It is not the intention here to explore in detail the appropriate role of governments in formulating adaptation strategies. But a case can readily be made for refocusing bureaucratic thinking and activity into the following areas:
Addressing genuine instances of market failure, such as lack of information, by supporting research into likely effects of climate change, but at a specific level relevant to local conditions.
Taking a leading role where externalities occur. For example, if levee banks are required to prevent flood damage, it will be necessary to ensure that the affected riparian landowners all build and maintain adequate flood defences to avoid flooding from neighbouring properties with inadequate levee banks. However, cost recovery — perhaps in the form of income-contingent loans proposed by Chapman (2006) — may be appropriate if land values are enhanced through government support.
Identification and removal of bureaucratic impediments to adaptation by the private sector. (Local council bans on rainwater tanks in urban households are still well within living memory.)
Fostering the identification of potential real options in adaptation strategies, and public dissemination of information on the results.