'Globalisation, Climate Change and Urban Governance: Balancing the Scales for
Both Efficient and Pro-Poor Urban Futures – The Case of Brazil and the UK'.
Biodiversity enhancement and protection as an approach to improving
environmental justice in urban areas under a changing climate
Introduction
In this brief paper we attempt to summarize the interactions and relationships
between two of the major issues now facing humankind: climate change and
biodiversity loss. We argue that responses to these crises are also inevitably linked
and that policy approaches that protect and enhance biodiversity have potential to
assist in both adapting to and mitigating climate change impacts, and that by bringing
these together environmental justice can be improved for vulnerable urban
populations.
Climate change issue and impacts
Continuing research into climate change, via models, scenarios and real-world
monitoring, means that we have an increasingly good picture of the scale and nature
of likely future changes and impacts for nations (see, for example Defra, 2009) and
across social groups. It is widely recognized that whilst there may be some benefits,
potentially adverse impacts are likely to be more common and widespread, and may
unequally impact the urban poor (Round Table on Climate Change and Poverty,
2008), Examples of particular threats to urban areas are increasing temperatures,
and frequency of heatwaves, increased risk of floods and storms, and in some cases,
landslip.
The C40 group of Mayors of major cities is already actively committed to tackling
climate change – Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Curitiba and London are all part of this
group. Though mitigation actions have predominated so far in the work of C40 cities,
the need for adaptation also is recognised, e.g. in the London climate change
adaptation strategy (Mayor of London, 2010). Urban areas typically lack extensive
semi-natural areas which would assist in adapting to the risks of heatwaves and
floods. The draft adaptation strategy for London emphasizes the need for additional
green and blue (that is: water and wetland) areas to alleviate climate impacts (Mayor
of London, 2010).
Protecting biodiversity internationally
Although human survival is closely intertwined with survival of biodiversity (species
and habitats) generally, this dependence is not always recognised in policy. As
ecosystem services like clean air and water derive from goods held “in common”,
therefore they have not always been fairly valued; aesthetic and quality of life
benefits are even more difficult to value. Ecosystem goods and services
(provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services -WRI, 2005) are delivered
through natural and man-made networks and resources now referred to in policy
terms as “green infrastructure”, covering parks, avenues, brownfield sites, gardens
and other green or blue areas. Within cities this infrastructure makes an economic
contribution which has often been overlooked but includes increase of property
values and opportunities for recreation. Valuation issues are being addressed by the
ongoing TEEB study: The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (Sukdev 2008).
Despite international policy interventions such as the Convention on Biodiversity
(launched at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992) and the national Biodiversity
1
Action Plans that respond to this (such as UKBP, 2007), biodiversity depletion is
continuing. A newly announced treaty agreement the Intergovernmental Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is now charged with reversing the
position.
Biodiversity and climate change
Climate change is an additional pressure on biodiversity, acting together with loss of
habitat, pollution and other changes (CEC, 2008). Biodiversity will need to move or
evolve in order to adapt to changed conditions (but some will be insufficiently agile to
achieve this and will be lost). Greater protection for and enhancement of species,
habitats and semi-natural areas can also help in the processes of both mitigation of
and adaptation to climate change by urban populations. For example biodiversity
and green infrastructure can help to improve thermal comfort in urban heat islands
and can help to alleviate flood risk by providing water absorption and flood storage
space.
Whilst these two threats (heatwaves and flood) are perhaps most visible within cities,
countering them must take into account the patterns of urban morphology resulting
from social and economic differences as well as existing and potential links in
green/blue infrastructure between urban areas and the surrounding city-region or bioregion, whether inland or coastal.
Mainstreaming policy
Whilst the importance of climate change and the need for action is now recognized,
this is but one of several major areas for government policy. Others include
economic recession and financial crisis (which are associated with the globalization
theme of this research) and are seen as primary; there are other linked sectors such
as transport, health and urban governance. We see that biodiversity enhancement
and green infrastructure offer further opportunities for mainstreaming climate change
policy as they have potential to contribute to adaptation in many sectors (Wilson and
Piper, 2010).
Proposal
A number of policy approaches are being developed to encapsulate these ideas, and
also to apply them. Within the UK these include the ecosystem services approach,
climate change vulnerability assessment, green infrastructure strategies, and Local
Climate Impact Profiles. No doubt some similar approaches and other approaches
are being developed by planners in Brazil. We would be interested
 to review biodiversity and green infrastructure policies, approaches and their
effectiveness in different circumstances in the two countries, to share
experiences and assess alternatives; also
 to review policy sectors with links to spatial planning (transport, water,
energy) and potential for integrating biodiversity/green infrastructure-related
policies in these, to examine to what extent these approaches could
contribute
o to climate change policy and
o to improving environmental justice.
o Also, how they can be mainstreamed across relevant policy areas.
Jake Piper and Elizabeth Wilson, July 2010
2
References
CEC (2008) The European Union’s Biodiversity Action Plan, Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Defra (2009) Adapting to climate change UK Climate Projections June 2009. London:
Defra
Mayor of London (2010) The draft climate change adaptation strategy for London.
Public Consultation Draft. London: Greater London Authority
RTCCP (Round Table on Climate Change and Poverty) (2008), Tackling Climate
Change, Reducing Poverty: The first report of the Round Table on Climate Change
and Poverty in the UK, London: New Economics Foundation.
Sukdev, P. (2008), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Interim report,
Brussels: European Commission.
UKBP (UK Biodiversity Partnership) (2007), Conserving Biodiversity – the UK
approach, London: Defra.
Wilson, E.B. and Piper, J. (2010) Spatial Planning and Climate Change. Abingdon
and New York: Routledge
Winchester, L and Szalachman, R. (2009) The urban poor's vulnerability to the
impacts of climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean - A policy agenda.
Proceedings of Habitat International Coalition Expert Group Meeting on Population
Dynamics and Climate Change, London, June, 2009.
WRI (World Resources Institute) (2005), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Washington DC: World
Resources Institute.
3