A recent evaluation of the risks climate change poses to the UK infrastructure suggests that nearly all reporting organisations have struggled to take account, adequately, of risks arising from infrastructure interdependencies.
The report, published earlier this month and titled “Understanding climate risks to UK infrastructure” was produced by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) based on data collated as part of the Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP). The goal was to evaluate how well the data complies with requirements set out in the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) strategy for this round of reporting.
Created under the Climate Change Act, the ARP aims to understand the readiness of the organisations responsible for key aspects of the UK’s infrastructure. Detailing the current and future projected impacts of climate change on their organisation, proposals for adapting to climate change, and assessments of progress towards implementing the policies and proposals set out in previous reports.
Connectedness of infrastructure systems means that climate and weather-related impacts in one system can cause large and cascading failures in connected systems.
Given the record temperatures experienced across the UK last week, causing damage to railway tracks and airport runways, this report comes at a critical time. In addition to high temperatures, climate change will bring flooding, which can close transport links, droughts that stress the provision of water, and storms which can knock out power systems. It’s situations like these that DEFRA aim to prepare for.
The CCC was called upon for the last two reports (ARP2 & ARP3) to evaluate each sector’s contributions, while also proposing ways for how future reports can add additional value. Conclusions from this year’s assessment found that in general the quality had developed since the last reporting round, but there were still significant opportunities for improvements. One area included managing climate risks from dependent infrastructure, those which are heavily reliant on other services, with the report stating: “Connectedness of infrastructure systems means that climate and weather-related impacts in one system can cause large and cascading failures in connected systems. Nearly all organisations have struggled to take account, adequately, of risks arising from infrastructure interdependencies in their [ARP] reports. This is a key gap in current national adaptation planning, especially as it is one of the highest priority risks identified.”
In all, 109 organisations were invited by DEFRA to participate in this edition, and around two thirds (77) of them reported correctly by the deadline. 11 organisations reported late but were still included in the evaluation. Participants represented UK sectors from water, transport (including road, rail, and air), energy, and data centres & telecommunications.
Each sector provided a number of reports covering the organisations functioning within them, these were then collated and scored across four main areas:
- How well they consider a range of future climate warming scenarios
- How well they present a clear link between the climate risks and the solutions they recommend
- What timescales are applied to delivering adaptation actions
- How well they’re set up to monitor and evaluate progress
The CCC then applied a rating of either low, medium, or high for each section to represent their overall readiness. Here’s what they found.
Energy
This sector was broken down into transmission & distribution, gas, and energy generators. However, the latter of the three didn’t provide a detailed risk assessment or adaptation plan as part of their reports, which meant that the CCC was unable to assess their progress or give a rating.
Transmission & distribution
For transmission & distribution of energy, the assessment awarded a strong rating for linking clear actions in the context of risks, with almost all the reports having considered it. However, there was room for improvement in the other areas, such as the range of climate scenarios considered, with only half of the reports addressing risks to the 2080s or beyond. Furthermore, only half of the reports assigned timescales to adaptive actions.
- Range of climate scenarios – Medium
- Actions linked to risks – High
- Timescales – Medium
- Monitoring & evaluation – Medium
Gas
Operators in the gas sector consistently considered actions in the context of risks and demonstrated appropriate monitoring and evaluating methods. However, they could have provided a broader range of climate forecasts, along with clearer and more detailed timeframes for any adaptation methods.
- Range of climate scenarios – Medium
- Actions linked to risks – High
- Timescales – Low
- Monitoring & evaluation – High
Water
The water sector performed well across all criteria; by generally assessing a wide range of climate scenarios consistent with 2⁰C and 4⁰C global warming levels out to the 2080s, along with actions to negate risks. Additionally, the CCC specifically noted their monitoring and evaluating progress in relation to adaption methods, stating “Of particular note is the use of metrics to set targets for and measure progress in adaptation, which was demonstrated in a few water sector reports.”
The only area where the sector struggled was when it came to allocating timeframes to actions, with only two thirds of reports including this information.
- Range of climate scenarios – High
- Actions linked to risks – High
- Timescales – Medium
- Monitoring & evaluation – High
Roads & rails
Both the road and rail sector reports performed well across assessment criteria.
Consideration of risks across a range of future climate scenarios and timescales in particular was evident and well presented. But, while all reports covered adaption time scales to some extent, others generalised about actions taking place over a five-year period.
- Range of climate scenarios – High
- Actions linked to risks – High
- Timescales – Medium
- Monitoring & evaluation – High
Airports
The assessment results for airports in the UK were mixed.
Overall consideration of varied climate scenarios was rated well, as was the ability to monitor and evaluate progress towards adaption plans. But, only two thirds of reports presented a detailed programme of adaptive actions that were linked to the climate risks. While only just over half included timescales attached to these actions.
- Range of climate scenarios – High
- Actions linked to risks – Medium
- Timescales – Medium
- Monitoring & evaluation – High
Data centres and telecommunications
The worse performing sector, electronic communications, scored a poorly in 3 of the 4 assessment areas. While risks had been assessed to 2050 (for data centres) and 2080 (for telecommunications providers), the reports did not provide detail on the potential changes in risk across different timeframes.
Furthermore, while the reports provided brief explanations of steps the sector is taking to adapt to climate risks, there was no discussion of when these adaptation actions will be completed, or any mention of evaluating the progress of them.
- Range of climate scenarios – Low
- Actions linked to risks – Medium
- Timescales – Low
- Monitoring & evaluation – Low
Recommendations for future ARP rounds
Part of the assessment process by the CCC included suggestions for how future editions of the report can be improved to provide more value about the country’s readiness in response to climate change.
The improvements focus on two areas, how the ARP process can work better for the Government & reporting organisation, and how organisations can improve their climate preparedness.
The CCC’s suggestions were to:
- Make the next cycle mandatory, instead of voluntary, as it was this time
- Expand the scope of the report to include a broader set of organisations and sectors
- Provide more guidance and support for reporting organisations
- Organisations to provide more comprehensive, and where possible quantitative, assessments of risk.
