Search

Sea defence policy in England has proven contentious in the early twenty-first century, with government willing to defend the coast only where it is considered cost effective and not minded to compensate people for any resulting abandonment of homes. Additional focus is brought to this position by the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which reflect a growing emphasis on climate change effects and other environmental hazards, and the wellbeing of the current generation and those to come. This requires policy makers to seek to balance economic, social and environmental dimensions, and to tackle inequalities; with a central commitment of the goals to "leave no one behind". Subsequent to publication of the SDGs, England was promised a revolution in the government's approach to Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM). This paper seeks to understand the nature of this revolution with particular regard to extant issues around just governance. It finds that policy fails to deal with issues over the local acceptability of proposals for change and the bearing of risk, and instead lies principally in the elevation of the problematic concept of resilience and an accompanying ambivalence towards ideas of sustainability and sustainable development. International agreement that compensation should be paid to those countries suffering the worst effects of climate change, including sea level rise, suggests that adoption of a similar approach to vulnerable homeowners might be the more appropriate revolution and bring policy more into line with the aspirations of the SDGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the progress that local authorities in England and Wales are making in adapting to the threat of climate change and taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The responses from surveys of local authorities in England and Wales carried out in 2000 (IDeA , Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: survey of activities and initiatives by local authorities. (Questionnaire and results) Improvement and Development Agency, 2000 ) and 2002 (Allman et al., Climate Change: a survey of local authorities, Local Government Association, 2002) were compared. Progress in implementing the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) five-step methodology (ICLEI , Local Government Implementation of Climate Protection--report to the United Nations, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 1997 ) was used to identify the 'successful' local authorities. The barriers faced by these authorities were then compared with those faced by the remaining local authorities . Most local authorities are not making substantial progress. However, a small number have successfully prepared greenhouse gas emissions inventories, developed strategies and implemented adaptation and greenhouse gas reduction measures. These successful authorities have made progress despite the fact that addressing climate change is not a legal requirement. Their success is due to three key factors. Firstly, they have recognised the secondary benefits of tackling climate change, e.g. potential employment, improved quality of life and reduction in fuel poverty. Secondly, they have the strong political, professional and technical support necessary to champion climate change activities. Finally, they have worked in partnership with utilities, private, public and voluntary groups to raise the finance needed to implement measures both to adapt to climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The engagement of UK local authorities is vital if national government is to meet its climate change commitments. However, with no mandatory targets at local government level, other drivers must explain engagement. Using a Geographic Information System, this study compares the spatial distribution of action on climate change based on past actions and stated intentions to a suite of relevant independent variables. The Action Index created is among the first to quantify climate change engagement beyond a simple binary measure and provides a useful comparative study to recent work in the USA. The Index enables investigation of both mitigation and adaptation, which show different trends in relation to some variables. The study shows that action is strongest where the voting habits of the local population suggest environmental concern and where neighbouring local authorities are also engaging in action on climate change. Physical vulnerability to the effects of climate change is a motivator for action only where the dangers are obvious. Action is less likely where other resource-intensive issues such as crime and housing exist within a local authority area. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]