select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog
The government have published their Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) which sets out a five-year plan to tackle climate change impact.
Professor Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading, said:
“The current heatwave across Europe provides a stark reminder of the need for countries to adapt to climate change as well as to continue to bear down on polluting carbon emissions which are causing the harms in the first place. The Government’s Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), published today, is therefore unusually timely. However, it takes a kitchen sink approach to climate adaptation: the report sets out a vast list of mostly existing commitments, especially around resilience to infrastructure like water supply, telecoms, roads, and rail. What is really required though, as the independent Climate Change Committee pointed out in its report on adaptation earlier this year, is more of a high-level, principled approach to climate adaptation throughout government. There is a real need for climate risk and adaptation to be built into all relevant legislative frameworks as a forceful duty.
“A principled approach is not the only thing missing. The NAP mentions heatwaves and points to the 2022 changes to the Building Regulations which require new residential buildings to include measures to reduce excess heat and unwanted solar gains. However, these only address levels of heat that could impact health and welfare – they do not require levels to be comfortable. But more importantly, they only apply to new builds. There is an urgent need for policy tools to tackle the existing housing stock – much of which saw residents baking in the heatwave temperatures we experienced in the UK last year. These effects are often felt unequally: those on low incomes are often in the hottest accommodation and cannot afford to make improvements themselves. To its credit the NAP does mention “significant variances in the distribution of climate change impacts” and calls for “early and inclusive action” to reduce these impacts to support relevant vulnerable communities. But that too needs much more principled integration to ensure that it is properly embedded in all action on adaptation. As it stands it has a rather marooned, stand-alone quality in the document.”
Dr Andy Russell, Lecturer in Environmental Science, Queen Mary University of London, said:
“This plan once again misses its mandate and sets out no overarching, ambitious climate change adaptation strategy. It appears to merely collect together initiatives that are already happening across government in the hope that those actions will be enough.
“It doesn’t have to be like this. Our national Climate Change Risk Assessment sets out detailed scenarios of the climate hazards we will likely face. The NAP should develop similarly detailed strategies of how to protect our towns and cities, and build resilience into our society. However, after failing to do this in the previous NAPs in 2013 and 2018, we still have no vision of a climate resilient country. We face another 5 years with no coherent or joined-up climate change adaptation strategy.
“To give an example, from the Climate Change Risk Assessment, we know that there could be a 90% increase in the financial damages caused by flooding in the UK by the 2050s. In response, it would be possible to identify the measures needed to avoid this situation. However, the necessary adaptation plans are not in this new NAP and they’re not in the other plans that the NAP points to.”
Prof Jim Hall, Professor of Climate and Environmental Risks, Environmental Change Institute (ECI), University of Oxford, said:
“It is encouraging to see new specific actions to adapt to climate change within the NAP. This NAP feels a lot more substantial than previous versions. However, we cannot yet analyse whether the actions proposed are sufficient to respond to the anticipated climate risks. If everything in the NAP is implemented, will we achieve the government’s vision of being “fully adapted to the changing climate, with resilience against each of the identified climate risks”?”
Prof Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor, University of Oxford, said:
“Countries around the world, including the UK, must invest in infrastructure to adapt to climate change. However, there remain significant uncertainty about the nature of climate change at the regional level, particularly in terms of the hydrological cycle. For any country, a first-order problem is to quantify changes in the relative threat of heat and drought on the one hand, storm and flood on the other. A particular issue for the UK concerns long lived anticyclones, since these bring both water and wind drought (the latter relevant for our renewable energy climate mitigation policies). If these anticyclones increase significantly in frequency – plausible given the reduction in pole-to-equator temperature difference due to accelerated Arctic warming – we will need more reservoir capacity. Many climate scientists believe the only way to reduce uncertainty in future regional climate is with much higher resolution models. However, climate is so interconnected, this is really a global problem – changes in anticyclone frequencies over the UK depend on changes in El Nino frequency in the tropical Pacific. To tackle the problem with the urgency it deserves, a recent climate modelling summit in Berlin (https://eve4climate.org/) has proposed a network of international climate prediction centres, something I fully endorse.”
Dr Raquel Nunes, Assistant Professor in Environmental Change and Public Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, said:
“The focus on assets, particularly physical assets outlined in Third National Adaptation Programme, is welcomed and cannot be understated when considering factors that increase vulnerability to heat but should not be limited to business and industry. Physical assets include also key infrastructure such as schools, homes, hospitals, care homes. Therefore, investing in and maintaining adequate physical assets becomes crucial in tackling the adverse effects of heat and protecting people.
“Nevertheless, the importance of physical assets extends beyond business and industry as well as key infrastructure. Access to affordable energy, water supply, sanitation, and telecommunication facilities are also part of the physical assets that play a crucial role in heat resilience.
“Despite some advances, more needs to be done to reduce the health-related impacts of heatwaves. In addition to physical assets, other types of assets, such as human, financial, social, and place-based assets, are also influential in reducing vulnerability to heat. Human assets, including education, skills, and good health, enable individuals to make informed decisions and take appropriate actions to protect themselves during heatwaves. Financial assets, such as income and savings, allow individuals to afford necessary adaptations, such as purchasing fans or air conditioning units. Social assets, such as networks and relationships of trust, provide support and resources that can be crucial during heat emergencies. Place-based assets, such as access to public amenities and services, contribute to overall resilience and well-being.
“In summary, the development and implementation of an asset-based approach as illustrated above, linking assets and adaptation to extreme temperatures (heat and cold), showcases a key pathway that individuals, governments, policymakers, researchers and practitioners can use to ensure effective adaptation and promote health and well-being for all in a changing world.”
Dr Bonnie Waring, Senior Lecturer, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London, said (commenting specifically on the section on natural systems):
“The third National Adaptation Programme correctly recognises that protecting and restoring the natural world is a key ingredient for a cohesive climate adaptation strategy. Unfortunately, the Programme does not go nearly far enough, largely restating prior commitments to habitat restoration which themselves were inadequate. The UK has already lost more biodiversity than most nations in western Europe, most of our woodlands are in poor condition, and populations of insects, birds, and mammals have steeply declined just in the past two decades – we need bold commitments to large-scale habitat restoration if we are to reverse these trends. We cannot effectively adapt to the impacts of climate change if the ecosystems upon which we depend are also in such poor condition.”
Prof Richard Betts MBE of the University of Exeter and Met Office, who led the technical analysis for the 3rd Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) that informed NAP3, said:
“It was very clear from our analysis in CCRA3 that the UK is not yet prepared for the changes in climate that are already happening, let alone those to which we are already committed in the future. We need to urgently ramp up actions on adaptation across all sectors of society, including those outlined in NAP3 which are important and welcome, as well as urgently reducing emissions in order to limit further climate change. The sooner we start in earnest, the better prepared we will be.”
Prof Hugh Montgomery, Professor of Intensive Care Medicine, UCL; and Co-Chair of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, said:
“The last three years has revealed the impacts of climate change worldwide, with floods, fires, storms and droughts becoming ever more frequent and severe. These impacts will worsen steadily and unavoidably in coming years, impacting housing stock, critical infrastructure, food prices and availability, water supplies and more, and driving increases in migration. As such, It is absolutely right that adaptation plans are built into every aspect of UK policy. But it is doubtful, in reality, whether today’s society can be sustained through adaptation, unless we limit the harm which comes towards us. This means reducing global greenhouse gas emissions at massive pace and scale. In this, we must demand that politicians show real leadership.”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge, Prof Dame Julia King DBE FREng FRS, Chair of the Adaptation Committee of the CCC (Climate Change Committee), said:
“This is progress on previous plans, but we are disappointed that the Government hasn’t used this opportunity to go further to build the UK’s resilience to climate change. In another summer of gruelling hot temperatures, water shortages and wildfires, it’s hard to make sense of that decision. We are at the stage where promising further action is not enough.
“I nevertheless welcome Defra’s willingness to respond to our advice. It acknowledges every climate risk we cited in our most recent assessment. Sadly, this is not a plan containing extensive new commitments. The argument for a stronger response has not been won across government. I urge Ministers to build on this with much greater ambition. The scale of the climate impacts we are seeing make clear that resilience to climate change should be a much greater national priority.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-adaptation-programme-to-tackle-climate-impact
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/third-national-adaptation-programme-nap3
Declared interests
Dr Andy Russell: “I have worked in the Climate Change Committee Secretariat (2017-2020);
I have worked in Defra (2020; not the NAP team).”
Prof Jim Hall: “I’m supporting (funded by) Ofwat and the EA with analysis of strategic options for water supply;
I’m a consultant for National Grid ESO;
I’m a (paid) Commissioner of the National Infrastructure Commission.”
Prof Tim Palmer: “No conflict of interest.”
Dr Raquel Nunes: “I have no conflicts of interest.”
Dr Bonnie Waring: “No conflicts.”
Prof Richard Betts: “I am employed part-time by the Met Office which receives funding for climate change research from Defra.
I was contracted by the Climate Change Committee to lead the Technical Report for CCRA3 which informed NAP3.
I am now contracted by the Climate Change Committee to act as an Expert Advisor to the Adaptation Committee for the next risk assessment, CCRA4.”
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.