Copyright © 2011 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Pittock, J. 2011. National climate change policies and sustainable water management: conflicts and synergies. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/ art25/ Synthesis, part of a Special Feature on The Energy-Water Nexus National Climate Change Policies and Sustainable Water Management: Conflicts and Synergies Jamie Pittock 1 ABSTRACT. Even in the absence of climate change, freshwater ecosystems and the resources they providefor people are under great pressure because of increasing demand for water and declines in water quality. The imminent onset of climate change will exacerbate these impacts, placing even greater pressure onalready stressed resources and regions. A plethora of national climate change policies have been adoptedthat emphasize structural adjustment in the energy sector and increasing carbon sinks. To date, most publicdebate on water has focused on the direct impacts of climate change on hydrology. However, there isgrowing evidence that climate change policies themselves may have substantial additional and negativeimpacts on freshwater resources and ecosystems and may thus result in maladaptation. To avoid suchmaladaptation, integrated, coordinated policy making is required. In this paper, national climate changepolicies from Australia, Brazil, China, the European Union (EU), India, Mexico, South Africa, Tanzania, and the United Kingdom are compared to: (i) identify where negative trade-offs exist between climatechange policies and freshwater resources, (ii) analyze where institutions and structures exist to optimizeintegration among climate, water, and biodiversity policies, and (iii) provide a much needed overview froma broad selection of countries with a view to identifying further opportunities for theoretical explorationand testing. The synergies and conflicts among climate, energy, water, and environmental policies createadditional challenges for governments to develop integrated policies to deliver multiple benefits. Successfactors for better policy development identified in this assessment and synthesis include engagement ofsenior political leaders, cyclical policy development, multi-agency and stakeholder processes, and strongeraccountability and enforcement measures. Key Words: Adaptation; climate change; conservation; energy; governments; policies; rivers INTRODUCTION Sustaining freshwater ecosystem services and responding adequately to climate change are two ofthe greatest challenges facing society (Rockström et al. 2009, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment(MEA) 2005a). Looking through the lens of nationalclimate change policies of nine governments, thisresearch examines if and how governments considerconflicts and potential synergies with linked, non- climate sectors in energy, water, and biodiversityconservation, and whether institutions are in placeto manage such sectoral integration. The water and climate change problem Globally, freshwater resources and biodiversity arethreatened by non-climate drivers, resulting ingrowing water scarcity and significant declines inpopulations of freshwater species (MEA 2005b). Itis anticipated that climate change impacts will bemost immediately felt through direct impacts onwater resources, including changes in precipitationand runoff, more extreme events such as floods and droughts, and declines in water quality, includingthose resulting from more frequent algal blooms(Bates et al. 2008). 1Australian National University Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ There are many ways that our societies can chooseto respond to climate change, and much of thecurrent debate focuses on mitigating greenhouse gasemissions, which in turn relies on technologies thatconsume a lot of water or have significant impactupon freshwater ecosystems, e.g., growing more crops for biofuels. In considering whether additional water use resulting from climate policiesmatters, the different types of water and their use inclimate change response measures are summarized, before considering the institutional implications. Types of water and water use Water flows can be categorized as green water (orvapor) that is available and used through planttranspiration, and liquid or blue water (Rockströmet al. 1999). Human water use involves withdrawalfrom the natural environment and consumption(transforming water or turning it to vapor); anotherportion may be returned to freshwater ecosystemsin liquid form (World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) 2009). Water use assessmentsusually focus on blue water (Rockström and Gordon2001), of which around 70% of withdrawn water isused in irrigated agriculture, and 20% in industrialand energy production (WWAP 2009). The increasing importance of green water in meetingworld food demand (Rockström et al. 1999, Comprehensive Assessment of Water Managementin Agriculture (CAoWMiA) 2007) is one indicationthat alternative uses of water may have seriousconsequences, highlighting the need for betterconjunctive management of green and blue water, termed ecohydrological landscape management(Rockström and Gordon 2001). A further consideration for managing the energy– water nexus is whether water needs are met byincreasing supply or reducing demand, includingthrough increased water use productivity (Butlerand Memon 2006, Pittock and Lankford 2010). Climate change is anticipated to increase demandfor water use, to replace losses from greaterevaporation, for use in cooling, and in energy supply(Bates et al. 2008, WWAP 2009). There is a relationship between water supply and treatment, and demand for energy (Reffold et al. 2008, Stillwellet al. 2011), so increasing supply of water mayexacerbate greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, water-related natural disasters, such as droughts orfloods, are expected to increase in frequency withclimate change, which may exacerbate the impacts on water-dependent climate change response measures (Bates 2008, Pittock 2009a). These typesof water and issues in water use need to be considered in crafting climate change policies forlow-carbon energy generation, carbon sequestration, and adaptation. Energy generation Energy is the most significant sector to be adjustedin our attempts to respond to climate change, andmost energy generation technologies use blue water(Inhaber 2004, Smart and Aspinall 2009). Largevolumes of water can be withdrawn, used, and returned to the aquatic environment, often withreduced quality, such as in once-through cooling inthermoelectric power stations and in hydroelectricpower generation. Smaller volumes of water maybe consumed through evaporation in steam generation and cooling processes or from hydroelectric facilities (Hutson et al. 2004, Smartand Aspinall 2009). In the United States, forexample, 39% of total freshwater withdrawals, including 52% of surface-water withdrawals areused in thermoelectric power generation, but thisamounts to just over 2% of total water consumption(Hutson et al. 2004, Stillwell et al. 2011). Althoughenergy generation is a modest consumer of waterglobally, an increase in consumption matters because energy generation is often concentrated in areas where water is already scarce, where electricity supply has been or is likely to be curtailedby water shortages, and where increased withdrawals for energy generation have been proposed at the expense of environmental objectives, including in Australia, France, and theUnited States (Hightower and Pierce 2008, Smartand Aspinall 2009, Newell et al. 2011, Stillwell etal. 2011). Global energy consumption is expectedto grow by 50% by 2030, thus increasing demandfor water use in production and raising the stakesfor scarce water resources (Hightower and Pierce2008). The water footprint of energy technologies variesconsiderably, and thus, policy makers have a rangeof options for managing the energy–water nexus. Fossil, nuclear, solar, and wind energy can be produced with relatively modest water supplies, butconsumption in hydropower, geothermal, and bioenergy production is one to two orders of magnitude higher than this first group of technologies (Inhaber 2004, Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2008). Energy from biofuel production, for instance, has been promoted by governments in Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ countries like China and India, where there are water shortages and the required green and blue water forbiofuel crop production may not be available (deFraiture et al. 2008). Furthermore, greater use oflow-carbon energy-production technologies, includingconcentrated solar, geothermal, and wind technologies, are being considered for arid andsemi-arid regions, such as in Australia (Smart andAspinall 2009) and the United States (Johnson2009). Although it is technically possible to use less waterin thermal energy systems through dry coolingtechnologies, this incurs energy-efficiency penalties. Dry cooling in solar thermal plants may reducewater consumption by 90% but is less energyefficient (-1–8%) and incurs greater costs (+2– 10%), particularly in hotter environments (Department of Energy (DoE) 2008, Johnson 2009). Furthermore, the intermittent nature of energygeneration by solar and wind systems requires themto have energy storage and back-up systems, andthe most widely deployed technology to date ishydropower, which has a large blue water footprintwhere evaporation is high (Inhaber 2004). Carbon sequestration Many carbon sequestration methods also use considerable volumes of blue and green water. Forinstance, in most situations, afforestation increases evapotranspiration and reduces inflows into aquifers and watercourses (Herron et al. 2002, Calder 2007, van Dijk and Keenan 2007), withconsequences even in humid environments (Calderand Newson 1979). In another example, the addedinternal energy and cooling requirements for carboncapture and storage (CCS) technology may increaseblue water consumption in CCS power plants by aquarter (National Energy Technology Laboratory(NETL) 2008, Johnson 2009, Smart and Aspinall2009). Hence, policies that favor carbon sequestration technologies could substantiallyincrease demand for water. Adaptation and water Water-related climate adaptation measures mayinclude supply-side, infrastructure-based, hard- path solutions, in the form of more dams, watertransfers, and flood levees. Alternatively, soft-pathsolutions, such as decentralized systems, demandmanagement, and ecosystem-based measures, maymeet many societal needs for water services withlower water consumption and fewer impacts on the environment (Gleick 2002, Kabat and Schaik 2003, Pittock 2009b). Water is fully allocated in many regions(Falkenmark and Molden 2008), and demand forwater by other users is increasing dramatically, especially in agriculture (CAoWMiA 2007). Therefore, even modest increases in water demand for energy production, carbon sequestration, andclimate change adaptation are important becauseother human users and the environment will be affected. Other than for biofuels (de Fraiture et al. 2008), data are not yet available to assess quantitatively how much the full range of climatechange and related policy priorities adopted by thegovernments increase water use or impact on freshwater ecosystems. Instead, this assessmentexamines national policies to identify the interplaybetween the sectors to discern whether conflicts or synergies have been recognized and to documentthe presence of institutions that may facilitate policyintegration as a first step toward understanding thenexus among climate, energy, and water policies. The institutional challenge To manage climate change and to sustain water resources and ecosystems, institutional settingsmust promote integrated approaches to optimizingoutcomes in different sectors, including for water, biodiversity, climate, and energy (Bates et al. 2008, MEA 2005a). In the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), theworld’s governments have committed to addressclimate change in an integrated and holistic manner(United Nations (UN) 1992b) to prevent dangerousclimate change (Article 2) by implementing nationalprograms for mitigation and adequate adaptation toclimate change (Article 4.1(b)), and by takingclimate change considerations into account, to theextent feasible, in their relevant social, economic, and environmental policies and actions (Article 4.1(f)). In other international agreements, nationalgovernments have committed to achieve: wise useof all wetlands (including rivers and estuaries) (Ramsar Secretariat 2009); significant reductions inthe rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010 (UN 1992a); and halving of poverty by 2015, including throughthe expansion of water-dependent services (UnitedNations General Assembly (UNGA) 2000). Solutions to environmental problems, such as climate change and water resource degradation, require long-term integration of economic, social, Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ and environmental policies, and this poseschallenges for governmental systems. This researchconsiders the types of institutions that may promoteeffective integration of climate and water policies. Climate change policy is a subset of sustainabledevelopment or environmental policy and is similarly broad in geographic and sectoral scope(Dovers and Hezri 2010). Drawing on the debate oneffective environmental policy integration, Rossand Dovers (2008) assessed Australian state andfederal government institutions to identifyadministrative mechanisms. Four types of integrative institutions were identified, namely: constitutional mechanisms and legislation; horizontaland vertical coordinating mechanisms; lead agencies; and advisory, consultative, and reviewbodies. In this research, Ross and Dovers’ (2008) framework is adapted and applied as an objectivemeans of assessing and comparing investments bygovernments in integrated policy development, implementation, and adaptation. Focusing on national climate change institutions, this assessmentidentifies examples and lessons and then drawsconclusions for more effective integration of climate change policies with sustainable water management and other objectives. METHODS The policy analysis undertaken in this research isfocused on policy style and detail (Dovers 2005) and based on the adopted policies of the jurisdictionsconcerned. This initial assessment is an overview of institutional design and policies in isolation, described as “thin institutionalism,” rather than also assessing the rules in use (“new” or “thick” intuitionalism) (Young 2002), which would be alogical next step to follow up the key findings fromthis research. Identifying trends, barriers, and betterpractices in actual policy settings is an essential firststep in understanding government priorities andchoices in managing this integration issue, whichhas only recently received attention in the contextof climate change. Integration among key components of energy, water, and climate policies has been assessed in asmall number of jurisdictions, notably in Australia(Proust et al. 2007, Smart and Aspinall 2009, Newellet al. 2011), the United Kingdom (Reffold et al. 2008), and the United States (Inhaber 2004, Hightower and Pierce 2008, Stillwell et al. 2011). However, lack of a structured assessment of a broader sample of countries to identify trends andissues is a major gap addressed by this research. Inorder to balance the need for depth of research vs. breadth of geographic coverage, nine jurisdictionswere selected for assessment to cover a range ofgeographic and economic settings. Case-study jurisdictions were chosen on the basis of the following criteria: 1. breadth, involving assessment across ninejurisdictions, rather than focusing on a fewcountries in depth, which would provide littlescope for comparison; 2. a range of countries representing varyingdegrees of development, including least developed, countries with emerging economies, and developed nations; 3. jurisdictions where physical or economic water scarcity is a problem in at least a significant part of the nation (CAoWMiA2007), which may be anticipated to driveintegration of relevant policies; 4. the presence of relevant sectoral policies; and 5. sufficient and accessible material describingpolicy content. Access to material was aided by the author’s ongoing research in most of these jurisdictions withthe environmental organization, WWF, which assisted in locating policy data, including throughadvice from local WWF staff (Pittock 2009b). In addition to using research and data compiled fromon-going WWF-funded research, the national climate change policies were located online fromthe governments concerned or from the UNFCCC’sdatabase, and those used are listed in Table 1. This research has also drawn on the relevant water and energy policies for these jurisdictions. These weremainly accessed in May and August 2009. Thepolicies for the United Kingdom apply primarily toEngland and Wales. The data were checked withcolleagues in these countries to ensure that an accurate overview of the key policies was assessedin this research. In a few instances, where countries have not formally adopted a policy or policies, statements by government officials, draft policies, or other government documents have been used, asindicated in Table 1. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Table 1. Policy data sources by jurisdiction Jurisdiction Climate Energy Water Biodiversity National priorities / 5year plan Australia Carbon Pollution Renewable EnergyNational 1996 National No formal statement, Reduction Scheme Bill Demonstration Program 2009;Water Strategy climate and water were 2009; National Climate Global Carbon Capture andInitiative 2004, key issues in 2007Change AdaptationStorage Institute 2009; LowWater Act election Framework 2007 Emissions Technology2008 Demonstration Fund 2006 European White Paper, Adapting toFramework for the promotionWater Biodiversity2005–2009 EU strategic Union climate change, towards anof energy from renewableFramework action plans 2001 directives European framework forsources 2009; Emission Directive 2001 action 2009 Trading System 2009; standards for fuels and biofuels 2009; regulatory framework forcarbon capture and storage2009 EnglandThe Climate Change ActMeeting the Energy Challenge:Water ConservingNo national priorityand Wales 2008; Adapting to Climatea White Paper on Energy MayResources biodiversity—thestatement or long-term Change Programme 2008 2007; Energy Act 2008 Strategy forUK approachplan was foundEngland &2007 Wales 2009 Brazil Executive SummaryNational Energy Plan 2005–National National Yes, but no integrationNational plan on Climate2030, 2006 hydroelectricityWater Act Biodiversitywas apparentChange, 2008 plan 1997 and plan Policy 2002 China China’s National Climate Water law 2002 By sub-sectorNational Yes, 11th 5-year plan, Change Program —renewable Biodiversityintegration was apparent energy 2007 Strategy orAction Plan, 1994 Action Plan India National Action Plan on Energy Policy 2007 National 2006 Yes, but no integrationClimate Change 2008 Water PolicyEnvironmental was apparent2002 Policy Mexico National Strategy onNational Energy ProgramNational 2000 National Yes, 5-year NationalClimate Change 2007,2007–2012 Water Plan BiodiversityDevelopment PlanExecutive Summary.2007–2012 Strategy orincorporates mitigationSpecial Program onAction Plan measures Climate Change 2009 South South Africa Initial Integrated Energy Plan 2003 Water Act Final draft 2005 Not listed as key issues Africa Communication Under the 1998 on www.gov.zaUnited Nations Framework in March 2009 on Climate Change 2000; Ministerial media release and presentation, 28 July2008 Tanzania United Republic ofn/a 1991 Water 1997 Not listed as key issuesTanzania National Policy Environment on www.tanzania.gov.tzAdaptation Program ofPolicy in May 2009Action 2007 Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ The research has three components. Firstly, theClimate adaptation policy and water-related water use implications in government climate policymeasures priorities for greenhouse gas mitigation measureswere assessed. Secondly, the water-related aspectsThe extent to which national policies on climateof climate adaptation policy were examined. change adaptation incorporated water resources wasFinally, the institutional mechanisms for integratingassessed based on the relevant climate change, climate policy with other sectors were reviewed.water, or other appropriate policies and laws. The methodologies applied are as follows. Scoring was undertaken on a three-point scale: Y (green) = yes, the measure is favored (or TClimate policy and water-related greenhouse= target set); gas mitigation measures In part (yellow) = partial application of the The extent to which climate mitigation policiesmeasure; consider water resources implications was assessedby noting the priority afforded to energy and carbonN (red) = no, the measure is not specifically sequestration technologies with large water cited. footprints (Inhaber 2004, Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2008), or alternatively, where better water Generic policies for more research and capacitymanagement can contribute to carbon mitigation.building, other than monitoring, modeling, andAlthough not regarded as a technology with a largeearly warning, were not identified separately but arewater footprint, nuclear power was included due tocommon to almost all of these adaptation strategies. the high risk that these plants will need to be shutOther categories describe the types of water-relateddown in periods of water scarcity or in heat waves,adaptation interventions commonly prioritized insuch as that experienced in France in 2003, ornational climate adaptation and water policies. operate and compromise freshwater ecosystems(Hightower and Pierce 2008). Scoring was undertaken on a three-point scale: Climate policy: institutional settings for integration T (green) = technology favored with Drawing on Ross and Dovers’ (2008) framework, quantitative targets for deployment; the institutional settings in each jurisdiction forintegrating climate change policies within . Y (yellow) = prioritized but without a government, and across different levels of quantum for implementation, or the government and sectors, as well as for identifyingtechnology is actively encouraged via a and avoiding perverse outcomes, were assessed ongeneral emission trading scheme; and a three-point scale: N (green) = technology is not specifically Y (green) = established institution; cited. In part (yellow) = a measure that partially Measures foreshadowed for research, such as fulfills this function is in place; carbon capture and storage in China, were notincluded, nor were emissions trading schemes citedN (red) = no institution is in place. without a commitment to implementation, as inMexico. Although many policies include genericThree constitutional mechanisms and legislationcommitments to such measures as energywere assessed, namely: efficiency, they were only scored positively if awater-related technology was cited, such as greater1. legislation that codifies measures to respondefficiency in water supply systems. “Water focus”to climate change; is a qualitative judgment by the author on the importance of the water-related technologies as a2. integrated climate policy that combines portion of the measures proposed in the nationalmeasures for both climate mitigation andmitigation policy on a three-point scale of low,adaptation; andmedium, or high. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ 3. iterative processes that ensure that climateresponse measures are periodically reviewedand updated to incorporate new knowledge. Two main coordinating mechanisms were considered. Firstly, the quality of intra- governmental institutions that bring togetherdifferent sectoral agencies of government to develop whole-of-government climate policies wasassessed. Ideally, this horizontal integrationmechanism is in addition to regular institutions, such as cabinet meetings, so as to provide specificexpertise and resources to manage climate change. Secondly, inter-governmental institutions were examined, which bring together national (or EU), provincial (or EU Member States), and local levelsof government to progress climate policies. Ideally, this vertical integration mechanism is in addition toregular institutions, such as heads of government orparliamentary (e.g., senate) processes, so as to provide specific expertise and resources to manageclimate change. The designation of lead agencieswas considered, namely government institutionswith the capacity to coordinate, integrate, influence, and enhance climate policy implementation acrossgovernment, which usually report to either the firstminister (Prime Minister or President). Ideally, theyshould have the capacity to influence all government portfolios and be captured by none. Three types of advisory, consultative, and reviewbodies were also assessed. Firstly, multi- stakeholder institutions were examined, that bringtogether civil society and business representativesfrom different sectors to inform government climatepolicy development and promote implementation. Secondly, the presence of an independentgovernment body that provides “objective” andpublic reports to parliament or senior governmentleaders on environmental problems and solutions was assessed, such as a commissioner for the environment or sustainable development commission. Finally, provision for periodic and public state-ofthe- environment reports to parliament and/or seniorgovernment leaders on environmental problems andsolutions was considered. RESULTS The water-related aspects of the national climatechange mitigation and adaptation policies were assessed and tabulated. Table 2 shows the extent to which national climate mitigation policies haveimplications for water resources. Table 3 depicts the extent to which national policieson climate change adaptation incorporate waterresources based on the relevant climate change, water, or other appropriate policies and laws. Table 4 shows the institutional settings in eachjurisdiction for integrating climate change policieswithin governments, across different levels of government and sectors, as well as for identifyingand avoiding perverse outcomes. DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL POLICIES— DEVELOPED NATIONS Australia Australia’s national climate policies amount to anad hoc collection of discrete and conflictingmeasures, which also do not consider conflicts in sustaining water resources and ecosystems. Thesemeasures have focused on the reduction of carbon emissions (Government of Australia 2008), including through subsidies for biofuel productionand the promotion of carbon capture and storage, although there has been no consideration of theirwater use impacts. An independent governmentadviser has also promoted retrofitting existinghydropower dams as pumped storage operations tostore excess energy from new wind farms (Garnaut2008). A proposed Carbon Farming Initiative couldsee carbon credits funding carbon sequestrationthrough afforestation without apparent considerationof resulting reductions of runoff (Department ofClimate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) 2010). The government’s on-again, off-againattempts to set a price on carbon (Government ofAustralia 2008) may exacerbate these conflicts withwater resources if implemented poorly. Australianenergy, water, and climate policies are beset withconflicting subsidies and incentives, including: mandatory renewable energy targets, subsidies forbiofuel production and carbon capture and storage, and a diesel fuel rebate the favors the fossil fuels sector. This lack of integrated action contrasts withmore sophisticated work in water-sector institutions, including the National Water Initiative (Commonwealthof Australia et al. 2004) and the Agreement on Murray Darling Basin Reform (Commonwealth of Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Table 2. Climate policy and water-related greenhouse gas mitigation measures Energy generation Carbon sequestration Other mitigation and water Jurisdiction Water focus Biomass New hydropower Pumped storagehydropower Nuclear Carbon captureand Forestryexpansion Wetlands conservation Energyefficiencyin water Energyfrom sewage storage Australia Low Y N N N Y Y N N N EuropeanUnion Medium T Y Y Y Y N N N N Englandand Wales Low Y N N T T N N Y N Brazil High Y T N Y N Y N N N China High T T N T N T Y N T India High T T T T N T N Y Y Mexico Low T T N N N T N N N South Low N Y N T Y Y N Y N Africa Tanzania Medium Y Y N N N Y N N N Australia et al. 2008) that are incorporating muchmore practical, target-driven measures to adapt toclimate change. Despite the lack of a coherent national climatechange policy, the then newly elected Australiangovernment created an independent Department ofClimate Change in 2008, with a cabinet ministerreporting directly to the Prime Minister. There isalso a sub-committee of cabinet. Althoughleadership at the highest political level is likely toenhance Australia’s climate change responses, measures may also be needed to ensure that othergovernment agencies adequately collaborate withthe new department and implement climate changemitigation and adaptation measures. Australia appears to lack the most common integrativeinstitutions at the national scale. European Union The EU is an example of a jurisdiction that hasstrong sectoral policies that are poorly integrated, as illustrated by a climate change mitigation policythat did not initially and still does not effectively manage the perverse impacts on freshwater resources and ecosystems. The EU’s Energy and Climate Change Policy 2007 known as 20:20 by 2020 (20% less emissions and 20% more renewableenergy by 2020) is implemented in part through anemissions trading scheme (European Commission2008). Notably, the policy substantially conflatesclimate change and energy initiatives. The adoptionof a target for 10% of all transport fuels to comefrom biofuels by 2020 sparked a backlash based onconcerns of potential impacts on people, habitats, and water, and resulted in the adoption of minimumstandards for biofuels sold in the UK. A similar debate over the standards applying to Clean Development Mechanism hydropower Certified Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Table 3. Climate adaptation policy and water related measures Jurisdiction Water Hydro-Supply side Efficiency and environmental restorationfocus climatic monitoring, modelingand earlywarning More Interbasin Groundwater Rainwater Desalination Greater Re-Restoration Restoration surface transfers management harvesting efficiency allocation of water of storage sources /floodplains catchments Australia Low T N T T N T T T N N EuropeanUnion High In part – vulnerabilityfocus N N Y N N Y N Y In part inferred Englandand Wales Medium Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Brazil Low Y N Y N In part N N N N N China High Y Y T Y Y Y Y Y Y Y India High Y Y Y Y Y Y T N Y N Mexico Medi-Y N N Y N N N N Y N um South Africa Low Y Y Y N Y N Y Y In part inferred N Tanzania High Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Emission Reduction certificates purchased into theEuropean emission trading scheme has exposed theneed for more robust certification procedures(Pittock 2010a). New water-related developmentswithin the EU are regulated by their rigorous Water Framework Directive (European Commission 2001) that requires “good” ecological status to beachieved for all EU waters by 2015. The Directivegives priority to implementation of environmentalflows, and approvals for new water infrastructureare likely to be limited. The EU’s adaptation policy(European Commission 2007, van Nood 2008) proposes to focus on three main responses: enhancing human capacities; green infrastructure— working with nature to reduce impacts, such as byrestoring floodplains; and gray infrastructure— climate proofing existing and future infrastructure. It is notable that the adaptation policy is lagging behind the mitigation measures: a comprehensivepolicy is not proposed until 2013. A key feature of the EU institutional framework isthat these directives can be enforced through third- party complaints and by the European Commissionand European Court of Justice, resulting in verylarge fines for non-compliant member states. Perhaps because of the multitude of mainstreamintegrative mechanisms, sometimes described asthe “open method of policy coordination” and“networked governance” (Hodson and Maher 2001, Laffan 2001, Schout and Jordan 2005) (albeit oftencriticized for inadequate environmental policyintegration), the EU appears to lack many commonintegrative climate change policy institutions. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Table 4. Climate policy institutional settings Note: CC= climate change. Jurisdiction Legislation Integratedclimate policy(mitigationand adaptation) Iterative policy Intra- governmentalinstitution/s Intergovernmentalinstitution/ s Central policyunit Multi- stakeholder institution/s Commissioner for the environment State-of-theenvironment reporting Australia In part – ETS law tabled N N In part – Sub- Committee of Cabinet N In part – Deptof CC N N Y EuropeanUnion Y – 2009 legislativepackage N – policies separate Y – cyclicalpolicy review N In part – proposedImpact andAdaptationSteeringGroup N – DG Environment N In part – ECplays this role Y United Kingdom Y – The CC Act 2008 Y – The CC Act 2008 Y – 5 yearlyprogram cycle N In part – Adapting toCC UK group In part – Deptof Energy andCC N Y – Sustainable DevelopmentCommission In part Committee on CC In part – Sustainable DevelopmentCommission, focused on government Brazil N In part – 2008. Adaptationis weak Y – implementationthrough 5-yearplans Y - Inter- Ministerial Committee on CC Y – Brazilian Forum on CC Y – Office of the President Y – Brazilian Forum on CC Y - Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos N China N Y - 2007 Y – implementationthrough 5-yearplans Y – National Coordination Committee on CC Y – system forcoordinatingwork, includingbetween national & local governments Y – National Leading Groupto Address CC, National Development& Reform Comm. N N N India N Y - 2008 Y – implementationthrough 5-yearplans Y – Coordination Unit for Implementationof nat. plan N N – Ministryfor Environment and Forests Y – AdvisoryCouncil on Climate Change N N Mexico N Y - Special program onCC 2009 N Y – Intersecretarial Commission on CC N N SEMARNAT Y – Consultative Council on CC N N South Africa N N N Y - InterdepartmentalCommittee advises Minister for DEAT N N – DeptEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism Y AdvisoryCommittee to DEAT N N Tanzania N Y – 1997 N Y - The National CC Committee Y - The National CC Committee In part – Vice- President’s Office, Division of Environment In part – one nongov. member on NCCC N N England and Wales The United Kingdom’s government, in its policiesthat apply to England and Wales, has legislated forsubstantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissionsin its Climate Change Act (HM Government 2008b), including in the water sector. However, linkedenergy policy measures would appear to favor, among other policies, greater application of biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power that would consume more water. The government has formed a new Department ofEnergy and Climate Change to lead these initiatives. The Adapting to Climate Change Programme for England (HM Government 2008a) appears vagueand research oriented, with few specific measures or targets. This contrasts markedly with the Environment Agency’s Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales (EA 2009), which proposesa sophisticated range of specific climate adaptation measures, even if they lack targets. The UK contrasts with other jurisdictions in having an independent and expert-based Committee on Climate Change, but in other respects apparentlylacks integrative mechanisms. Commonalities among developed jurisdictions The three developed jurisdictions discussed herehave a number of common elements in their approaches to climate change and water: in particular, they substantially conflate climate andenergy policies, as reflected in legislation and thestructures of government. Despite having regionswith major water scarcity problems, these countrieshave each adopted climate mitigation measures that may substantially impact on water resources without recognizing and managing the conflict. Their adaptation plans lag behind climate mitigationpolicies and tend to consist of vague measures andproposals for more research. In Australia and theUK, in parallel policy initiatives, it is governmentwater agencies that appear to have developed morespecific and practical climate adaptation measures. Despite urging developed countries to enhance theirgovernance, these measures are often lacking inthese developed jurisdictions, for instance, nonehave multi-stakeholder advisory institutions on climate change. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL POLICIES— DEVELOPING NATIONS Brazil Brazil’s National Plan on Climate Change(Government of Brazil 2008), despite its claims tointegration, focuses largely on energy mitigationmeasures and fails to consider interaction with water resources and ecosystems. Major adaptationchallenges are omitted, such as increasing waterscarcity in northeast Brazil. The plan proposesboosting biofuel production from sugar cane (including increasing domestic ethanol use by 11% per year), and expanding hydroelectric generationby 34,460 GW by 2016, which could impact onfreshwater ecosystem services. The considerablepotential to increase hydropower production byupgrading existing dams is not explicitly recognized(World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2004). Extensiveafforestation is also proposed. Biofuels, hydropower, and afforestation have the potential to increasewater consumption significantly. However, the climate change policy processes havethe potential to better integrate policy. The processes are underpinned by a number of presidential decrees, establishing influential institutions: a multi-stakeholder Brazilian Forum on Climate Change and an Inter-Ministerial Committeeon Climate Change coordinated by the Office of thePresident. Day-to-day implementation of the national plan is delegated to an interdepartmentalExecutive Group on Climate Change coordinatedby the Ministry of the Environment. China China’s National Climate Change Program(Government of China 2007:25–50) includes a commitment to “integrate climate change policywith other interrelated policies,” and there are substantial attempts to do this. This is reflected inthe appointment of the powerful National Reformand Development Commission to lead the program, reporting to the State Council, and overseeingimplementation by key agencies. This top-levelleadership may need to be supported by further measures to promote collaboration amonggovernment agencies, accountability, and enforcementfor effective implementation. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ A key water-related commitment is to reduce thevulnerability of water resources by 2010 withmeasures for: “rational exploitation” and allocationof water, building new infrastructure, and anti-floodengineering. The program also promises to “speedup building of the Project of South-to-North WaterDiversion,” the major interbasin transfer project totake water from the Yangtze River basin over athousand kilometers to northern China. In terms of energy, China plans to promote the development ofbioenergy and raise the proportion of renewableenergy (including large-scale hydropower) to 10% by 2010. The expansion of hydropower is qualifiedwith the “precondition of protecting the ecosystem.” The challenge of harmonizing hydropowerdevelopment with nature is illustrated in the upperYangtze River basin, where many proposed damscoincide with river reaches and sub-catchments identified as having high biodiversity conservationvalues. Hence, water resources and ecosystems areexplicitly considered in Chinese climate changepolicies, but there are tensions between energygeneration and water supply, and between “soft” and “hard” approaches to water management. India India has proposed a disparate range of climatechange response measures that do consider water, but the implications for greater water consumptionand other impacts on freshwater ecosystem servicesfrom the hydropower and biofuel targets would benegative and integration mechanisms are not proposed. The Indian National Action Plan on Climate Change (Government of India 2008) defines eight priority “missions.” The politicalimpetus behind the plan is questionable, with anadvisory committee reporting to the Prime Ministerand the Ministry of Environment and Forestsdelegated to coordinate implementation across Union Government agencies. Water is one of eight“national missions,” and includes a target of increasing water use efficiency by 20%. There aremany “no and low regrets” freshwater adaptationmeasures proposed, such as: conjunctive managementof groundwater, rainwater harvesting, tank restoration, wastewater reuse, and (reactive) wetlands conservation (Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) 2009), consistent with academicassessments of water management priorities (Guptaand Deshpande 2004, Amarasinghe et al. 2008). However, the climate policy reiterates support forthe National Water Policy (MWR 2002), which has a greater emphasis on centralized water infrastructure, such as the proposed interlinking ofrivers scheme (MWR 2009). On the ground, initiatives for soft-path measures, like rainwaterharvesting and tank restoration are driven by nongovernment actors, whereas government support isoften ineffective or favors major infrastructureschemes, such as the proposed Polavaram Dam(Gujja et al. 2006, 2009, Pittock 2009b). The focuson the Himalayas and forests is not explained giventhat other biomes and regions are likely to besignificantly impacted. Extensive afforestation isproposed. A massive expansion of hydropower generation isproposed from 30–35,000 MW to 133,700 MW. Uniquely among the national plans assessed, a targetis set to install pumped storage schemes at 56 siteswith 94,000 MW capacity. The policy on hydropower development (Government of India1998) is for “Optimal harnessing of hydro potentialin each river basin.” Furthermore, targets are set forincreased energy production from biofuels. Theplan supports the 2002 national water policy forgreater storage development, “interlinking” 37 rivers around the country (National Water Development Agency (NWDA) 2008), and desalination. These measures would have significant, perverse impacts on freshwater ecosystem services. Mexico Mexico has substantial climate change policies, butthe implications for water resources and ecosystems are mixed and mechanisms for sub-national implementation are unclear. The National Strategy on Climate Change 2007 and Special Program on Climate Change 2009–2012 (Estados Unidos Mexicanos (EUM) 2009, Secretaria de MedioAmiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) andInstituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE) 2009) recognize the magnitude of the problems andinclude a range of substantial mitigation measures, which are incorporated in the 2007–2012 National Development Plan, as well as some adaptationactions. Modest renewable power increases are proposed, including hydropower and biofuel expansion. Large vegetation and land-use targets are included, involving forest restoration and expansion and enhancing protected areas. The proposed adaptation measures for water, althoughlacking targets, are focused on better management of surface and ground water sources, includingwatershed restoration. In Mexico’s 4th National Communication to the UNFCCC, reportedimplementation of adaptation measures lags behindmitigation action (SEMARNAT and INE 2009). The multi-stakeholder and expert-based ConsultativeCouncil on Climate Change and the ministerialIntersecretarial Commission on Climate Changeprovide a strong institutional structure for policydevelopment and implementation, althoughmechanisms to translate this federal policy intostate-level implementation are not evident. South Africa South Africa has a formal climate change policy thatis out of date and incapable of supporting integratedmanagement of climate change and water resourcesand ecosystems. The National Climate Change Response Strategy (Government of South Africa2004) mainly proposes to study the problem. A newpolicy was supposed to be finalized in 2010. Morerecent government statements propose a range of measures that involve water-intensive carbon mitigation options, including carbon capture andstorage, and biofuel production. South Africa isalready water scarce, and is likely to experienceeven less runoff over large parts of the country withclimate change. Surprisingly, their long history ofregulating land uses that reduce stream flow has notbeen translated into climate adaptation policies. More than the other countries assessed here, South Africa appears to afford little political importanceto climate change, with responsibility resting withthe Minister for Environmental Affairs, informed by a Council on Climate Change (advisory) Committee and implemented in part through a Government Climate Change (inter-departmental) Committee. Tanzania On paper, Tanzania has identified priorities foraction and integrative mechanisms, including forwater, but further work is needed to assess whether their adaptation program represents short-lived anddonor-driven action or whether it is a genuine signof government commitment to addressing the challenges of climate change. Tanzania’s National Adaptation Program of Action (United Republic ofTanzania (URT) 2007) takes a comprehensiveoverview of their climate change challenges, Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ appears to have been developed with extensiveconsultation, and identifies a modest number of priorities for practical action, many of them waterrelated. Responsibility for climate change rests withthe Vice-President and this is supported by a National Climate Change Committee. Althoughthese measures appear positive, the government’swebsite makes limited reference to climate changeand does not provide access to key policydocuments, nor are climate mitigation measuresdiscussed. Commonalities among developing jurisdictions The developing country jurisdictions have a numberof commonalities, notably, their climate policiesgenerally integrate mitigation and adaptationmeasures. They have policies in favor of low carbonbut water-intensive energy technologies, with thericher developing countries adopting substantialtargets that will have perverse impacts on waterresources and ecosystems. All of these countrieshave measures for substantial afforestation that do not consider the impacts on green water use andreduction of surface water inflows. Basically, theconflicts between carbon sequestration and energygeneration vs. water resources and ecosystems havenot been recognized or managed. A diverse array ofwater-related climate adaptation measures are proposed, ranging from a few measures in Brazil toa broad range in China, and these include significantinfrastructure and supply-led approaches through tothose that focus on restoration of the natural sources of water. No and low regrets measures have largelybeen overlooked in these nations, such as conservation of wetlands as carbon sinks, and restoration of floodplains to manage floods. Mostof these countries have intra-governmental andmulti-stakeholder coordination mechanisms, but there are few inter-governmental mechanisms toengage sub-national governments. An importantdifference is that many of these nations use 5-yearplans as cyclical policy mechanisms, but all lackclimate change-focused legislation and most do nothave independent review mechanisms. DISCUSSION OF COMMON ELEMENTS Assessment of these national policies demonstrateshow poorly governmental decision makers understand that many energy generation and carbonsequestration technologies largely depend on Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ adequate water supplies. This is a major flaw in theclimate and energy policies examined that needs tobe addressed if objectives are to be met in all relevant sectors (e.g., biodiversity, water, energy, and climate). Currency of key policies It is apparent that many of the sectoral policiesassessed were adopted before the magnitude of thechallenges from climate change were understood. In particular, many nations’ biodiversity policiesappear to be out of date, and to a lesser extent, theirwater policies as well (Table 1). Many of the environmental and water policies are largelypredicated on the assumption of climatic andhydrological stationarity (apart from those of Australia and the UK) (Milly et al. 2008) and areunfit for this era. Many of the policies that do citeclimate change recommend further monitoring andresearch rather than proposing more meaningfulactions (Table 3). There are some indications thatgovernments are beginning to revise out-of-datepolicies, as with South Africa and Australia’s energy policies. Energy and climate policies tend tobe those that are most recent (Table 1). The moreintegrated approaches, such as those of China andthe EU, appear to rely in part on cyclical processesfor policy renewal, such as 5-year plans, consistentwith the findings of Dovers (2005) on better practices for sustainability institutions. Technologies and measures deployed All jurisdictions have adopted carbon sequestrationand energy generation technologies that do notconsider and may substantially impact on green andblue water resources. Biofuel and forestryexpansion are promoted by nearly all countries. Although hydropower is favored by most, themagnitude of the expansion planned in Brazil, China, and India will have significant impacts ontheir freshwater environments and resources (Pittock 2010b). Only India explicitly consideredpumped-storage hydropower (Government of India2008), which may be a lower impact alternative. Expansion of nuclear power is underway in manyjurisdictions, raising questions as to the reliabilityof supplies of cooling water (Hightower and Pierce2008). Measures for carbon capture and storage indeveloped countries appeared oblivious to the additional water requirements of these plants (NETL 2008, Smart and Aspinall 2009). Surprisingly, many synergistic interventions are notspecifically endorsed, including such low regrets measures as wetlands conservation, energyefficiency in water systems, and power generationfrom sewerage (EA 2009). Although a broad spectrum of water-related adaptations are favored by the countries, the degreeof commitment is much less convincing in mostcases compared with mitigation technologies interms of specificity, funding, and targets (Table 3). Some states appear to favor high-impactinfrastructure measures such as long-distance inter- basin water transfers, whereas others tend toward restoring the environment as a source of water. Synergies in adaptation were also neglected, such as restoration of floodplains to better manageextreme floods (Opperman et al. 2009). Policy integration It is apparent that relatively few of the energy andclimate change policies have considered sustainingfreshwater ecosystems services, even where thereis a long history of water scarcity and conflict, as inAustralia (Tables 2 and 3). Those climate and energypolicies that do cite freshwater resources do this interms of greater exploitation for energy generation. Brazil and China make the extra commitments to develop hydropower in a manner that minimizesimpacts on people and the environment (Government of China 2007b), yet implementingthese commitments may require a greatimprovement in standards, accountability and enforcement measures. Surprisingly, a number of countries either have nodetailed overarching climate policy, as with Australia (there is relatively little substance behindthe policy outline cited in Newell et al. (2011) compared with the UK), or overlook key aspects ofa coherent climate change strategy, such as Brazil’sincomplete adaptation measures (Government ofBrazil 2008). It would appear that the more integrated policies, such as those of China and theEU, emerge from jurisdictions with strong centralleadership, cyclical policy processes, and/or robustaccountability mechanisms (such as the EU processes for enforcing directives). A number ofjurisdictions show a growing tendency to explicitlyintegrate climate and energy policies, including theEU, Australia, and South Africa. However, the links Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ to sustainable freshwater ecosystem services appearvery poorly understood. In contrast, a number ofnon-government organizations have gone a stepfurther with broad-scale modeling that seeks toexplicitly consider trade-offs among social wellbeing, the environment, and access to energy, suchas the assessment of different global energy optionsin Climate solutions (WWF 2007). Leadership The degree of engagement of senior national or EUleaders in climate change policy developmentappears to correlate to the extent to which thesepolicies are comprehensive, integrated, and targetdriven. The better policies appear to have beendeveloped under the auspices of senior leaders andministers in multi-sector processes, such as those ofChina (through their NDRC) and the EU. Incontrast, nations where the senior leadership is notengaged, as in South Africa, appear to be languishing. In most countries, environmental ministries are relatively junior governmentagencies, and their assignment in the lead role forcoordinating whole-of-government implementationof national climate change policies, as with Braziland India, raises questions as to how effectively theywill be implemented. Australia has a uniqueinstitutional arrangement with a (new and) separateDepartment of Climate Change; only time will tellwhether this will lead to a more effective national focus on climate change responses, or whether itwill exacerbate sectoral silos within government. Independent review and accountabilitymechanisms Few of the jurisdictions examined had independentreview institutions capable of providing more objective advice to government on these environment and sustainable development policies, which could be a key avenue for identifying andaddressing perverse outcomes or synergies. In thisrole, Brazil has a sustainable developmentcommission, whereas the UK’s is being abolishedin 2011 (Prakash 2011), and the EuropeanCommission (often with third-party engagement) plays a strong enforcement role with the EUMember States. Australia and the EU have “stateof- the-environment” reporting processes. Further research This initial examination of a broad sample of climatechange policies from nine governments has identified a number of issues, trends, and opportunities that should be subject to more detailedanalysis for policy development in specificjurisdictions. There is potential for this overview tobe followed by theoretical exploration and testingof policy and institutional design. Building on thework of de Fraiture et al. (2008) for biofuel production, further assessment could seek to quantify the water use implications of a range ofclimate change response measures. Specificinstitutional elements that could be further examined include: quantifying the costs and benefits of the sectoral vs. integrated approaches inresponding to climate change; assessment of howthese policy settings are implemented in practice (a new institutionalism approach (Young 1999)); factors that favored the establishment, maintenance, and effectiveness of the national integrativemechanisms identified in this research; and the effectiveness of the separate climate changeministries in Australia and the United Kingdom(combining climate change and energy) vs. othermodels of administering national climate change responses. CONCLUSION Regardless of climate change, pollution and thegrowth in demand for water globally are diminishing biodiversity and the quality of life fora vast number of people. Climate change mitigationis an important objective and there are a variety ofalternative responses that could achieve reductionsin greenhouse gas emissions. Many choices, such as greater use of energy technologies like hydropower and biofuels, will consume significantlymore water and impact on the provision of otherfreshwater ecosystem services. Similarly, climatechange adaptation measures may representmaladaptation, in having negative impacts on othersectors, or be synergistic with other sectoral goals. This paper outlines evidence of perverse impactsfrom poorly integrated national and internationalclimate and energy policies on other freshwater ecosystem services. The paper also identifies opportunities for synergies among water, energy, and climate change policies that few governmentshave identified or prioritized, such as carbon sequestration through wetlands conservation, Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ energy generation from sewage, energy efficiencyin water services, and restoration of floodplains. A number of factors are identified as promotingmore sustainable cross-sector policy development, including engagement of high-level leaders; multi- sector forums for enhanced policy development; iterative policies to build on experience of previousperiods; and independent review and enforcementmechanisms. Governments and societies need to apply these lessons to better integrate their sectoralpolicies for climate change, energy, water, and otherrelevant sectors to benefit people and the environment. This overview of the policy settingsfrom a broad range of countries could be followedby: (i) more detailed theoretical exploration andtesting, in terms of policy and institutional design, and (ii) more detailed analysis for policydevelopment in specific jurisdictions. Responses to this article can be read online at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ responses/ Acknowledgments: I thank Eugenio Barrios and Glauco de Freitas foradvice on relevant national policies, and supportfrom the WWF network in undertaking elements ofthis research. Comments on the draft paper fromStephen Dovers, Karen Hussey, the editor, and twoanonymous reviewers were greatly appreciated. LITERATURE CITED Amarasinghe, U. A., T. Shah, and P. G. McCornick. 2008. Seeking calm water: exploring policy optionsfor India’s water future. Natural Resources Forum 32(4):305–315. Bates, B. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. P. Palutikof, editors. 2008. Climate change and water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC). IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. Butler, D., and F. A. Memon. 2006. Water demand management. IWA Publishing, London, UK. Calder, I. R. 2007. Forests and water—ensuringforest benefits outweigh water costs. Forest Ecology and Management 251(1–2):110–120. Calder, I. R., and M. D. Newson. 1979. Land-use and upland water resources in Britain: a strategiclook. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 15(6):1628–1639. Commonwealth of Australia, Government of New South Wales, Government of Victoria, Government of Queensland, Government of South Australia, Government of the Australian Capital Territory andGovernment of the Northern Territory. 2004. Intergovernmental Agreement on a National WaterInitiative. Council of Australian Governments. [online] URL: http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/117national- water-initiative.asp. Commonwealth of Australia, The State of New South Wales, The State of Victoria, The State of Queensland, The State of South Australia and The Australian Capital Territory. 2008. Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform. Council of Australian Governments. [online] URL: http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2008-07-03/ docs/Murray_Darling_IGA.pdf. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Managementin Agriculture (CAoWMiA). 2007. Water for food, water for life. Acomprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan and International Water Management Institute, London, UK and Colombo, Sri Lanka. de Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and Y. Liao. 2008. Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy 10 (S1):67–81. Department of Climate Change and EnergyEfficiency (DCCEE). 2010. Design of the carbon farming initiative. Consultation paper. DCCEE, Canberra, Australia. [online] URL: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/submissions/carbonfarming- initiative.aspx. Department of Energy (DoE). 2008. Concentratingsolar power commercial application study: reducing water consumption of concentrating solarpower electricity generation. Report to Congress. DoE, Golden, Colorado, USA. [online] URL: http: //www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/csp_water_study.pdf. Dovers, S. 2005. Environment and sustainability policy: creation, implementation, evaluation. Federation Press, Annandale, New South Wales, Australia. Dovers, S. R., and A. A. Hezri. 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends ofadaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(2):212–231. Environment Agency. 2009. Water for people and the environment. Water resources strategy for England and Wales. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. [online] URL: www.environment-agency.gov. uk. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (EUM). 2009. Programa Especial de Cambio Climático 2008– 2012. Poder Ejecutivo Federal, EUM, Mexico City, Mexico. (In Spanish) [online] URL: http://www.cambioclimatico.gob.mx/images/stories/PDF/pecc_capitulos. pdf. European Commission. 2001. Directive 2000/60/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 23 October 2000 establishing a framework forCommunity action in the field of water policy. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/ environment/l28002b_en.htm. European Commission. 2007. Adapting to climatechange in Europe - options for EU action. Green paper from the Commission to the Council, theEuropean Parliament, the European Economic andSocial Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2007) 354 final, EuropeanCommission, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: htt p://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= COM:2007:0354:FIN:EN:PDF. European Commission 2008. Combating climate change. The EU leads the way. EuropeanCommission, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: htt p://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/75/en. pdf. Falkenmark, M., and D. Molden. 2008. Wake up torealities of river basin closure. Water Resources Development 24(2):201–215. Garnaut, R. 2008. The Garnaut climate changereview: final report. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, Australia. [online] URL: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.htm. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., A. Y. Hoekstra, and T. H. van der Meer. 2008. Water footprint of bio-energyand other primary energy carriers. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands. [online] URL: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report29-WaterFootprintBioenergy. pdf. Gleick, P. H. 2002. Water management: Soft waterpaths. Nature 418(6896):373–373. Government of Australia. 2008. White paper. Carbon pollution reduction scheme: Australia’s lowpollution future. Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia. [online] URL: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/index.html. Government of Brazil. 2008. Executive summary. National plan on climate change. Decree No. 6263 of 21 November 2007 (English version). Interministerial Committee on Climate Change, Government of Brazil, Brasilia, Brazil. [online] URL: http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/imprensa/ _arquivos/96_11122008040728.pdf. Government of China. 2007. China’s national climate change programme. (English version). National Reform and Development Commission, Beijing, People’s Republic of China. [online] URL: http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/ File188.pdf. Government of India. 1998. Policy on hydro power development. Government of India, Dehli, India. [online] URL: http://www.nhpcindia.com/writereaddata/ English/PDF/hydro-policy.pdf. Government of India. 2008. National action planon climate change. Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change. Government of India, Dehli, India. [online] URL: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf. Government of South Africa (GoSA). 2004. National climate change response strategy. Government of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. [online] URL: www.environment.gov.za/ClimateChange2005/climateChangeResopnseStrategu/ . Gujja, B., S. Dalai, H. Shaik, and V. Goud. 2009. Adapting to climate change in the Godavari Riverbasin of India by restoring traditional water storage systems. Climate and Development 1(3):229–240. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Gujja, B., S. Ramakrishna, V. Goud, and Sivaramakrishna, editors. 2006. Perspectives onPolavaram. A major irrigation project on the Godavari. Academic Foundation, New Dehli, India. Gupta, S. K., and R. D. Deshpande. 2004. Water forIndia in 2050: first-order assessment of available options. Current Science 86(9):1216–1224. Herron, N., R. Davis, and R. Jones. 2002. The effects of large-scale afforestation and climate change onwater allocation in the Macquarie River catchment, NSW, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 65(4):369–381. Hightower, M., and S. A. Pierce. 2008. The energychallenge. Nature 452(7185):285–286. HM Government. 2008a. Adapting to climate change in England. A framework for action. Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, London, UK. [online] URL: www.defra.gov.uk. HM Government. 2008b. Climate Change Act 2008. The Stationery Office Limited, London, UK. [online] URL: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ pdf/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf. Hodson, D., and I. Maher. 2001. The open methodas a new mode of governance: the case of softeconomic policy co-ordination. Journal of Common Market Studies 39(4):719–746. Hutson, S. S., N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, and M. A. Maupin. 2004. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, USA. [online] URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/pdf/ circular1268.pdf. Inhaber, H. 2004. Water use in renewable and conventional electricity production. Energy Sources 26(3):309–322. Johnson, K. M., editor. 2009. Dr Kristina M. Johnson, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy before the Committee onScience and Technology Subcommittee on Energyand Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, 9July 2009 Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., USA. Kabat, P., and H. Schaik. 2003. Climate changesthe water rules: how water managers can cope withtoday’s climate variability and tomorrow’s climatechange. Dialogue on Water and Climate, Delft, TheNetherlands. [online] URL: http://www.waterandclimate.org/?id=CPWCresources340. Laffan, B. 2001. The European Union polity: aunion of regulative, normative and cognitive pillars. Journal of European Public Policy 8(5):709–727. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005a. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005b. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier, and R. J. Stouffer. 2008. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319:573–574. Ministry of Water Resources (MWR). 2002. National water policy. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, New Dehli, India. [online] URL: www.rajirrigation.gov.in/5nwp.htm. Ministry of Water Resources (MWR). 2009. National water mission under national action plan on climate change: comprehensive mission document. Volume I, April 2009. Ministry of WaterResources, Government of India, New Delhi, India. [online] URL: http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/ linkimages/MissionDocument8395131900.pdf. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2008. Estimating freshwater needs to meet futurethermoelectric generation requirements. 2008 update. DOE/NETL-400/2008/1339. September 302008. U.S. Department of Energy, National EnergyTechnology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. [online] URL: www.netl.doe.gov. National Water Development Agency (NWDA). 2008. National Perspective Plan (NPP). National Water Development Agency, Government of India, Dehli, India. [online] URL: www.nwda.gov.in/psublinkdetails.asp?sublinkid=48andlanded=1. Newell, B., D. Marsh, and D. Sharma. 2011. Climate–energy–water: the need for integrated adaptation and mitigation policies in the Australianelectricity sector. Ecology and Society 16(2):15. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/ iss2/art15 Opperman, J. J., G. E. Galloway, J. Fargione, J. F. Mount, B. D. Richter, and S. Secchi. 2009. Sustainable floodplains through large-scalereconnection to rivers. Science 326(5959):487– 1488. Pittock, A. B. 2009a. Climate change: the science, impacts and solutions. Second edition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia. Pittock, J. 2009b. Lessons for climate changeadaptation from better management of rivers. Climate and Development 1(3):194–211. Pittock, J. 2010a. A pale reflection of politicalreality: integration of global climate, wetland, andbiodiversity agreements. Climate Law 1(3):343– 373. Pittock, J. 2010b. Better management of hydropower in an era of climate change. Water Alternatives 3(2):444–452. Pittock, J., and B. A. Lankford. 2010. Environmental water requirements: demand management in an era of water scarcity, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7(1):75–93. Prakash, N. 2011. Axeing of UK sustainabilitywatchdog leaves gap in scrutiny, MPs warn. The Guardian January 2011. [online] URL: http://www. guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/sustainabledevelopment- commission-scrutiny-gap. Proust, K., S. Dovers, B. Foran, B. Newell, W. Steffan, and P. Troy. 2007. Climate, energy andwater: accounting for the links. Land and Water Australia, Canberra, Australia. [online] URL: http: //lwa.gov.au/products/er071256. Ramsar Secretariat. 2009. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Ramsar (Iran), 2 February 1971. As amended by the Paris Protocol, 3 December1982, and Regina Amendments, 28 May 1987. UNTreaty Series No. 14583. Ramsar Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. [online] URL: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/ramsar/display/main/main.jsp?zn= ramsarandcp=1-31-38_4000_0__. Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ Reffold, E., F. Leighton, F. Choudhury, and P. S. Rayner. 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions of watersupply and demand management options. Science report - SC070010, Environment Agency, London, UK. [online] URL: www.environment-agency.gov. uk. Rockström, J., and L. Gordon. 2001. Assessment of green water flows to sustain major biomes of theworld: implications for future ecohydrologicallandscape management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere 26(11–12): 843–851. Rockström, J., L. Gordon, C. Folke, M. Falkenmark, and M. Engwall. 1999. Linkages among water vaporflows, food production, and terrestrial ecosystemservices, Conservation Ecology 3(2): 5. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss2/art5/. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. A. Foley. 2009. Asafe operating space for humanity, Nature 461:472– 475. Ross, A., and S. Dovers. 2008. Making the harderyards: environmental policy integration in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(3):245–260. Schout, A., and A. Jordan. 2005. Coordinated European governance: self-organizing or centrallysteered? Public Administration 83(1):201–220. Secretaria de Medio Amiente y Recursos Naturales(SEMARNAT) and Instituto Nacional de Ecologia(INE). 2009. Mexico cuarta comunicacion nacional ante la convencion marco de las naciones unidas sobre el cambio climatico. Secretaria de Medio Amiente y Recursos Naturales and Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Mexico City, Mexico. [Spanish, English summary.] [online] URL: http:// unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/mexnc4s.pdf. Smart, A., and A. Aspinall. 2009. Water and the electricity generation industry. Implications of use. National Water Commission, Canberra, Australia. [online] URL: www.nwc.gov.au. Stillwell, A. S., C. W. King, M. E. Webber, I. J. Duncan, and A. Hardberger. 2011. The energy– water nexus in Texas. Ecology and Society 16(1):2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/ iss1/art2. United Nations (UN). 1992a. Convention on biological diversity (with annexes). Concluded at Rio de Janerio on 5 June 1992. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. United Nations (UN). 1992b. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 55/2. New York, United Nations. United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2007. National adaptation programme of action (NAPA). VicePresident’s Office, Division of Environment, January 2007. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. [online] URL: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/ tza01.pdf. van Dijk, A. I. J. M., and R. J. Keenan. 2007. Plantedforests and water in perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 251(1–2):1–9. van Nood, M. 2008. Climate change adaptation— preparations for a framework at EU level. Waterand Climate Day 2, 21 August 2008. Stockholm World Water Week, Stockholm, Sweden. World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). 2009. The United Nations world water developmentreport 3: water in a changing world. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, France and Earthscan, London, UK. [online] URL: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2004. Repoweringhydroelectric utility plants as an environmentallysustainable alternative to increasing energy supplyin Brazil. WWF Brazil, Brasilia, Brazil. [online] URL: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/ Ecology and Society 16(2): 25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art25/ brazilupgradinghydropowerreport.pdf (accessed 2September 2010). World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2007. Climate solutions. WWF’s vision for 2050. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Young, O. R., editor. 1999. The effectiveness of international environmental regiemes: causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Young, O. R. 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay and scale. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.