Our problem, nationally, is that we are currently very poorly prepared. Research is essential in understanding these risks, in knowing our response options, for understanding how to pay for adaptation, and considering what roles can be played by households, businesses, governments, and NGOs. Conventional markets produce only weak signals for adaptation research, for a variety of reasons. In short, this is an area of policy that necessitates government initiative.
Expressed charitably, Australia has come to this issue late. Although adaptation rated a mention in the first two national greenhouse policies of 1992 and 1998, it was a weakly conceived and shallow theme tagged onto various climate change impacts programs. Things were little better through the early 2000s. My rough estimate is that there were a few dozen research projects directly funded by the federal government on adaptation over more than two decades, excluding the CSIRO’s own program. But better late than never. In 2007, the Council of Australian Governments supported a $126 million program into climate change adaptation. Then Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull, awarded Griffith University the five-year program for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and its associated National Climate Change Adaptation Research Fund that opened for business in 2008. At last, Australia had a national adaptation research program worthy of the name.
The research program came together quickly and effectively. A national program was developed around a set of strategic themes: emergency management, freshwater biodiversity, human health, indigenous communities, marine biodiversity and resources, primary industries, settlements and infrastructure, and terrestrial biodiversity.
Each theme was led by an expert group and each produced their own research program and accompanying set of priorities. Importantly, the program sought to leverage research funds and encouraged projects that had other sources of research funding.
Comments