Think Piece: Climate Compatible Development - a model for Brighton and Hove?
Climate Compatible Development: a model for Brighton and Hove?
The climate compatible development framework was developed for use in low income and emerging economies. However, Brighton and Hove is a £10bn economy, which puts it at about the same size as Rwanda or Malawi. It is actually quite helpful to think of Brighton and Hove as a small, open economy, just as those two countries are, with relatively few natural resources. It is a cause for reflection that Malawi has territorial greenhouse gas emissions of only 1 ton per head, and Rwanda 600Kg, mostly from agriculture, whereas the comparable figure for Brighton and Hove is around 3 tons, mostly from driving around and heating our homes.
But that is for another day. What is ‘climate compatible development’? The idea is captured in the diagram below (Figure 1), which shows three overlapping circles. The first is ‘mitigation’, which means reducing emissions. The second is ‘adaptation’, which means adjusting to the inevitable rise in temperature and increase in extreme weather events. The third is ‘transformation’, which refers to the impact of changes in the rest of the world on markets, prices and development options. ‘Climate compatible development’ happens when the three circles intersect.
Figure 1
Climate Compatible Development
Source: adapted from https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/files/CDKN-CCD-Planning_english.pdf
The use of the word ‘development’ is deliberate. It draws attention to the need for climate action to be consistent with other development goals, like poverty reduction, decent work, better health and education, and gender equality. The Sustainable Development Goals (Figure 2) provide an over-arching framework.
Figure 2
The Sustainable Development Goals
Source: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
The transformation circle is important, too. Most climate discussions focus on mitigation and adaptation, but what countries or communities can do depends partly on what is happening elsewhere. This may be positive or negative. On the positive side, new markets may open up and new industries become possible: for example, producing solar panels or mining lithium reserves and kick-starting a domestic battery sector. On the negative side, the phase-out of fossil fuels may leave stranded assets behind, or industries may become uncompetitive because of the gradual rise of carbon prices.
The CCD model does not imply that there are no difficult choices or trade-offs. Sometimes there are synergies, for example when protecting forests contributes both to carbon sequestration and flood protection. But quite often, money spent on one project will mean less for another. The advantage of the model is that it focuses minds on the interaction between mitigation, adaptation and transformation. It suggests too that having separate plans can obscure the connections. Better, surely, to have one integrated strategy for climate and economic development, rather than separate and unrelated programmes.
The CCD model was introduced in 2010. There is now an academic literature, with more than 2500 references on Google Scholar, some supportive, and some critical. Critics have focused on the choices and trade-offs between the three elements, on the institutional context and barriers to CCD, and on global inequalities as they impact on CCD. There is also a growing body of operational experience, especially through the work of the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, which works globally and in more than 70 countries of the Global South. The theme is captured in the title of an early book summarizing cases and lessons, ‘Mainstreaming Climate Compatible Development’. The CDKN website has many more best-practice case studies.
Three lessons for Brighton and Hove
Are there some lessons for Brighton and Hove? Many will come out as we develop our workstreams on economic transformation, energy, food and so on. Here are three over-arching points to be getting on with.
First, an acid test of climate action in Brighton and Hove will be whether it also contributes to reducing inequality and improving the quality of life for everyone in the City. An example: how can the transition from gas boilers to heat pumps create well-paid, sustainable jobs in the City? ONS data from the last census shows that there were 91,393 households with mains gas central heating in Brighton and Hove, and a further 9,000 or so with more than one type of heating, which may have included gas. That is quite a challenge for those training technicians at the new Decarbonisation Academy at the Brighton Met. Our energy workstream will address that issue.
Second, there is a question of how many different strategies Brighton and Hove actually needs. There are 31,500 hits for the term ‘strategy’ on the Council website. Probably, there are not that many current strategies! But there are (or in some cases have been) an Economic Strategy, a Carbon Neutral Programme, a Housing Strategy, a Food Strategy, a Visitor Economy Strategy, an Open Spaces Strategy, a Downland Estate Plan, a Living Coast Strategy, a Biosphere Strategy, and who knows what else.
Of course, it would be fanciful to think that all these can be rolled into one. Probably, the umbrella is provided by the 2023-2027 Council Plan. That sets strategic priorities for the new Council (Figure 3), with five references to climate, as in Figure 4. A question for discussion: how does that summary of climate objectives fit within a CCD framework? Is there enough, for example, on climate compatible jobs and economic development? To be fair, the previous page (Pg 16 of the Plan) is about economic development, so this is really a plea for explicit linkage.
Figure 3
The 2023-27 Council Plan
Source: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/Council%20Plan%202023%20to%202027.pdf
Figure 4
Climate coverage in the Brighton and Hove City Plan
Source: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/Council%20Plan%202023%20to%202027.pdf
Finally, and in relation to the points earlier about choices and trade-offs, planning is always about politics. The new City Plan is a product of the new Labour-led administration. It is interesting to ask whether a different outcome in the local elections last year would have led to a different plan; and by the same token, whether a change of national Government in 2024 would make a difference to our Council’s priorities. Nationally, Labour has made a priority of its Green Prosperity Plan, mentioned in the five missions, with or without the full £28bn a year promised by Rachel Reeves in her 2021 Conference speech. In a recent round-up, the Financial Times said that
‘Only a fraction of the £28bn has been allocated, with the full details expected to be fleshed out closer to the election . . . The GPP will provide £6bn a year for a home insulation programme and a one-off £8bn investment to set up a “sovereign wealth fund” for green industrial infrastructure. That sovereign wealth fund would spend £2bn on eight gigafactories, £3bn for six clean steel plants and £1bn to set up net zero industrial clusters. Money would also go into the creation of a state-owned company called GB Energy to co-invest in low-carbon energy projects.’
Other parties also have climate plans and commitments, so there may be new opportunities for Brighton and Hove whoever wins the election – but possibly different.
Simon Maxwell
Perspective pieces are the responsibility of the authors, and do not commit Climate:Change in any way. Guest posts are published to explore issues or stimulate debate. Comments are welcome.