Governing carbon mitigation and climate change within local councils : A Case Study of Adelaide , South Australia Commonwealth

There is growing concern about climate change impacts on local government areas. In Australia, the federal carbon tax (from 1 July 2012) will also increase costs for local councils. This paper evaluates what carbon mitigation (i.e. energy, water, and waste management) actions have been implemented by metropolitan Adelaide councils (n=14) and why (or why not). A survey of environmental officers profiled carbon mitigation actions, emissions auditing, and motives for emissions reduction by Adelaide councils. The main reasons for adopting carbon actions were a climate change plan, climate leadership, and cost savings. Internal council governance of climate change actions was also evaluated. A climate governance framework based on adaptive management, communication, and reflective practice (Nursey-Bray 2010) was applied to assess climate mitigation by Adelaide councils.


Introduction
Climate change impacts and carbon mitigation initiatives are key issues for local government (ALGA, 2009(ALGA, , 2010a. In this paper, 'Mitigation involves taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions being emitted to minimise the impact from climate change' (QLGA, 2009, p. 58).
In Australia, local governments that exceed an emissions threshold of 25,000tCO 2 -e, mainly from landfill emissions, are legally required to report their emissions under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Local councils are also liable for fugitive emissions (over 25,000tCO 2 -e), from uncapped landfills and from stationary energy under the Clean Energy Act 2011 (Tax Ed, 2011). The associated carbon tax of $23tCO 2 -e, set by the Australian federal government and effective from 1 July 2012, will also increase council costs for electricity, gas, fuel and materials. Local councils are thus implementing eco-efficiency measures in energy, water and waste management to reduce operating costs, meet state government targets, and address liability for carbon emissions.

CJLG December 2011 -Jul 2012 71
This paper reports on carbon mitigation actions adopted by the 14 Greater Adelaide councils in the wider metropolitan region of Adelaide and adjacent Adelaide Hills in South Australia. It begins by reviewing carbon programmes implemented by the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA), and then presents survey results profiling carbon mitigation actions, emissions auditing, climate governance, and motives for emissions reduction by Adelaide councils. This paper focuses on how local councils internally govern and implement climate change mitigation. It uses local government and local councils as equivalent terms.
Climate change and carbon mitigation are growing issues for Australian local government (Nursey-Bray, 2010;Pillora, 2011). Local government strategies and reports include advice and case studies on greenhouse gas mitigation for local councils (ICLEI, 2008;QLGA, 2009;ALGA, 2010aALGA, , b, 2011. During 1997 to 2009, some 238 Australian local councils participated in the 'ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability' 19 Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) programme by recording emissions data and analysing the carbon footprint of council operations and local communities. New South Wales has surveyed local government needs in responding to climate change adaptation and mitigation (LGSA, 2006(LGSA, , 2010Urbis, 2010). However, there is limited research on climate change mitigation actions by local government, apart from case studies of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives by CCP participants and other councils (Atkinson et al, 2007;ALGA, 2009;Hoff, 2010;ACELG, 2011;Pillora, 2011). In Queensland, one report has reviewed mitigation actions by selected south eastern local councils, prior to council amalgamations in 2008 (Burton, 2005(Burton, , 2007, while a local government manual outlines climate mitigation actions for councils (LGAQ, 2009).
Research on carbon mitigation by local government includes climate change law and liability (England, 2008); methodologies to assess carbon emissions (Hamilton et al, 2008); climate change governance (Nursey-Bray, 2010); and an evaluation of carbon actions adopted by local councils in the CCP programme (Hoff, 2010 Prior research examines carbon reduction initiatives adopted by one local council, reports on the outcomes of specific carbon programmes such as CCP (Hoff, 2010), or evaluates organisational responses to climate change by local government within one state (e.g. NSW in 2006(e.g. NSW in , 2009(e.g. NSW in and 2010 • review and benchmark carbon mitigation measures implemented by local councils; • evaluate motives for carbon emissions measures adopted by different local councils; • identify key council staff and divisions responsible for climate change mitigation; and • assess opportunities for local councils in sustainable technologies, renewable energy. This paper explores the premise that similar to greening businesses, key motivations for ecological responsiveness by local councils are competitiveness, legitimacy, and social responsibility (Bansal and Roth, 2000). It also assesses the adoption of adaptive management, communication and reflective practice in climate change governance (Nursey-Bray, 2010) by Adelaide councils. The next section reviews carbon mitigation programmes by the Local Government Association of South Australia as a context for the survey of Adelaide councils.

Local Government Association of South Australia
The Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA) has proactively led carbon mitigation measures for SA councils (

Methodology
South Australian local council websites were reviewed for information on climate change strategies, carbon mitigation and offsetting measures (Zeppel, 2011a). Other mitigation actions by local councils were identified from media articles, reports by CCP partners, and the climate change programmes of local government associations (e.g. ALGA, ICLEI, QLGA, and LGASA).
Carbon mitigation actions in the Cities for Climate Protection programme were also assessed (Hoff, 2010 (Zeppel, 2011a) was included in the survey.
The climate change mitigation survey of Greater Adelaide councils was conducted during June to October 2011. Councils were contacted using details on their corporate website. The target group for this survey was environmental or sustainability officers at SA councils. The survey was distributed by email and by post to 20 Greater Adelaide councils, with follow-up phone calls to confirm receipt and speak with environmental staff. An email was also sent to the network for sustainability officers at SA councils. A total of 14 councils (70%) completed the carbon mitigation survey, by email or by post, with one survey completed via telephone interview. Three Adelaide councils declined to participate, as they lacked climate policies or staff covering this area, while three councils did not respond to emails or phone calls. The next section presents results from the survey of 14 Adelaide councils.

Results
The responding councils that completed the survey covered coastal, inner city and suburban councils, across the southern and northern regions of the Greater Adelaide region, into the Adelaide Hills. Of the responding councils, ten (71%) had participated in Earth Hour 2011. The council staff completing the survey were: sustainability officers (57%), including a sustainable energy coordinator; environmental officers (28%); and sustainability planners (14%). Hence, the survey respondents were predisposed to pro-environmental actions. Other council staff may have different opinions about climate change and carbon mitigation actions.
The 14 Adelaide councils covered both inner metropolitan and outer peri-urban/rural areas. The number of council staff ranged from 89 to 250 (7 councils); 300-395 (3 councils); 400-465 (3 councils), and one council with over 600 staff. The size of the regional population served by the council ranged from 20,000 to 52,000 people (8 councils), 80,000 to 133,000 people (5 councils), and one council with 160,000 people (10% of state population). The main sources of cash revenue for these Adelaide councils was council rates (100%); state or federal government grants (50%); other council fees (43%); and bank interest, or external contracting (14%). The annual operating budget of the responding councils ranged from $15 to $38 million (5 councils), $62 to $72 million (4 councils), and $90 to $106 million (3 councils). In summary, the 14 Adelaide councils ranged from 89 to 600 staff, had operating budgets from $15 million to $106 million, ZEPPEL: All surveyed Adelaide councils reported damage from extreme weather events, mainly due to drought (71%); heat waves (64%); flash floods (57%); bushfires (43%); river floods and wind storms (36%), and coastal erosion or storm surges (63%). In regard to council insurance for damage to assets, eight respondents said yes ('but not sea related') while five were not sure or thought it could be in a mutual liability scheme. There was a focus on adaptation actions by councils, utilising federal government funding in the Local Adaptation Pathways Programme.

Climate change and Greater Adelaide councils
All of the surveyed Adelaide councils agreed that climate change was an important issue.
Comments by ten councils on climate change impacts included damage to infrastructure (4), managing hazards (3), service delivery (3), council leadership on climate change (2), risk management (2), resilience (1), legal liability (1), and health and wellbeing (1) council environmental levy or trust fund (7%). The four councils with carbon action funds had also adopted climate change or energy strategies.

Carbon mitigation by Greater Adelaide councils
Respondents are strongly agreed (71%) or agreed (28%) that it was important to reduce the carbon emissions of their local council. Eight councils had employed a consultant to assess council emissions, with council staff internally assessing carbon emissions at six other councils. The Greater Adelaide councils adopted a wide range of emissions reduction actions (

Behaviour Change (n=57, 22%)
Provide information to residents on reducing their emissions (86%) Include emissions reduction targets in council corporate plans (78%) Share information with neighbouring councils on emissions reduction (57%) Provide information to businesses on reducing their emissions (57%) Choose suppliers taking actions to reduce their emissions (i.e. green purchasing) (57%) Market the emissions reduction initiatives of your council (43%)
The main reasons for councils not adopting carbon actions were cost; staff resources; funding; asset ownership; measurement tools, and 'when payback periods are excessive (e.g. more than 15 years).' One council also noted, 'missed opportunities by staff/work areas not seeing this [climate change] as a priority'.
Other comments about the role of local councils in carbon mitigation included: Survey results indicate the main focus of Adelaide councils is on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a range of carbon mitigation and renewable energy measures. State and federal government support was also required to assist local councils in GHG reduction goals.

Discussion: Implications for Climate Governance by Councils
This study of emissions reduction actions by Greater Adelaide councils compares and highlights responses to climate change mitigation across one metropolitan region in South Australia.
LGASA programmes and SA state government targets influence the carbon actions adopted by applies to carbon mitigation initiatives adopted by local councils such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other emissions reduction actions (Table 3). It includes carbon management actions and practices adopted within local councils and also climate governance networks with key stakeholders (i.e. residents, local groups, and experts). The actions listed for adaptive management, communication and reflexive practice thus provide a framework for assessing climate change actions by other local governments.  (ratepayers, staff, councillors) and link/align climate change issue with local interests and agendas (e.g. solar PV power) • Market climate change mitigation projects and schemes implemented by council • Involve all interest groups (from community/conservation groups to the Mayor) in low carbon actions • Add climate change into existing council processes for emergency management, health and safety etc and incorporate climate change guidelines into council policies (e.g. renewable energy)

Reflexive Practice
• Reflecting on global, national and state programmes for climate change mitigation by councils (e.g. CCP) • Review other low carbon initiatives and practices and adapt these to suit local needs and locations • Develop a council data base, web links, seminars on carbon mitigation products and services • Work with other local councils on climate mitigation projects and initiatives to save time and money • Build regional alliances and networks and allocate council funding to carbon mitigation actions ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ This paper found key motivations for ecological responsiveness by Adelaide local councils in reducing carbon emissions related to legitimacy and social responsibility in addressing State GHG targets, and competitiveness in terms of being a climate action leader (Bansal and Roth, ZEPPEL:

Conclusions
This account of carbon mitigation actions by metropolitan local councils highlights climate governance issues and motives for reducing carbon emissions. The main reasons for Greater Adelaide councils to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were climate change plans; demonstrating climate leadership, cost savings, being a 'climate friendly' region, and carbon resolutions. Key motivations for local councils in reducing their carbon emissions are legitimacy (i.e. legislation, GHG targets), social responsibility (i.e. residents), and competitiveness (i.e. cost savings, leadership). A key challenge for many sustainability officers is communicating the need for carbon mitigation actions to all council divisions and managers, and to elected councillors. More research is needed on how local councils are addressing climate change governance and adopting carbon mitigation actions. This includes the key areas of council policies, funding, and staff resources for low carbon initiatives. Constraints to carbon mitigation actions by local councils also need to be reviewed. Crucial aspects of climate governance such as adaptive management, communication, and reflexive practice need to be further assessed within local government. This will highlight the impact of climate change practices on the organisational behaviour and governance of local councils, along with environmental, social, and business benefits from 'climate proofing' councils.