 Well, let's make a start. Good morning, everybody. I'm Mike Davis and I'm a member of the Climate Change Committee. Welcome to this, the first webinar in the Climate Change Committee's UK climate risk state of the nation series, which aims to unpack and explain some of the key risks identified in the technical report and advice reports of the UK independent assessment of UK climate risk. Throughout the series, we'll pull out some key sectors exposed to priority risks, important players in responding to climate risk, and some of the key challenges raised in the assessment. So what we're going to cover today, well, firstly, we'll have a presentation covering the health communities and built environment chapter from the technical report of the independent assessment of UK climate risk by the lead authors, Shari Kovats and Rachel Brisley. Gemma Holmes from the CCC Secretariat will then present a summary of the advice report from the assessment produced by the Climate Change Committee. And after the presentations, I'm very pleased to say that we'll have short responses from our two other panelists, Owen Landbeg from Public Health England, and Julie Godefroy, the Charter Institution of Building Services Engineers, Cibsie. We'll then allow plenty of time for the Q&A session. And if you're joining through the Zoom webinar, please do submit your questions in the Q&A box and we'll be posting some guidance in the chat now. So welcome again, and I'll now hand over to Shari and Rachel. Thank you. Welcome everybody. I'm going to give a very brief overview to the chapter five health communities in the built environment. I'm going to be talking about risks from heat and Rachel Brisley is going to be talking about risks from flooding and coastal change. Next slide please. So there are several chapters. This is the first webinar. We all had the same exam question to based on the understanding of current and future climate risks and opportunities. What should be the priorities for the next UK national adaptation program and the adaptation programs of the default administrations. So we had a method. I think the important thing to note is that we developed a rigorous method for the individual chapters. And we all applied the same method. And this method is essentially broken down into three steps. So what is the current risk and opportunity. So essentially what's the magnitude of the risk and also who is most affected. So that relies both on observed impacts as well as future modeling. And then a key step was around how the risk is currently managed. So again, we're looking at past events and how well they've been managed, primarily focusing on national government actions. But also looking at the limits to adaptation and barriers, what we know about barriers to adaptation. And then the third step was looking at what are the benefits of future action. So particularly interesting co-benefits to health, co-benefits to welfare, and the economic costs and cost effectiveness. Next slide. Next slide please. Sorry, I can't see the slides moving. James, could you just, was there a technical problem? Can I share my screen for the slides? James or Joe, you let's mic here. I don't know if you can hear us, but yeah, there seems to be an issue with the slides at the moment. Yeah, I think we're having some technical problems. I'm really sorry about that. We will get the slides back. But Shari, it'd be brilliant if you could share yours in the meantime, please. Can you see my slides? Yes. The key message is he risks, Shari. Okay, sorry to go back. Right, so we covered the method. And then there's an important process, of course, with any risk assessment and a huge part of this is stakeholder engagement. So all the risks were discussed with the sectors and that from the four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. So we had several workshops and some sector specific workshops as well. So the risks that were agreed within each of the chapters are done in participation with the stakeholders. And then of course we also had government peer review and governmental review. The other kind of key things to remember about this assessment, so improving on the last assessment is that we of course considered net zero, the implications for net zero because that net zero target has got agreed by Parliament. And it makes no sense to look at adaptation and isolation, particularly when we're focusing on the built environment. We also looked at the implications of the COVID pandemic, and we've had quite a lot of extreme events which have affected people's health, heatwaves and floods. So it's important to include those and look at their responses. And finally, we have a big focus on inequality. Some of these issues of course been highlighted by the COVID pandemic and we're not just interested in the distribution of the current impacts and the future impacts. So it's really important to note the implications of specific adaptation strategies, you know, whether they benefit populations equally or whether you need to take additional measures to ensure that adaptation is fair. So here are the whole full risk of 61 risks and opportunities and as you can see, 54 so way more than half have high urgency scores which means that more action is needed by a national government. Here are the risks for Chapter 5. I'm not going to read them in detail, but as I said, I'll be covering the heat risks and rectives will be covering the flood risks. So I'm primarily going to give an overview about risks to health and wellbeing from high temperatures and hot weather. But it's important to note that of course heat affects quite a lot of other risks as well. So we looked at opportunities from warmer summers, particularly physical activity and increased contact with nature because those are important for public health. We looked at potential increases in summer heating costs if there's a big uptake of air conditioning, and there's clearly a large benefit from reductions in winter household energy costs. Now heat waves also interact with other sort of environmental hazards and risks. So, you know, a very hot summer would have implications for air quality, vector-borne disease transmission and also food safety, so outbreaks of infectious disease as well. And we tried to look at organizationally, so more systematically about hail, heat and flood is managed within systems such as the health system, the social care system, schools and prisons. So this basically just shows the impact there, the benefits of mitigating. So this is for one indicator, this is the actual thresholds for heat waves that we use in England. And you can see clearly the benefits of going from the purple line, which is the pathway to four degrees, and reducing our emissions so we can get back onto that green line and reduce those exposures. But we still have to obviously adapt to that pathway, whatever pathway we're on. So some obviously a quite significant increase in risks is something that needs to be managed. So heat is quite a complicated outcome, it affects quite a wide range of health. It causes premature mortality and you can see that clearly from the heat wave in 2020, those mortality peaks. And the burden on health was actually quite high about 2500 deaths from these three events in 2020, we think exacerbated by the lockdown and the COVID pandemic, so maybe people were less health seeking or were not spending a lot of time indoors particularly. But he also has an impact on morbidity, increases the risk of hospital admissions, particularly for respiratory and renal conditions, and for people whose behaviors impair as a person with dementia and also some other mental health issues. It's also an occupational hazard and will be increasingly concerned for employers to manage heat risks in their workers. And high temperatures also increase the risk of accidents and not just heat, the risk of heat stroke but also a general accident and injury. As I mentioned, disruption to public services is quite important. So where rooms are overheat too hot, people don't want to work in them or they refuse or they can't work in them, but also failures to equipment and infrastructure, you know, very high temperatures. So IT failures, power failures, freezers and things like that. And as I've said, there's a lot of evidence now from disruption of hospitals, care homes, schools and in prisons. There's emerging evidence around mental health and heat, and particularly around maternal health as well. So there's very good evidence now that high temperatures increase the risk of preterm birth. So following our three steps where, where is more action needed and key area is housing. So there's currently no building standards to prevent overheating and housing. So about 20 a quarter of houses overheat in a typical sun summer so that's high indoor temperatures. And although we have more evidence about how to how to combat overheating there hasn't been any government action on this so far. There's also no center for retrofitting. But there's a lot of information around about public health and public health interventions and public health England has with the NHS has developed the heat wave plan for England. Since 2004, since the major European heat wave, and that has now been formally evaluated. So where is more action needed, as mentioned before, a lot of actions needed to prevent overheating in houses actions around retrofitting and building standards, but clearly there's a need for action. The net zero target, which asks householders to basically increase energy efficiency and increase into insulation and possibly decrease ventilation all that will increase the risk of overheating and also poor indoor air quality. So action has to be taken to ensure that that net zero those net zero measures do not make the situation even worse than it is already. There's work to be done on behavior change because there's a lot of poor understanding the general population about personal risk for heat and how to change your behavior and more work to be done in terms of urban planning, making the outdoors more pleasant and cool, and also reducing overheating in schools and hospitals. And of course it's very important that we show access to cooling for everybody. I'm going to hand over to Rachel now. What's up Mike here again. I think due to our earlier technical difficulties for which apologies again, we'll just need to swap our screen sharing at this point so Joe, can you kindly do that please and then we'll go straight back to Rachel. Thanks Mike and and Joe and Shari for for starting the starting his presentation off so hi everybody. Great to see so many people on the call I'm Rachel brisley from JBA consulting lead our work on climate resilience and co-author of this chapter with Shari particularly leading on the flooding and coastal change elements. Next slide please Joe. So, as I said this is very much looking at flooding and coastal change similar to the heat and health outcomes there's two specific risks within the chapter, which focus on this area the risk to people communities and buildings from flooding, and also risk the viability of coastal communities from sea level rise they're also a number of other risks where both flooding and coastal change have a big potential impact, and just just to highlight the graphic on the right this is showing the sea level rise under under three different climate scenarios, and just highlighting there this is by 2100 relative to 1981 to 2000 and just showing there that increase in sea level rise around the UK, particularly for the south of England and Ireland. Next slide please. So we're a bit of a busy slide here, just really to focus on flood risk. So on the left hand side, the top chart the top pie charts just showing the people counting in bands that are currently at risk of flooding. These numbers might look a bit low to those of you who are used to seeing that the gent the figures usually given by the, the environment agency for example those are up people at any level of risk, this is significant risk which is deemed as one in 75 return rate or 1.3%. As you can see here as as with population distribution, the population, much higher numbers of risk in England, and also across the country, across the UK story much higher risk of surface water number of properties that is, obviously surface water is an increasing risk but the, the sort of damages and the danger is much higher with fluvial and particularly coastal flooding. Moving to, sorry, back on that slide. Thank you. So just moving to the two charts on the right hand side. These are based on research project that Paul Sayers conducted to inform the independent assessment UK risk and looks at different types of different adaptation scenarios. Different warming pathways and population scenarios to actually project forward the increase in number of people at risk and at the bottom the property damages. So just to say that the current number at risk at significant risk across UK is 1.9 million. And just looking at this chart at the top, this is assuming a reduced whole system adaptation, which is not do nothing, but it's, it's sort of not, it's basically can continue as we are but without necessarily putting into place new policies. And this is showing basically with a two degrees increase by 2100 and the low population scenario so I guess almost sort of best case. We're looking at a sort of 50% increase in people at risk by the 2050s and about 75% by the 2080s and then four degrees increase global mean temperature by 2100 and a high population scenario that increases to over 100% increase in the 2050s and about 170 in the 2080s. And at the bottom looking at residential property damage so at the moment the expected annual damages from flooding on an average year are around 475 million, more than half of which is accounted for by fluvial flooding. And this shows is how those expected direct damages for residential properties are likely to increase again with the reduced whole system adaptation scenario and those the two degrees and four degrees with low and high population scenarios and again we're looking at sort of similar increases as with the numbers, the numbers at risk but actually if we look at the expected annual damages by the 2080s with a high population scenario, we are looking at an over 200% increase in damages. And just to highlight really that the damages are highest in England in both now and in the future, but if you actually look at the expected annual damage per person per individual is actually higher in Northern Ireland Wales and Scotland in England. Next slide please. We're just looking at the impacts of flooding and coastal change so death, injury, illness, displacement, damage and disruption, a lot of impacts for individuals mental health is increasingly recognised as a severe impact from flooding that can last for some time after flood events. There's also quite a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities and some research done for the, for the, for the report highlights. Bain communities also is being particularly impacted on the coast, those impacts are all higher due to a lot of entrenched deprivation across our coastal resorts. There's also wider aspects around loss of recreation leisure, cultural heritage, economic environmental costs and then looking to coastal communities there is the potential impact of the whole loss of coastal communities. This chart on the, these maps on the right just show relative economic pain, which is basically the ratio of uninsured losses to income and just showing how that's high, particularly in some, some coastal locations and particularly in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Next slide please. The adaptation shortfall. A number of issues here a number of sort of challenges really around adaptation. I suppose the first thing so to say is that there's, positively there's been a lot of advances in, in, in policy, and basically counting for climate change although less so in Northern Ireland, and a real focus around moving from protection to resilience, the resilience of communities rather than necessarily always be able to manage a way that risk of structural defences. So there's a lot of policy aspirations, but the action on the ground needs to needs to beat to be seen. And just highlighting a couple of particular issues here. Inequalities as we've already highlighted high, high correlation between deprivation and areas of risk of flooding. The scale and location of those communities that are potentially unviable longer term on the coast is not actually known we know about those areas that are risked now. And in the immediate immediate future but there's no sort of national understanding around those risks in the future. Final slide please Joe. So just highlighting now where more action is needed, which reflects back to those challenges. So really sharing good practice around that shift from protection to resilience what what does that mean, how does that play out in different socio economic geographic contexts need for more investment in socially vulnerable areas, and the monitoring of government and also suds up take property flood resilience measures are lower than they could be in terms of take up so then have been various recommendations over those. And then looking at the coastal side this need for a national conversation regarding sort of risk as acceptability and coastal communities and associated with that policy and legal framework to actually support adaptation and roll back to all of this really really essential to have clear, effective and timely engagement with stakeholders. Thank you. Thank you very much sharing Rachel for those presentations, just to remind you to everybody to please do start in putting your questions to the q amp a box. As we go through please, and that will help us then when we come to that session. So our next presentation is from Gemma Holmes, the CCC secretariat so over to Jim. Thanks Mike. And so today I'll be talking you through the high level findings from the committee's independent assessment advice report to government. And next slide please Joe. So I wanted to start off by showing this slide which highlights the different dimensions to the independent assessment. And the assessment is made up of a technical report, which includes seven different technical chapters, including the one we've just heard a little bit about on health communities and the built environment. And the assessment also includes a number of national summaries and a number of sector fact sheets and has input from around six different research projects, and also includes a number of supporting reports. And finally, the assessment includes the committee's independent take on all of these and put together in an advice report to government, which really draws on all of the extensive new evidence that has been gathered. Next slide please Joe. As we've heard the technical chapters identified 61 climate risks and opportunities summarized for each of the UK nation, and that are basically fundamental to every aspect of life in the UK. What this chart here shows is that since our previous risk assessment in 2016, we've seen an increase in urgency. So more of the risks are now classed as being more action needed. And some of that is down to having better evidence become available on the future size of risks, but part of it is also due to a widening gap between the level of risk and the level of adaptation that's underway. And what this really showed the committee was that further adaptation over what is currently being done or what is planned is now needed. As part of the committee's advice report, they've produced a list of priority risk areas for the next two years before the next round of national adaptation programs have published. And this was to try and help government departments know which areas out of the 54 urgent risks they should really be focusing on now. So the committee identified eight sets of risks as needing attention at the highest levels of government over the next two years. To create this list, the committee looked at a few different things. They looked at the urgency scores. So the need for immediate action. They looked at gaps in adaptation planning. They looked at delivery of major policy objectives, avoiding locking and climate risks, and whether there was an opportunity for progress in the current parliament. Most of these urgent risks are around the natural environment and agriculture. However, there is one. Joe, if you could just click the mouse again for me, please. And very relevant to this session, which you know, Shari's already talked about, which is around the risks to human health, well-being and productivity from increased exposure to heat in homes and other buildings. Next slide, please. So what was the rationale for this risk has been one of the most urgent by the committee? So the risks from heat are perhaps one of the greatest challenges for the built environment. The CCRA reported that hot summers like 2018 will become potentially average summers by 2050. And as Shari's already discussed that the people in the UK are at risk of illness and deaths from high temperatures. So those with existing health conditions, death rates can start to increase even at what we would class as moderate temperatures. So around 17 to 20 degrees, depending on the location. Heat-related deaths are projected to triple by 2050, with deaths projected in all of the UK nations, and high temperatures will also lead to productivity losses for UK workers. And you know, and we are also seeing these trends of people working from home more. And also there's implications for future delivery of health and social care as we move towards more home-based care. So since the second climate change risk assessment, we now have more evidence about risks of overheating in buildings. And we also know about the effectiveness and limitations of strategies and options for cooling. We know that building designs and technologies do exist, that if implemented, we could deliver buildings that have high levels of thermal efficiency, so that they stay warm in winter and stay cool in summer, while also being moisture-safe and have good indoor air quality. But if they're not delivered, we are risking locking in housing, locking in our healthcare facilities, locking in our buildings, to places that won't necessarily be comfortable to live or work in in the future, and that might then be costly to retrofit at a later date. So whilst policies still remain largely absent to address risks from heat, there are some opportunities in the near term to integrate adaptation into some major forthcoming policies. So for example, we have building regulation and energy standard reviews across each nation. There's planning reform happening in England and national planning updates. There's policies and plans coming out that can support green infrastructure and green spaces, which can help reduce the urban heat island. And we also have an update of heating cold weather plans in England. And so this is really why this risk has been seen as urgent and key by the committee. And it's also a risk that they've prioritised for years and we haven't yet seen action being taken. Next slide, please. And Rachel's already talked us through the findings from the technical chapter on flooding. So flooding coastal erosion risks were ranked as a priority areas in CCRA2, but you might have noticed that they weren't included in that list of the top eight areas for the next two years. And so I just wanted to talk through that and say that the committee are not saying that sufficient progress has been made. You know, most of those risks relating to flooding and coastal change have been given a more action needed scores in the risk assessment, which highlights that more adaptation over and above what is planned is still needed. But they haven't been included in that top eight because there are relatively fewer significant policy announcements coming up. You know, we've seen some really major policy announcements in the past year already. For example, there's a new flood and coastal erosion management strategy for England. And because our assessment of adaptation is given slightly better scores compared to the ones that appear in the top eight. But I should stress that we are seeing that more action is still needed and that these risks should definitely be included in upcoming adaptation plans. Rachel's talked through some of what's missing, but these are around, you know, removing lock-in to flood risk new developments, ensuring planning systems and planning reforms, utilise opportunities to incentivise sustainable drainage systems in order to manage surface water flooding. We want to see improved uptake of property-level flood resilience. And one of the committee recommendations is to ensure that we have a national data set of properties lost to coastal erosion and tracking of shoreline management plans, policy implementation. Next slide, please, Jo. For my final slide, I wanted to briefly touch on the committee's principles for effective adaptation. For adaptation to be effective, the how part, so how we frame and plan for actions is just as important as the specific actions that we take. And so in addition to assessing the risks and thinking about benefits, the committee also reviewed the evidence on the adaptation gaps within the risk assessment and looked at how adaptation is being implemented and how it should be implemented moving forward. In fact, they've drawn out these 10 principles for effective adaptation to illustrate some of those components. So some of these are around good long-term planning, so things like integrating adaptation into other policies, for example, next zero, planning for two and four degree warming levels, preparing for unpredictable extremes and understanding thresholds and interdependencies. Those are about making good decisions that can maximize benefits of costs. So things like avoiding lock-in, where decisions that are made now can create additional costs or irreversible change in the future, but also assessing and addressing inequalities. So all of those principles really need to sit within the vision of a well-adapted UK so that there's a clear aim whilst being underpinned by proper resources and metrics. And that isn't always necessarily a given and hasn't always been the norm for the UK for the past five, 10 years. But the committee hope that the UK nations will take on board these principles and the committee's advice report when they develop the next set of national adaptation programs in a couple of years' time. Thank you. I'll pass back to Mike now who will introduce us to other panelists. Thank you very much, Gemma, and we'll move. Well, in fact, before we do, I just point out the Q&A box. I think now the facility to upvote the questions is live. So if you'd like to do that as well as adding your own questions, then please do upvote any questions that you see there that you particularly think are important. So we'll go now to Owen Landeg from Public Health England over to you. Thanks, Mike, and thank you for the invitation to present today. My name's Owen Landeg and the scientific and technical lead in the extreme events and health protection team at PHE. The CCRA really highlights the breadth of climate risks that are relevant to public health and how extreme weather is already having a significant impact on public health and how this is likely to increase in the future. The focus of today is very much on heat waves and flooding. I feel from a public health perspective, we can't lose sight of cold and the risk the cold is predicted to continue having despite climate change. And we should remember that all these extreme events typically often affect the most vulnerable within our communities. So some reflections from me. The first is really extending from the emergency response phase to more strategic prevention. And whilst they will always need to be an acute emergency response function for very high extreme weather impact events. PHE has been working to extend the focus of the heat wave plan and all our work on extreme weather to include what are the strategic drivers of the risk. And to do that, we're really targeting what the largest public health burden is and that's not really in the extremes. That's more in the moderate temperatures where we see public health impacts already occurring. Following 2020 heat and following the PHE mortality analysis, we investigated the place and the cause of the excess mortality in 2020 with our partners in the HPRU at the London School. And really that's to permit us to target interventions across both the operational but also what is a complex policy landscape. And that really brings me on to my second reflection, which is about identifying and acting on the levers. So very much a public health approach of hearts and minds approach is required, coupled with capacity building within the health system. And we really must start framing these risks, not just as EPRR threats, but also to make the case for adaptation using different levers, depending on the audience. So to give you an example, those levers can include inequalities, they could be framed as patient safety issues or issues surrounding health system resilience to climate change. And if we start to identify and enable and act upon these levers, we can make it both tangible and aid work across the complex health sector. We know that we have a diverse and large health workforce, but they also have different approaches and different sectors. And that brings me on to my third reflection, which is surrounding enabling the health workforce. So we know that there's a great appetite within the health workforce to tackle climate change. And they see their role as a health workforce and as trusted agents within our communities who are having regular contacts, particularly those with those who are most vulnerable. What we need to do is enable effective health advocacy across local regional and national systems. And if we do this, we can prevent policy lock in and exacerbation of inequalities and unintended health consequences in the longer term. But we must note that if we're to be effective in this advocacy, we can't just keep that within the health community. We need to advocate across to our non health actors and across to other sectors. And whilst doing this, we should consider the changing models of care as Gemma commented, the, you know, the greater proportion of home care delivery that will be delivered in the future. But also the opportunities presented by place belt a based approach within the new integrated care systems that are coming into force in England. So to conclude, Mike, we in PhD will use the CCRA alongside the findings of the independent evaluation of the heatwave and colder other plans and some work that we've been doing with our stakeholders with greener NHS, for example, in engaging the health workforce to inform the future single adverse weather and health plan that we're developing as part of PhD is nap commitments. The plan itself will be co produced with end users and our national partners with updated evidence in order to mainstream adaptation across the system in a way to promote resilience now and to our future climate. And with that, I'll hand back to you, Mike. Thank you very much, Owen. And we'll move swiftly now to Julie got a fly from Sibzi. Hi, everyone. I'm head of sustainability at Sibzi charter institutional building services engineers. So the first thing to say is that really we completely agree with the assessment of risks, and particularly about overheating which is a core issue for Sibzi members so engineers who work on buildings. The prevalence of overheating, as Sherry said, can be difficult to exactly measure standards can vary, but overall we really regularly hear the feedback of overheating issues in new and existing buildings, be it from developers, developers, architects, housing associations, environmental health officers. So really, we know it's not a side issue, and clearly government has to act on this. So we welcome the proposals that finally overheating would be regulated in building regulations, however, at the moment the technical detail of how that will be done is still under consultation. And really, a key limitation is it is only at the moment proposed for new homes. So it's welcome we don't want to continue to build to add to the problem. However, existing homes and retrofit works have to be tackled, as well as non domestic buildings, especially starting with schools care homes, hospitals, etc. So this is really, again, an important area where we agree with the CCC. The other area where we think that government should act is not only on building regulations which look at buildings themselves, but also the whole planning system. Overheating and many health issues are not only related to the buildings, but to its context. For example, its exposure to noise and air pollution. And that we think really needs both building regulations and attention through the planning process. Site allocation, local plans, as well as individual planning applications. This is where, for example, we can talk about urban greening, being careful where we put housing, whether it's a noisy location or not, etc. And that is really at the moment not addressed enough local authorities don't have enough resources for this. We often can't necessarily work very well with the environmental health officers departments who deal with the problems when housing ends up overheating, etc. And I think these are really the main points. Generally, more coherence needed, more consistency, probably in retrofit programs. We know we need to embark on a massive retrofit program for net zero on reducing our emissions. These are opportunities not only to make sure we don't create an overheating risk but also that we improve homes that already overheat and that we deal with other health issues, especially to do with ventilation. We know many homes are not adequately ventilated. So we could tackle a lot of things at the same time when we do these works for energy efficiency as well. Thank you very much, Julie, and for all the speakers. So we've got about 20 minutes or so for the Q&A session. Thank you to everybody who's been putting your questions in there and for voting. The ones that you think are particularly important. We're almost certainly not going to be able to get through all of them, but I'll try to pick a reasonable selection for them. So let's just start off with maybe the one at the top there from Kevin Blanchard. I won't really all out, but I wonder what specific work has been done for this report to understand how the communities will be impacted and whether there's been any attempt to engage with those communities. So perhaps I could go to Shari first with that and I wonder then whether Owen might like to come in with some reflections. Okay, so I'm going to just answer from the kind of research perspective and then hand over to Owen for what's being done at local and national levels. So I think this is increasing up the agenda now because there's a wider inequalities debate that's linked to the consequences of the pandemic. So we have a much better understanding, but I still think there's a lot of research, particularly as adaptation is being implemented. It's very important that we monitor and evaluate specific interventions and responses to ensure that the outcomes are fair, essentially. So there are important inequalities around flood risk at the moment and coastal flood risk. Less so for heat in fact, but there's a potential for those to increase if we don't manage adaptation directly. So Owen, thank you. Yeah, thanks, Shari. So periodically, of course, we update the heat wave plan and there's been some recent work that has informed kind of our maybe not the plan itself, but the guidance around the plan and equally how we communicate these risks to what are quite hard to reach audiences, because we know that effective communications can lead to effective behavioural change. So a few years ago, there was some work done by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, looking at inequalities around heat that we contributed to and some work by Kings on marginalised groups and heat communication. Most recently, however, and in light of COVID-19, we did do an inequalities review. And that's, I think, shortly due for publication. And leading to the single adverse weather and health plan, we've identified what our people are users journeys to the plan. And we know that inequalities is an anchor point within the NHS that many, many parts, or if not the whole system is addressing. And so we are now working on what those entry points are into the plan, but inequalities will certainly feature as a theme. Thank you very much, Shari and Owen. Let's just, there's a anonymous, having been through the process of collating this evidence to inform national adaptation plan on that. Do you have any reflections on whether the processes are fit for purpose? I wonder if I could ask Gemma if she might just take that one, please initially and if anyone else wants to chip in. Yeah, that's a really good question. It is something that the Committee have reflected on. I think the view is that the adaptation policy cycle within the UK is a great example of how a process could work. The climate change risk assessment is such a huge process that it's seen as sort of world leading and other countries really should be doing similar assessments. However, we have acknowledged that a lot of the risks that were identified in CCRA2, which was five years ago, perhaps weren't reflected within the national adaptation program for England and the devolved adaptation programs as well. So what we've really tried to do with this report is to pull out those critical risk areas to really help provide, I guess, guidance as to where government need to act in the short term and really stress that they should be including all of those 61 risks and opportunities within the national adaptation programs. And I think it's really important that we also tie climate change adaptation in with net zero and tie it in with the COP, which is obviously coming up in a couple of months time. So government just needs to hear that and understand that the next cycle of adaptation plans across the UK need to be a bit more realistic about the impacts that are coming our way and really take on board what's been set out within the CCRA3 assessment. Thank you very much, Janet. We had a couple of questions about temperatures both in the workplace and the home. Perhaps I could ask Shari if you wouldn't mind just responding to the workplace question and the importance of addressing regulation that relates into workplace temperatures. Yeah, so I think the questions asked were the more needs to be done by employers to protect their health and wellbeing of their staff. So the answer is, of course. Yes, so what we need to do is make sure that the evidence is there for them to use so develop tools and methods to assess health risks. And it's also about education. It's not just about building standards, although, or indoor temperature thresholds, but also about cultures and practice and making sure that people are aware of risks in others and the best things to do and regular. People are often dehydrated actually. There's been some big European surveys that show the level of dehydration even in average summers is quite high. So there's kind of general issues about worker health that do need to be addressed. So I'll hand over to Julie. Yes, absolutely. And the issue with maximum temperatures is that it is difficult to define. It will vary according to different people, different ages and metabolism, etc. And if we only relied on a maximum temperature, it's quite likely that this would be really quite extreme and that there would be health and comfort impacts before. As Shari said, it may be that we don't even notice and we are dehydrated. So employers have a role not only in these temperatures, but again, as Shari said in workplace culture, so dress code, hopefully flexible working will also allow people to work differently. So for example, not only the time that they're in the office, but also the time that they travel one hour on the central line in London can have quite a detrimental effect to your comfort already before you even started the day. So there's various actions that employers could take and they would ultimately benefit them because we all know that affects productivity quite a lot. Thank you, Shari and Julie. Question from Tim Rayner, incremental loss of urban green space and access to it measures a problem that worsens urban heat stress. How can it be addressed? Gemma, can I maybe come to you first on that? I don't know if anybody else would like to chip in then please do. Yeah, of course, thanks Mike. And it probably links to one of the other questions that's up there as well about adaptation measures for for urban areas to do with nature. So how can urban green space and how can the CCC help to better uptake? So I'll try and answer both of those together if that's, if that's okay. So yes, the incremental loss of urban green space is an issue that the committee have raised in their last few progress reports to Parliament. What I would ideally like to see is that there is a better understanding of the full benefits that green spaces can bring. Obviously it can help reduce urban heat island, but they also have benefits for mitigation by diversity and immunity value. I think if you know planners and developers were really incorporating all of those benefits into their cost benefit analysis for the green space it would be an absolute no brainer to be including it within urban areas. One of the recommendations that the committee have made to governments in its 2019 and the 2021 progress reports was around bringing in a urban green space target. That would be a national target for increasing the amount of green space available. But there's also lots of different policy areas that can really help drive green spaces things like the biodiversity net gain requirements and you know net zero to an extent and also things at the 25 year environment plan. Thank you, Joe. Anybody else like to say anything about that point before we move on to the next question. Okay, thank you. There's a question here from Steve McFarland. Do the eight as priority risks apply equally across the UK nations are other differences due to natural geographical and political policy situations. I wonder if Shari Wretch would like to take to take that initially. The short answer is, they do. They are scored for each country each risk is scored for each country so if you look in detail in that third slide. So heat risk is actually scored high across all countries and I think flood risk as well as as well. But there are obviously important differences so heat risks are obviously largest in the south and then coastal flood risks are quite geographically focused as well. Rachel, do you want to add something? Yeah, I think, as Shari said, there was a table at the beginning highlighting the differences. I think I wonder though if that's the answer to the question. I'm not sure if the question was about the risks in this chapter or those priority risks that needs to be addressed in the next two years. In terms of the chapter I think just to highlight that some of those risks that may be not scored as highly so for example the risk of sea level rise and potentially coastal communities, some coastal communities becoming unviable in the future is scored lower for Northern Ireland but that's on the basis of much less evidence for example so I think it's important to be aware of how the scoring is done. But I think that question may have been about the priority risks rather than about the chapter. Priority risks apply to the whole of the report, not just this chapter don't they? Priority risks apply for the whole of the UK. Thank you. Another question here relating to homes so Julie perhaps I can come to you this one this is from Jennifer Dix. Clearly more needs to be done to retrofit existing homes to both deal with extreme heat in the future also reduce emissions from domestic heating. So Green Homes Grant have failed to achieve the target update. Well barriers are homeowners industry facing and what kind of policy incentive schemes need to be in place to increase uptake. Well that's a, there's a lot in there but I don't know if Julie if you want to just maybe make a start on that. Yeah, very good question thank you. So the barriers I would say is there's clearly an issue of costs so doing retrofit well costs quite a lot. There's an issue and it is to some extent related but not only of skills and availability of properly trained supply chains, particularly at the scale of individual homes. And the third I would say is the lack of incentives. If it's costly disruptive and it takes a long time. Why would you do it. And at the moment it's really these three things that government and industry need to tackle. Industry has done a lot and supported to some extent by government and base so they have been in particular there's a new standard on retrofit which ensures that not only you improve energy efficiency but you consider aspects such as ventilation and air quality. But this standard is still really quite niche in the market. It hasn't really been applied the green homes grant mentioned was an opportunity to spread it unfortunately at the moment that hasn't happened. I really think skills is the main issue because we do not want to retrofit home and not do it well it will have all sorts of problems in costs in the future for inefficiencies air quality is overheating etc. I could go on but maybe others want to add that skills. Anybody like to add anything to that. I'm conscious. Well, at the time but also that there was a period where the voting facility wasn't switched on so I'll just try to select from different parts of the special but the one I'll just go back to the top here the top question at the moment is from Hailey Tom's how do we encourage policymakers to invest in retrofits for the existing hospital stock in an unprecedented period of pressure in the NHS following COVID-19. So would anyone like to. It's a timely question perhaps and but just want to make sure that we keep the questions relevant to the adaptation work that we're discussing here would anyone like to take that one oh and I see you. You perhaps would like to make us. Yeah, thanks, Mike. Yeah, it's a it's a really good question Hailey and it's a question. I certainly ask myself in terms of our policy influence. We know that the future hospitals etc and the new standards for net zero within the new hospitals is being put into place but retrospective and retrofitting is by far the biggest biggest barrier. Where I feel we can make the encouragement is in demonstrating what the impacts are on the health system. So the health system is enormous and it has enormous amounts of data and it can be really difficult to give a tangible ask quite answer to a question of you know how has trust x been affected by the heat or flood etc. So I think there's definitely something about health information systems and greener NHS is new dashboard will help that in terms of collating the impacts on the health system that we're seeing now in terms of how we engage it to encourage I think it comes back to how we frame these so when we looked at the heat wave deaths last year we found the two, two thirds of them were either in k homes or in hospitals and we need to start discussing these themes, or these impacts around health system resilience and patient safety, as well as demonstrating the cost of the health system in terms of loss of elective services for example, or loss of access in the case of flooding. Excellent. Rachel, can I ask you to come in on this one perhaps as well and if we have time where we've only got a few minutes left if you want to maybe briefly comment on the question about how the insurance sector sector might best help but maybe if I just bring you in on this issue on the hospitals first please. Okay, thank you. Yes, it was really just to highlight the situation in Scotland which is a little bit different so so within JBA we've been working with the with NHS Scotland on the facilities side for the last six years on on developing climate adaptation plans and conducting climate risk assessments for all of their trusts and I think the difference is there is that it's a requirement in Scotland for all public bodies to produce adaptation plans. Obviously the funding side of this is very challenging but there is also the recognition of some of the costs that have been placed on particularly on hospitals around flood incidents and actually sort of recognising that need to really understand the longer term risks and I guess looking at what's being done in Scotland, there is definitely sort of leading the way there and taking this very seriously because just this summer temperatures in some hospitals have been quite ridiculous so I think just to look at Scotland on that. On the insurance question so this is a question from from Zurich from Jim Clark. Yeah, the insurance sector I'm afraid my sort of knowledge around insurance issues more related to household and you're asking particularly about public sector here but I guess very aware from that the insurance sector is used to sort of look at immediate risk but is looking much more at long term risks along with the whole sort of financial sector things like TCFD and climate stress testing. I guess it's really understanding those risks and also how much insurance can be sort of conditional on adaptation measures. So I know in terms of households are looking at things like PFR and actually you know that that insurance being being linked to to improved resilience. There's also on the household side the whole issue of of awareness and people being properly insured so I think the the report that Amanda Blunk did a couple of years ago relating to flooding in in Doncaster, quite a number of even with with the existence of a flood emergency which has has massively help the situation with with household flood insurance. There were quite a number of residents and tenants there who didn't have flood insurance within their policies. Also again this goes back to the whole economic inequalities issue. And the fact that a lot of tenants don't take out contents insurance. People with mortgages tend to take out buildings and contents together. So again it's the those more disadvantaged people on lower income communities that are affected just on that one last point. I guess I think about the wider resilience aspect of doing some other work at the moment with the environment agency about what is resilience and just sorry just hard to that actually disadvantage communities will be more disadvantaged by any crisis, including flooding or heating. Thank you very much Rachel that's great. Thank you to everyone for all the great questions and I'm sorry we couldn't get through them all. Thank you very much to all the the panelists for their responses. Before we finish in just 20 seconds or so time, we'd like to highlight that we have six further webinars in this series the UK climate risks state of the nation, and a link to sign up to the other events will be appearing in the chat box shortly so thank you again to everyone for attending. Thank you to the panelists and we'll close the webinar now. Thank you.