21.03.2013 Views

Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Chapter 4<br />

The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) aims <strong>to</strong> ‘promote the maintenance of biodiversity’<br />

and thereby make a contribution <strong>to</strong> sustainable development. Measures at an EU level are<br />

regarded as necessary because of the deterioration of habitats and threats <strong>to</strong> species that are<br />

often of a transboundary nature. The Directive requires Member States <strong>to</strong> identify possible<br />

sites of Community Importance for species and habitats listed in Annexes of the Directive,<br />

from which the Commission selects a suite of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) known<br />

as Natura 2000. In addition, Member States are obliged “where they consider it necessary <strong>to</strong><br />

endeavour <strong>to</strong> improve the ecological coherence of Natura 2000 by maintaining, and where<br />

appropriate developing, features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild<br />

fauna and flora”. The Directive can be interpreted as a defensive, reactive response <strong>to</strong> what is<br />

regarded as an unfavourable natural status for some habitats and species.<br />

Article 3 of the Habitats Directive provides for the establishment of the Natura 2000 ecological<br />

network whereby each Member State contributes <strong>to</strong> its creation in proportion <strong>to</strong> the representation<br />

within its terri<strong>to</strong>ry of habitats and species of Community interest. The definition of<br />

‘Community interest’ is quite rigid and this, along with the focus on establishing the Natura<br />

2000 network of fixed sites, has led <strong>to</strong> questions about its flexibility in the face of climate<br />

change. Article 9 nevertheless allows for the possibility that an SAC may need <strong>to</strong> be declassified<br />

“where this is warranted by natural developments noted as a result of surveillance” as<br />

provided for in Article 11. This is, however, an area that needs further attention and work.<br />

The role of other relevant ac<strong>to</strong>rs in partnerships<br />

4.56 In framing the problem of adaptation, organisations need <strong>to</strong> consider the roles of other relevant<br />

ac<strong>to</strong>rs. For example, we were <strong>to</strong>ld in Wales that heavy rains<strong>to</strong>rms can lead <strong>to</strong> run-off being<br />

contaminated with sheep and cattle faeces from farmland, which ultimately finds its way <strong>to</strong> the<br />

sea via streams and rivers and pollutes beaches, causing them <strong>to</strong> lose favourable status for bathing<br />

and impacting on <strong>to</strong>urism. Events like this will occur more often in the future, and the problem<br />

requires a co-ordinated response, in this case between the Welsh Assembly Government, the<br />

Environment Agency, local farmers and the <strong>to</strong>urism industry, <strong>to</strong> understand the problem and<br />

work <strong>to</strong>gether <strong>to</strong> find ways of reducing it. Similarly, effective responses <strong>to</strong> the risk of flash flooding<br />

in central London require co-operation between the Environment Agency, Westminster Council,<br />

local public, private and third sec<strong>to</strong>r organisations, and residents. Working in partnership in these<br />

cases is essential as a way of managing the transfer of risk from one place or group <strong>to</strong> another.<br />

4.57<br />

4.58<br />

Acting alone, any single body is unlikely <strong>to</strong> be able <strong>to</strong> understand the full nature of the issue<br />

or identify a solution that meets the requirements of all the ac<strong>to</strong>rs, and so each organisation<br />

has <strong>to</strong> look outside its own remit <strong>to</strong> fully frame the problem. As adaptation is relevant <strong>to</strong> so<br />

many institutions, a co-ordinated approach can help overcome the fragmentation of powers and<br />

responsibilities which might otherwise hinder an effective response. And because of the number<br />

of institutions with an involvement in adapting <strong>to</strong> climate change, it is inevitable that there will be<br />

some overlap in jurisdictions and sec<strong>to</strong>rs. The coastal zone (Chapter 3) is a good example.<br />

Overlap in jurisdictions and the need <strong>to</strong> consider other ac<strong>to</strong>rs is particularly obvious in the multilayered<br />

governance arrangements in the UK – at the highest level from Europe, through national<br />

and devolved governments, <strong>to</strong> regional and local administrations. One advantage is that such<br />

arrangements allow for different approaches <strong>to</strong> be tried in different places, for example in each of<br />

the Devolved Administrations. For many issues, there are scales at which it is most appropriate for<br />

adaptation <strong>to</strong> take place; and whilst this will typically be local, it must usually happen within an<br />

80

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!