Transcript No Slide Title

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND SOCIAL COHESION:
THE NEED FOR A DYNAMIC APPROACH
FOR DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
Michael D. Mehta, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Director
Sociology of Biotechnology Program
Department of Sociology
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK
Canada, S7N 5A5
Tel: (306) 966-6917
Fax: (306) 966-6950
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.policynut.com
Presented to the Senate of Canada, Standing Senate Committee
on Agriculture and Forestry, 24 February 2003, Regina, SK.
1
Introduction
“Who adapts and to
what do they adapt?
What influences the
ability of institutions to
adapt? Are there
critical thresholds
beyond which it is
difficult to adapt?”
Reference: “A theory
of adaptive capacity.”
Tyndall Centre,
University of East
Anglia, July 2002.
Although real in its consequences, climate
change is essentially a social phenomenon.
As such, climate change will create
“winners” and “losers” by virtue of its
direct and indirect impacts on agriculture,
forestry, and other sectors of the economy.
Furthermore, these impacts are likely to be
uneven across regions, time horizons, and
affected individuals. In the context of rural
Canada, climate change is likely to place
new, and magnified, strains on the “social
fabric.” Consequently, it is necessary to
examine the impacts of climate change on
rural communities, and to assess how
climate change affects the capacity to adapt
by disrupting, or altering, the social
cohesiveness of such communities.
2
Social Determinants of Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability of a
system, or an individual, to adjust to climatic
variability by minimising the likelihood and
consequences of adverse outcomes. As such,
adaptive capacity is related to risk management. A
hazard is identified, its potential adverse impacts
are assessed, and measures are taken to reduce the
risk. This model of adaptive capacity builds upon
a well-known mathematical definition of risk.
Risk = Probability x Consequence
To reduce risk, safeguards can be adopted to decrease the
probability of an adverse event from occurring and/or to reduce the
impacts associated with exposure. As such, adaptive capacity is the
ability to access and use safeguards to reduce risk. A failure to
adapt, under certain climatic conditions, increases risk by making
individuals, and communities, more vulnerable.
3
Adaptive capacity is also a function of several social,
behavioural and institutional variables that have
interaction effects.
Adaptive Capacity = (Trusta + Wealthb + Riskc + Social Characteristicsd +
Time Horizone) X Awarenessf
a = trust in the science of climate change, sources of information, and forecasting
b = wealth offers adapters more options
c = based on assessment of risk and tolerance for risk
d= for individual adapters (age, experience, type and size of farm)
e= the intensity, timing and latency of climate-related stimuli and outcomes
f = awareness of adaptation options available to individual adapters
Clearly, adaptive capacity falls along a continuum.
Assessing degree of trust, wealth, risk, social
characteristics and time horizon can indicate how
much adaptive capacity actors possess to buffer, and
to a certain extent prosper, under conditions of
climate change. In general, some degree of awareness
is required in order to mobilise this capacity. Actors
with high adaptive capacity and low awareness are
likely to squander, or misuse, this capacity.
Conversely, actors with low adaptive capacity and
high awareness are likely to be under significant
levels of stress due to their inability to effect positive
change.
4
Theoretically, a comparison of actors with high adaptive
capacity to those with low adaptive capacity yields the
following observations.
Trust
Wealth
Risk
Social Characteristics
Time Horizon
Awareness
High Adaptive Capacity
Low Adaptive Capacity
More likely to believe that
climate change is real, and
more likely to rely on external
sources of information.
Greater access to financial
resources and enough wealth to
buffer variation over time.
More likely to view climatic
change as a serious risk
(relative to other risks). Less
tolerant of risk.
More likely to be a smallerscale farmer (e.g., less than
1000 acres) and organic.
Greater level of exposure to
climatic variability, with
shorter latency periods.
Greater awareness of
adaptation options available.
More likely to discount the
science of climate change
and to rely on intuition and
experience.
Less access to financial
resources.
Less likely to view climatic
change as a serious risk.
More tolerant to risk.
More likely to be a largescale, conventional farmer.
Less exposure to climatic
variability, with longer
lantency periods.
Less awareness of
adaptation options
available.
5
Although adaptive capacity varies across actors, it is
incorrect to assume that some actors possess enough
capacity to buffer anything climate change can throw in
their direction. Adaptive capacity is a dynamic property
that actors possess. As such, actors considered welladapted under certain conditions, may in a relative
sense become less well-adapted when these conditions
change.
Dynamic adaptive capacity (DAC) can be defined as
the capacity of actors to acknowledge and respond to
climatic variability in a socially responsible,
environmentally sustainable, and flexible fashion.
The promotion of DAC places an emphasis on
maximising the public good. Since climate change is a
product of collective action, it only makes sense to
place adaptive capacity within a broader social
framework. Actors who build and deploy measures that
improve their own ability to buffer climatic variability
must recognise that some measures may diminish the
ability of others to adapt. In effect, DAC becomes a
collective planning exercise where social cohesion can
be either built or weakened by particular kinds of
decisions taken.
Responding to climate change will require a significant shift
in our base of economic activity, and changes in how we
understand concepts like progress, economic growth and
environmental sustainability.
6
What is Social Cohesion?
The literature on social cohesion is rich and varied,
yet poorly integrated. Social cohesion is a measure of
how tightly coupled, robust and unified a community
is across a set of indicators. A community with a
strong sense of identity and shared goals is considered
to be more cohesive than one without these qualities.
A cohesive community is also able to buffer more
effectively changes resulting from realignments of
international actors, national priorities, local political
climates, economic upturns or downturns, and also
environmental effects from phenomena like climate
change.
A cohesive society is one that can sense itself,
and more importantly can mobilise the
necessary “social capital” to correct
distortions, and to adapt to a changing world.
It contains institutions that foster trust and
commitment that work in the interest of the
public good. Such a society utilises social
capital by actively building networks and
forums that encourage public debate. Indeed,
such societies welcome the opportunity to
explore complex, and perhaps even divisive
issues, like those raised in the debate on
climate change.
7
There is little agreement on how to define social cohesion.
This is somewhat startling considering how widely used this
concept is, and how quickly some claim that social cohesion
has declined in recent years. Jane Jenson suggests that social
cohesion became popular as a topic of discourse because it
illuminates the interconnections between "economic
restructuring, social change and political action."
Furthermore, Jenson notes that a cohesive society is
assumed to be socially and economically optimal according
to a range of governmental agencies and organisations like
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), and that a decline in cohesion
represents a threat to social order. Judith Maxwell considers
the relationship between social cohesion and those social
conditions that indicate when a society fails to function
adequately. Maxwell defines social cohesion as the sharing
of values that reduce "...disparities in wealth and income"
while giving people a sense of community.
Jenson, J. 1998. Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of
Canadian Research. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Maxwell, J. 1996. Social Dimensions of Economic Growth.
Eric John Hanson Memorial Lecture Series, Volume VIII,
University of Alberta.
8
What is the relationship between adaptive capacity
and social cohesion in rural communities?
• Adaptive capacity is a social construct: it exists only in a relative
sense, and can be fostered or depleted depending on the nature
of exchange relationships between social actors.
• Adaptive capacity is dynamic such that no one actor is “perfectly”
adapted to all climatic events. Vulnerability is never equal to zero.
• Individual responses to climate change can weaken the ability
of others to adapt, and therefore strain social cohesion.
• To reduce this risk, my concept of Dynamic Adaptive Capacity
suggests that adaptation measures need to be socially responsible,
environmentally sustainable and flexible.
• In order to maximise benefit to the public good by building
Dynamic Adaptive Capacity, trust and mechanisms for ensuring
equity are required. A high degree of social cohesion is requisite.
How can efforts at building social cohesion improve the
ability of rural communities to adapt to climate change?
• Social cohesion in rural communities reverses migration to urban
areas. This promotes conditions for reinvestment in agriculture (a
necessary condition for adapting to climate change).
• Social cohesion exists when equity concerns are addressed.
Laggards should not be rewarded disproportionately for adapting.
Early adapters, and farmers who have sustainable practices, should
not be rewarded differentially. This practice creates conditions for
low social cohesion, and conflict.
• Socially cohesive communities can plan for collective adaptation,
and reduce the number of “losers” while maximising the
number of “winners.”
9
Conclusion
Traditional conceptions of adaptive capacity
are akin to risk management in several ways.
However, individual measures for building
adaptive capacity have the potential to create
conflict, inequities and overall less collective
adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity is a social
process with social consequences. To reduce
these undesirable impacts, I propose that the
links between adaptive capacity and social
cohesion be understand more fully. My
concept of Dynamic Adaptive Capacity
allows
policy-makers
and
others
an
opportunity to evaluate different adaptive
responses in terms of equity, environmental
sustainability, and potential impacts on social
cohesion in rural communities.
“Adequate prediction of climate
impacts is further hindered by the fact
that these complex systems will be
simultaneously stressed by many
other changes.”
Reference: IPCC, Working Group II,
Second Assessment Report, Summary for
Policymakers: Impacts, Adaptations and
Mitigation Options, 1995.
10