. An example of this is the pressure to maintain a particular mix of species and habitats in a protected area (whether because of legislative edict or strong local cultural preferences for a landscape to appear and function in a certain way), rather than allowing habitats and species to shift as climate changes. This suggests that the adaptation principle ‘accommodate change’ may be especially challenging to implement in practice. Five interviewees suggested that this legislative legacy may also be leading to uncoordinated landscape scale action, yielding inefficient resource deployment and lower quality biodiversity outcomes especially with regard to priority species and habitats. Similarly, two interviewees indicated that key exclusions from the existing Marine Bill created difficulties for the effective planning and development of proposals to manage marine species, including where to draw the line between marine ‘wildlife’ and ‘fisheries’ species. According to the Lawton Review, ‘‘the impact of policy on land-use is particularly clear in agriculture, where government policy drove the intensification of land-use for much of the twentieth century, while the EU Common Agricultural Policy has had a strong influence on how agricultural land is used and managed in recent decades. The directions set by future EU policy and those arising from the complex and multilayered system of governance in England will have a profound influence on how land is used in the future’’ (Lawton et al., 2010). This statement demonstrates the inter-woven nature of legislative and governance barriers, as well as conflicting priorities.

An associated issue is simply the timing of SIG/sub programme deliverable development in relation to the dissemination of the adaptation principles. In some cases, commitments had been made to deliverables prior to any systematic attempt to embed the adaptation principles. Many interviewees communicated a reluctance to revisit these, given the costs (both financial and human) involved in doing so. Added to the English legislative context, of course, is the international context within which many of the Defra subprogrammes and EBS SIGs must function. Reliance on the support and actions within other countries, as well as a plethora of international initiatives simultaneously strengthens and complicates efforts within the UK. Furthermore, as indicated by one interviewee, the EU strategy on invasive species (for instance) may not fully account for climate change adaptation, and thus may not be fully consistent with approaches that are being developed in the UK. While, in England, significant efforts are being made to embed climate change adaptation in biodiversity planning, biodiversity does not frequently play such a critical role in climate change policies. The Climate Change SP recognised that while biodiversity was been included in a chapter of the statutory National Climate Change Risk Assessment, it was a problematic area in which to assess risk. Climate change itself, is still a relatively new issue for most Departments and climate change risks are not being ‘‘managed strategically and consistently throughout any Department’’ (NAO, 2009). Defra itself does not have an overarching strategy for its work on adaptation (NAO, 2009), but current efforts to embed adaptation represent the beginnings of such work.

3.3.4.

Relevance

Interviewees consistently suggested that many SIGs and SPs do not consider all of the principles and associated actions to be of direct relevance to their work. While the broad principles were widely regarded as valuable and accurate, the relevance and practical implications of the specific actions associated with the principle were much less clear. In some cases this may be because the principles are in fact irrelevant to the dayto-day work of the SIG or SPs (for instance actions associated with aiding gene flow or controlling invasive species would not fall under the remit of the Economics and Funding SIG). In others, there may have been an incorrect assumption that the principles were irrelevant, highlighting the need for strategies which strongly encourage SIGs and SPs to creatively consider the ways in which their practices could be adjusted to account for climate change adaptation. In addition, this finding suggests the need to specify audience when communicating relevance: the public should be carefully segmented according to focus as awarenessraising campaigns are developed, and initiatives directed at the SIGs, sub-programmes and delivery partners should consider whether the audience has a policy versus implementation focus. Similarly, rather than a centralised effort initiated by Defra, SIGs and SPs would benefit from carefully considering the relevance of the principles to their own work, thus revealing priority actions. This is particularly important for building (and maintaining) momentum behind the integration of adaptation and biodiversity.

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

3.3.5.

Capacity

The first element of capacity that many interviewees indicated is absent in some cases is technical information. The majority of interviewees commented that the significant uncertainty surrounding the timing and severity of impacts of climate change on biodiversity inhibits dramatic changes in biodiversity policy. The precise ecological requirements of some species and habitats also remain unclear, as well as the management techniques that will be most effective in conserving them. Furthermore, some interviewees felt that many of the outcomes of adaptation with regard to biodiversity may not be evident for 30–50 years, creating challenges for raising public awareness and building momentum for new actions that may entail considerable costs. Similarly, ‘‘the ability of Departments to manage the delivery of their objectives in the long term will depend on their ability to identify, assess and manage the risks that arise from the impacts of future climate change’’ (NAO, 2009) – no simple task given rapidly evolving climate science and uncertain emissions trajectories. Scarce financial and human resources were also raised as important barriers to integrating climate change adaptation with biodiversity. SIG and SP documents suggest that a lack of staff resources is a more critical issue than the absence of funding, but the latter is made more acute by both the current economic climate and the change in government. A specific example of this is the fall in timber prices, which has ‘‘reduced the economic viability of most forestry enterprises, and thereby reduced their ability to fund management activity for biodiversity’’ (DEFRA, 2002). Available resources from across the Defra network should be harnessed in order to coordinate across programmes. There is also a need to work across departments e.g. DfT and BIS, as the implementation of the adaptation principles could be affected by their mitigation and adaptation actions and cost-effective synergies may be able to be achieved, or required trade-offs identified (Berry, 2009; Paterson et al., 2008).

3.3.6.

Conflicting priorities

While many organisational and behavioural barriers may inhibit the application of adaptation principles to biodiversity at the policy level, additional challenges are faced during actual implementation. Chief among these is often conflicting priorities. For instance, the Water and Wetlands SIG has developed a range of initiatives which aim to help meet the objectives of the UK BAP for wetlands, but these risk conflicting with competing interests. Both the Great Fen and Wicken Fen projects are subject to local criticism due to perceived need for land for agricultural production, and this is the subject of wider national debate. Indeed, according to the 2010 Climate Change Plan, agriculture covers 75% of England’s total land area and plays a critical role in the country’s economy. This dominance of agriculture highlights the need to adapt the food system to simultaneously adapt to climatic shifts and support biodiversity. The EBS, however, identifies a number of risks and uncertainties (such as financial limitations on government spending and shifting agricultural trade policy) that may affect progress towards a vision of a mutually supportive relationship between conservation and agriculture (DEFRA, 2002). As such, public

7

education and awareness-building campaigns must build understanding of the importance of ecosystem service provision by the natural world. The population of England has risen from 46.4 million in 1971, to 51.5 million in 2008 (Office of National Statistics, 2009). This increase, combined with more people choosing to live alone, has had a profound effect on demand for housing and infrastructure. Figures from the Office for National Statistics estimate England’s population could increase to 60.7 million by 2033, with an increase of 18% in the proportion of people living in single occupancy houses. This suggests a growing pressure on biodiversity from the human-centred priorities of food production and housing.

3.3.7.

Reluctance to change

Education-based behaviour change campaigns often assume that individuals make rational decisions on the basis of available information, that individuals’ stated preferences are their true preferences, and that actions follow verbal commitments. As significant evidence has shown, however, individuals often display a reluctance to shift habitual modes of practice even in the face of clear signals that benefits might be accrued (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). This reluctance can be driven by a number of factors, including a lack of motivation, fear, a lack of knowledge about how to change, and a lack of opportunities or incentives to act differently. Ingrained attitudes and behaviour based on what has worked in the past are particular challenges in the face of a changing climate, when past precedent may not be the most helpful guide for the future. For example, while abiding by what is currently understood to be excellent conservation practice may well contribute to climate change adaptation, it is very likely that the scale and severity of future climate change impacts will require a significant alteration to conservation practices. Thus, respondents’ frequent perception that ‘good’ conservation work will implicitly address climate change may be misguided. Critically, many decisions that individuals make are based on what is viewed to be appropriate – in other words, behaviour is strongly driven by social norms, as described above. Interviewees communicated the presence of strong norms in favour of adapting to climate change, but did not feel pressure to explicitly embed adaptation nor to dramatically alter current or planned conservation practices. Individuals may not change their behaviour simply because they do not know what they could be doing differently. Interviewees, for instance, suggested that (as mentioned previously) the deep uncertainty associated with both the timing of climate change impacts and the most effective response options is a very real barrier to action. Similarly, the legislative options and organisational realities of policy development and implementation represent the enabling context that is critical for behaviour change. James and Wrigley (2007) explain that although we tend to assume that once a capacity-building event has taken place, planning to change is different from actually changing. We may fail to implement what we have learned because we are not presented with opportunities to practice what we have learned. It can be difficult to make time for reflection when day to day issues are pressing (Smit, 2007). Capacity-building

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

8

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1 – Multiple interwoven barriers influencing the success with which climate change adaptation principles and actions are embedded in biodiversity conservation practice.

should, therefore, not be a one-off event, but an ongoing participatory process (James, 2002). It should be designed so that it reflects the specific context and society for which it is meant (Lipson, 2003). This will, however, only be successful where there is individual motivation and organisational support to change (Deans et al., 2007).

3.3.8.

Interwoven barriers

The success with which adaptation principles are embedded in biodiversity conservation practice is shaped by the confluence of a number of barriers. As described above, one strategy is to alter job descriptions and standard operating procedures so that responsibility for climate change adaptation is distributed rather than centralised. Leadership is required to drive this process forward however, as are sufficient human resources (both quantity and quality) and an organisational structure that supports this embedding process. Conflicting priorities, similarly, are linked in part to the legislative legacy or path dependency, and lack of communication amongst units and agencies (which itself may grow out of the organisational structure). Thus, multiple barriers act to reinforce one another, creating sub-optimal outcomes. Fig. 1 illustrates a sample of the barriers encountered in this study, and demonstrates how they may reinforce one another. This figure suggests that particular levers, such as enhancing communication or decentralising responsibility for climate change action, may have cascading effects on other barriers, yielding amplified positive (or negative) outcomes.

3.4.

Strategies for overcoming barriers

The data collected suggest that, while the adaptation principles are generally considered to be robust and relevant, and a range of actions have been taken, there needs to be a step change if they are to be systematically embedded in the biodiversity work of Defra and the EBG. Barriers are faced during the integration of

the climate change adaptation principles at the policy, as well as implementation levels. Some principles are relatively simple to apply, while others face a significant dearth of data, political will, and understanding. Keeping in mind that not all principles are relevant to all of the work of all workstreams, nor are all workstreams equally equipped or empowered to implement significant policy shifts as a result of adaptation priorities, the following section summarises suggestions that can be tailored to enhance the capacity of the SIGs and SPs to embed adaptation in biodiversity work. Proactive and effective responses to climate change may be facilitated by a clear high-level mandate, political and technical leadership that creates opportunities for innovation, and the assimilation of climate change by standard operating procedures (Burch, 2010b). Furthermore, ‘‘addressing a lack of technical, financial, or human resources is often less a matter of creating more capacity than of facilitating the effective use of existing resources’’ (Burch, 2010b). Such a directive will help contribute to the ongoing efforts to adapt the work of the Defra Biodiversity Programme and the EBG to the shifting biophysical and socioeconomic futures that result from climate change, and may also strengthen the sustainability dimensions of long range strategic planning. Burch (2010b) suggests transforming barriers into enablers requires: 1) identification of sources of path dependency (described above as the inertia that increasingly builds behind common modes of practice) and habitual behaviours that may be unsustainable in a changing climate; 2) strategically challenging aspects of biodiversity programmes that do not contribute to adaptation priorities; and 3) supporting and reinforcing desirable patterns of action. Based on both the existing literature surrounding the ‘mainstreaming’ of climate change within broader

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

sustainability or biodiversity initiatives, as well as the data gathered through this project, the following strategies may serve to overcome the barriers faced by the SIGs and SPs. These fall under three general themes: (1) leadership and governance; (2) communication and relevance; (3) embedding and reinforcing action. The table that follows gathers these potential solutions together and links them to the associated barriers.

Barriers Governance and leadership  Uncertainty about future funding and climate change adaptation as government priority.

 Policy inconsistency or incongruence i.e. removal of incentives for regional collaboration but move towards landscape-scale biodiversity plans. Organisational structure  Separation of DECC, Defra, and the England Biodiversity Group.

Legislative/policy history  Legislative legacy (path dependency) leading to uncoordinated landscape-scale action and cultural/policy preferences for particular mix of species. Relevance  Perceived or actual irrelevance of climate change adaptation principles and actions to workplans of individuals in SIGs, SPs etc.

Capacity  Lack of technical information about the impact of climate change on biodiversity, and lack of financial and human resources to incentivise and implement new actions.

Conflicting priorities  Achievement of climate change adaptation or biodiversity goals implies tradeoffs with housing, infrastructure, jobs, or other priorities. Reluctance to change  Powerfully habitual modes of behaviour and definitions of good conservation practice conflict with new reality of a changing climate.

The data suggest that the process of embedding adaptation could be driven more forcefully through a strong high-level mandate. Similarly, it may be necessary to preserve a centralised authority on climate change adaptation until such time as individual branches of an organisation are sufficiently equipped and incentivised to maintain momentum behind adaptation work. Practitioners should be equipped with specific guidance on what actions could be undertaken at the local level and provide opportunities for regional and cross

9

regional or cross-organisational collaboration (including promoting heterogeneity and ecological connectivity). Regular opportunities or requirements to review, report, and update adaptation actions may serve to sustain and enhance the momentum built through these leadership and governance strategies. While many participants in this study were eager to do more to support climate change adaptation in their

Strategies for overcoming barriers

 Clear policies articulating priority status, co-developed and well communicated.  Embedding of climate change adaptation within standard operating procedures and job descriptions throughout government rather than centralising responsibility.  Effective conservation and climate change adaptation requires planning beyond the local scale. Maintenance (or creation) of incentives to collaboratively manage landscapes is a crucial ingredient of ecosystem and species resilience.  Responsibility for climate change within DECC implicitly suggests that responsibility does not lie with other agencies or departments. Reframe responsibility of DECC as facilitator of climate change action rather than owner.  Develop robust monitoring, reporting, and communication practices that indicate when/if a particular mix of species is no longer feasible given climatic shifts; build incentives for landscape-scale collaboration (see above)  Alter job descriptions of individuals within SIGs and SPs to build in responsibility for climate change adaptation; enhance efforts to communicate importance of principles and overcome gaps in knowledge.  Establishment of clear political priorities and embedding these in job descriptions/day-to-day practice (see above) may ensure sufficient devotion/creation of capacity. Greater collaboration and cooperation supports sharing of expertise and more efficient allocation of resources.  Communication and cross-sectoral collaboration increases the possibility of designing win/win strategies. Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation hold particular promise.  See solutions related to capacity and organisational structure above. Design strategies aimed at building new habits (i.e. a climate change adaptation ‘filter’ or checklist through which all new development and other proposals must pass). Both political and bureaucratic leadership are also responsible for fostering organisational cultures of innovation and adaptability.

biodiversity work, there was often a lack of understanding about where to start. In the early stages of this process, best practices from the around the world should be disseminated to stimulate creative thinking about new steps that could be taken here in England. Similarly, it is necessary to make clear and celebrate actions that contribute to the implementation of the adaptation principles. Celebrating these actions will contribute to a sense of progress, and help avoid a feeling of being overwhelmed by a long list of new actions.

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

10

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Perhaps most central to the long-term deepening of climate change responses are efforts to make embedding climate change habitual, and part of routine activities. Human behaviour is deeply rooted in habits, and what we feel is socially appropriate. We tend to react emotively rather than make a rational assessment of the costs and benefits associated with our behaviour. Organisations help to define what biodiversity conservation practices are viewed as appropriate, and thus shape where we focus our attention and what actions become habitual. For this reason, behaviour change is rarely so simple as providing more and better information, but rather requires a supportive context in which the new behaviour becomes automatic and efficient (Burch, 2010b). This often requires systems of coaching, monitoring and reporting in a way that facilitates adaptive management (learning as we go, and reviewing our strategies accordingly). While the broad principles were widely regarded as valuable and accurate, the relevance and practical implications of the specific actions associated with the principle were much less clear. Thus, climate change must be made relevant to the day-to-day actions and objectives of a wide variety of practitioners and organisations. In some cases, some of the principles are in fact irrelevant to the day-to-day work of the organisation. In others, there may have been an incorrect assumption that the principles were irrelevant, highlighting the need for strategies that strongly encourage organisations to systematically and creatively consider the ways in which their practices could be adjusted to account for climate change adaptation. The foundation of all of these strategies, however, is a systematic evaluation of objectives in light of climate change impacts and adaptation. This first step in embedding climate change adaptation in England’s biodiversity work has already begun, but could be strengthened and transformed into an iterative and ongoing process. This will help practitioners understand what they’re already doing and what more they could be doing. It will also provide ongoing opportunities for incorporating new data on climate change impacts and adaptation options, and refining and moving our understanding from what constitutes good biodiversity conservation practice to that which is good biodiversity practice in a changing climate. Specific actions that may serve to enable successful integration of biodiversity with climate change include: 1. Improve landscape permeability and habitat connectivity through the restoration or recreation of habitats polewards from the sites(s) of interest; 2. Enhance population resilience through increasing patch sizes and/or habitat quality, or indirectly through improving connectivity (1 above) (e.g. Lawson et al., 2012); 3. Increase site habitat heterogeneity through the incorporation of a greater range of elevations, aspects and management regimes. The above represent a range of complementary actions that could be taken to address the shortfall in embedding climate change adaptation. In addition to these, it is also important to identify the best way to promote behavioural

change within those responsible for embedding the climate change adaptation principles.

4.

Conclusions and future directions

The review of outputs and products of the EBS workstreams and climate change adaptation related documents showed that specific evidence of actions on the climate change adaptation principles was often lacking. Thus the assessment of the extent of their embedding of the principles had to be inferential and may partly reflect document objectives and language, rather than actual actions. Nevertheless, interviews mostly supported this view, as while they showed that many respondents had heard of or understood the adaptation principles, the number of actions being undertaken was often limited. This can be partly a function of only a subset of the principles being applicable, but does also reflect a certain lack of their application. Interviews with key individuals within SIGs and SPs indicated that some actions were indeed being taken in the interests of climate change adaptation that had not necessarily been captured by available documentation. These include actions taken by the Marine SIG and Water and Wetlands SIG. The latter example demonstrates that some adaptive actions may have been taken in advance of the circulation of the adaptation principles, but contribute to climate change responses nonetheless. The reviews and interviews identified a number of barriers to embedding adaptation in biodiversity conservation in England. These data suggest that, rather than a marginal adjustment to procedures, a transformative change in conservation may be needed. This transformative change may encompass the provision of significant new incentives, opportunity for the dissemination of best practices, and a thorough integration of adaptation principles in the day-to-day work of a wide variety of practitioners. Individuals should also be empowered through the provision of the necessary knowledge on the need for change and awareness of the potential positive outcomes of adaptation actions. Communication amongst SIGs and SPs should be strengthened in order to share best practices and practical examples of opportunities to embed adaptation. Support should be provided to SIGs and SPs as they evaluate which of the principles and associated actions are most relevant to their work, and prioritise the near- and mid-term adaptation actions that can be implemented. This paper has made a series of suggestions, which are intended to address some of the gaps identified in the embedding of the climate change adaptation principles. These fall under four broad categories: communication and relevance, leadership and governance, institutionalisation, and capacity. Some, such as the circulation of a strong and focused statement on the necessity of systematically evaluating workstream deliverables in light of adaptation principles, can be implemented fairly quickly and with little cost in time or money. Others, such as reducing the uncertainty associated with climate change, its impacts and effectiveness of adaptation options will need more preparation and commitment of resources, which may be difficult in the current economic climate.

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Department for Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs EMBEDS (Embedding Climate Change Adaptation Principles) project, contract number CR0488, but the views in the article are entirely those of the authors and do not in any way reflect those of Defra. We would like to thank all those who participated in the questionnaires and interviews.

references

Adger, W.N., Vincent, K., 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337, 399–410. Baber, W.F., 2004. Ecology and democratic governance: toward a deliberative model of environmental politics. Social Science Journal 41, 331–346. Berry, P., 2009. Biodiversity in the Balance–Mitigation and Adaptation Conflicts and Synergies. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria. Berry, P., Burch, S., Sanders, M., 2010. EMBEDS: Embedding Biodiversity Adaptation Principles. Final Report Prepared for United Kingdom Department of Environment. Food and Rural Affairs. UK Defra, London, UK. Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J., Carter, T.R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T., Mela, H., Morecroft, M.D., Rey, D., 2010. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Global Environment Change 20, 440–450. Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15, 151–163. Burch, S., 2010a. In pursuit of resilient, low-carbon communities: an examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy 38, 7575–7585. Burch, S., 2010b. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environment Change 20, 287–297. Burch, S., Robinson, J., 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7, 304–316. Burch, S., Sheppard, S., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., 2010. Addressing municipal barriers to policy action on climate change: participatory integrated assessment of climate change futures and the use of 3D visualizations as decision support tools. Journal of Flood Risk Management 3, 126–139. CEC, 2009. White Paper–Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action (COM(2009) 147 final). Commission of the European Community, Brussels. CEC, 2013. An EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (COM(2013) 216 final). Commission of the European Community, Brussels. Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005. Report of the Meeting of The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Adaptation to Climate Change. , NEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/INF/5. Cresswell, J.W., 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, 2nd ed. Sage, London. Deans, F., Oakley, L., James, R., Wrightley, R., 2007. Coaching and mentoring for leadership development in civil society. INTRAC, Oxford. DEFRA, 2002. Working With the Grain of Nature–Taking it Forward: Volume I Full Report on Progress Under the England Biodiversity Strategy 2002–2006. UK Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, London, UK.

11

DEFRA, 2006. Working With the Grain of Nature–Taking it Forward: Volume II Measuring Progress on the England Biodiversity Strategy: 2006 Assessment. United Kingdom Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, London, UK. Denscombe, M., 2007. The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects. Open University Press, Maidenhead. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environment Change 15, 199–213. Haddad, B., 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when socio-political goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15, 165–176. Huntley, B., 2007. Climatic Change and The Conservation of European biodiversity: Towards the Development of Adaptation Strategies. Bern Convention Standing Committee on Climate Change. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Immergut, E., 1992. Health politics: Interests and institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. James, R., 2002. What Makes CSO Coalitions Effective? Lessons from Malawi. INTRAC, Oxford. James, R., Wrigley, R., 2007. Investigating the Mystery of Capacity Building. INTRAC, Oxford. Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Kaiser, F.G., Wolfing, S., 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, 1–19. Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T.E., Richels, R.G., Robinson, J.B., Toth, F.L., 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 745–777. Kok, M., Vermeulen, W., Faaij, A., de Jager, D., 2000. Global Warming and Social Innovation: The Challenge of a ClimateNeutral Society. Earthscan, United Kingdom, p. 242. Kok, M.T.J., de Coninck, H.C., 2007. Widening the scope of policies to address climate change: directions for mainstreaming. Environmental Science and Policy 10, 587–599. Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, M., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally, and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research 3, 239–260. Lawson, C.R., Bennie, J.J., Thomas, C.D., Hodgson, J.A., Wilson, R.J., 2012. Local and landscape management of an expanding range margin under climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology 49 (3) 552–561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 13652664.2011.02098.x. Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J., Wynne, G.R., 2010. Making Space for Nature: A Review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network. United Kingdom Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, London. Lee, E., Perl, A., 2003. The Integrity Gap: Canada’s Environmental Policy and Institutions. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada. Leiserowitz, A., 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77, 45–72. Lipson, B., 2003. Civil society strengthening: capacity building. In: Pratt, B. (Ed.), Changing Expectations? The concept and

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

12

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Practice of Civil Society in International Development. INTRAC, Oxford, pp. 71–90. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environment Change 17, 445–459. Maclean, I.M.D., Wilson, R.J., 2011. Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 12337–12342. Mahoney, J., 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society 29, 507–548. March, J.G., Olsen, J.P., 2006. Elaborating the ‘new institutionalism’. In: Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B.A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Mata, J.M., Budhooram, J., 2007. Complementarity between mitigation and adaptation: the water sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12, 799–807. Mitchell, R.J., Morecroft, M.D., Acreman, M., Crick, H.Q.P., Frost, M., Harley, M., Maclean, I.M.D., Mountford, O., Piper, J., Parr, T.W., Pontier, H., Rehfisch, M.M., Ross, L.C., Smithers, R.J., Stott, A., Walmsley, C.A., Watt, A.D., Watts, O., Wilson, E., 2007. England Biodiversity Strategy – Towards Adaptation to Climate Change, Final report to Defra for Contract CRO327. United Kindom Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Morecroft, M., Speakman, L., 2013. Terrestrial Biodiversity Report Climate Change Impacts Report Card 2012–2013. Living With Environmental Change, London, UK. NAO, 2009. Review for the Environmental Audit Committee. National Audit Office, London. O‘Riordan, T., Cooper, C.L., Jordan, A., Rayner, S., Richard, K.R., Runci, P., Yoffe, S., 1998. Institutional frameworks for political action. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E. (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change: The Societal Framework, vol. 1. Battelle Press Ltd, Columbus, Ohio. O’Riordan, T., Jordan, A., 1999. Institutions, climate change, and cultural theory: toward a common analytical framework. Global Environment Change 9 91-83. Office of National Statistics, 2009. Vital Statistics: Population and Health Reference Tables. Office of National Statistics, London. Olhoff, A., Schaer, C., 2010. Screening Tools and Guidelines to Support the Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation into Development Assistance–A Stocktaking Report. UNDP, New York. Olsen, J.P., March, J.G., 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press, New York. Paterson, J.S., Araujo, M.B., Berry, P.M., Piper, J.M., Rounsevell, M.D.A., 2008. Mitigation, adaptation and the threat to biodiversity. Conservation Biology 22, 1355. Pereira, H.M., Leadley, P.W., Proenca, V., Alkemade, R., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Fernandex-Manjarres, J.F., Araujo, M.B., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W.W.L., Chini, L., Cooper, H.D., Gilman, E.L., Guenette, S., Hurtt, G.C., Huntington, H.P., Mace, G.M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues, P., Scholes, R.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walpole, M., 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st Century. Science 330, 1496–1501. Peters, E., Slovic, P., 1996. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Sociology 26, 1427–1453. Pierson, P., 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94, 251–267. Pierson, P., 2004. Politics in Time: History, Insitutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J., 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B.A., 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

RSPB, 2007. Climate Change: Wildlife and Adaptation; 20 Tough Questions, 20 Rough Answers. Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds, Sandy, Bedforshire, UK. Schipper, L., Pelling, M., 2006. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30, 19–38. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009. Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Technical Series No. 41. 126, Montreal. Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2007. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research 177, 1333–1352. Smit, M., 2007. We’re Too Much in ‘to do’ Mode: Action Research into Supporting International NGOs to Learn. INTRAC, Oxford. Stern, P.C., 1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 269–302. Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407–424. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues 50, 65–84. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6, 81–97. Sutherland, W.J., Albon, S.D., Allison, H., Armstrong-Brown, S., Bailey, M.J., Brereton, T., Boyd, I.L., Carey, P., Edwards, J., Gill, M., Hill, D., Hodge, I., Hunt, A.J., Le Quesne, W.J.F., Macdonald, D.W., Mee, L.D., Mitchell, R.J., Norman, T., Owen, R.P., Parker, D., Prior, S.V., Pullin, A.S., Rands, M.R.W., Redpath, S., Spencer, J., Spray, C.J., Thomas, C.D., Tucker, G.M., Watkinson, A.R., Clements, A., 2010. REVIEW: The identification of priority policy options for UK nature conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 955–965. Swart, R., Raes, F., 2007. Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy (Earthscan/James & James) 7, 289. Thelen, K., 2003. How institutions evolve: insights from comparative historical analysis. In: Mahoney, J.,Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.),Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University PRess, New York, pp. 208–240. Tompkins, E., Adger, W.N., 2003. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 39 . USAID, 2009. Adapting to Coastal Climate Change. A Guidebook for Development Planners. United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, USA. Vignola, R., Locatelli, B., Martinez, C., Imbach, P., 2009. Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: what role for policy-makers, society and scientists? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 14, 691–696. Vonk, M., Vos, C.C., Van der Hoek, D.C.J., 2010. Adaptation Strategy for Climate-Proofing Biodiversity. Report to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Report no. 500078005. . Walmsley, C.A., Smithers, R.J., Berry, P.M., Harley, M., Stevenson, M.J., Catchpole, R., 2007. MONARCH – Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate Change: A Synthesis for Biodiversity Conservation. UKCIP, Oxford. Yohe, G., Strzepek, K., 2007. Adaptation and mitigation as complementary tools for reducing the risk of climate impacts. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12, 727–739. Yohe, G.W., 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49, 247–262. Young, O.R., 2002. Evaluating the success of international environmental regimes: where are we now? Global Environment Change 12, 73–77.

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014