Transcript A Policy Study of Climate Change Vulnerability and

Adaptation as Resilience Building:
A policy study of climate change vulnerability and adaptation on the
Canadian prairies
A project update presented at the
Canadian Agricultural Drought Adaptation (ADA) Project
Researchers and Advisory Group Workshop
November 29, 2006
Henry David Venema, Director
Sustainable Natural Resources Management, IISD
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
With funding from NRCan’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate
Acknowledgements
Harvey Hill, PFRA-AAFC Saskatoon (co-PI)
Fikret Berkes, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba
(co-PI)
Peter Myers, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba
Brian Abrahamson, PFRA-AAFC (retired)
Darren Swanson, IISD
Jim Hiley, PFRA-AAFC Edmonton
Al Howard, PFRA-AAFC Regina
John Fitzamaurice, PFRA-AAFC Winnipeg
Wade Nyirfa, PFRA-AAFC Regina
Ryan Schwartz, CCAF-NRCan
“Outstanding Problems”
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
“The intense
vulnerability of the 2
billion people living
in
dryland agricultural
regions to the loss
of ecosystem
services, including
water supply; and
the growing threat
to ecosystems from
climate change and
nutrient pollution.”
Nitrogen Flows
Global Temperature
past/projected
Climate Change:
Moisture Deficit
MoistureProjected
Deficit 1961-1990
2050 (CGCM1)
Nutrient Stresses Emerging:
(Recall the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)
A Resilience Theory Framework [Berkes et al,2003]
Change/Stress/Shock
Innovation,
learning
Social-ecological
system
Capacity to
adapt to change
This is what we
(think we can)
measure
Memory,
institutions
These are the policy dynamics
we’re trying to understand and
influence
Sustainability
“Resilience”
“We don’t get average weather, we get the extremes”
the bad news the extremes will get more extreme
[Diagram from Smit et al, 2002]
This range
Increasing?
In a sense, therefore, the continual “testing” of the system gives
them the resilience they have. Their self-correcting responses to
the unexpected exist because they are used
occasionally….impact assessment… must at least be measured
in terms of the degree of variability that has been historically
experienced [Holling, 1978]
Lessons From Recent Development
Practice
Agricultural (Scoones, 2004):
 Past policy interventions that assume equilibrium conditions
“wildly inappropriate” in large swaths of Africa where the
coefficient of variation of annual rainfall is more than 30% linear policy models failed.
Water resources (Moench et al, 2003)
 “While it may be possible to identify some emerging problems in advance,
changing conditions often render specifically targeted management
proposals irrelevant or impossible to implement. Because of this, our
research indicates a clear need for frameworks that are "adaptive" that reflect uncertainties and can respond and adapt as contexts
change or unforeseen problems emerge. Specific solutions are less
important than the existence of processes and frameworks that enable
solutions to be identified and implemented as specific constraints and
contexts change.”
 Hazards
/ Disaster (International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction, 2003)
 “Experience gained coping with current climate variability is the basis for
future adaptation to climate change”
Climate Variability
(a surrogate for “Change/Stress/Shock”)
Growing Season Precipitation Coefficient of
Variation: precursor to desertification
Canadian Climate-Agricultural Policy
Reccomendations
Operationalizing the Vulnerability Approach
Vulnerability = f(Exposure, Adaptive Capacity)
Smit and Pilifosova (2003)
Vulnerability
Exposure
Historic climate stress
Future climate stress
Adaptive
Capacity
Adaptation occurs continuously;
(successfully and unsuccessfully)
Ongoing successful adaptation is resilience
Objective: identify, learn and replicate
The policy environment that creates
these successes.
Adaptive Capacity
Case Study Identification with
Vulnerability Space Mapping
what policies and
practices are
promoting resilience
and adaptation
high
what policies and
practices are impeding
resilience and adaptation
low
low
Climate Exposure Index
high
Project Schematic: identifying the strong signals
Key inputs
Climate
Exposure data
Adaptive
Capacity data
Vulnerability
Analysis
Where are the
key lessons to be found?
Adaptive Capacity
Key outputs
Climate Exposure Index
Stakeholder
narratives
Resilience Analysis
What is working,
what isn’t
Future Climate
Models
Adaptation Priority
Analysis
Where and how?
Policy Recommendations:
influence the APF
Case study identification
Current Policy
Synthesis
Aspects
Determinants
Index
Measuring Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive
Capacity
Economic
Resources
Institutions and
Networks
Equity
Soil resource
Social capital (via
Informal networks)
Employment
opportunities
Soil resource
Management
practices
Surface water
resource
Email use
Access to health
And social services
Technological
flexibility
Environmental
Management
practices
Groundwater
resource
Internet use
Distribution of
Income in general
population
Technological
exposure
Experience and
wisdom
Transportation
network
Access to agri
Education
institutions
Distribution of
Income in the
Agri . population
Technology
Information, skills
and management
Income generation
Relative to capital
investment
Water access
technology
Enterprise
Information
Management
Income generation
Relative to summary
expenses
Computer
technology
Off -farm
earnings
Diversity of
Employment
opportunities
Infrastructure
Data Sources
2001 Census of Agriculture, 2001 Census of Population, 2005 Stat
istics Canada report on
É
Adaptive
Capacity
Mapped
Climate Exposure Mapped
Growing Season Precipitation Coefficient of Variation (%)
Site Selection for Resilience Analysis
Climate Exposure
Adaptive Capacity
Candidate Sites Selected
Narrative Development: Farm-level Interviews
- interrogating policy directly
- 1. Please briefly describe your operation including both type and
size.
- 2. Have there been any large changes to your operation in the last
five years?
- 3. List any weather extremes which have impacted you in the last five
years.
- 4. List any other events which have impacted you in the last five
years.
- 5. Please describe how (insert event) impacted your operation and
quality of life in general.
- 6. How did you respond to (insert event)?
- 7. What aided you in your response?
- 8. What impeded you in your response?
- 9. What measures and policies would be useful for improving your
ability to respond to the weather events we have discussed?
- 10.
Have you heard of the (insert policy/program*)? If so,
did you apply, or consider applying?
- *see list of appended policies and programs
Initial Findings: Stresses
shocks and stresses (rank order)
exc ess moisture
low commod ity prices
high input costs (i.e. fuel and chemi cal)
heavy rainfall
BSE
Frost
drought (³ one growing season)
dry period (² on e growing season)
cold summe r temperatures
late snowfall
heavy snowfall
wet fall
weather variability in general
increase in machine costs
warm winter temperatures
hail
rural depopulation
bovine TB
rise in the Canadian dollar value
low buying power
rise in in terest rates
collapse of pregnant mare urine industry
loss of business partner
high speed winds
fire /lightening
American protectionism
health care degradation
conflicts with other local industry
cool spring temperatures
high cost of freight
cost of supporting dependents
mark et downturn in bison and elk
dealings with policies and programs
Total
farm n orth
(n=30)
farm south
(n=30)
48
17
16
17
16
21
5
10
9
3
4
2
0
2
4
3
3
3
2
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
195
farm tota l
(n=60)
60
22
19
16
15
6
15
10
3
5
2
4
6
4
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
203
108
39
35
33
31
27
20
20
12
8
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
398
Initial Findings: Responses to Weather
Stresses
weather response (rank order)
employ a standard fa rm practice (e.g. cultiva te, apply herbicide)
alter a farm cycle (²on e season)
hiring outside help from within the local agricultural sector (e.g.local abattoir)
wait out
work longe r or do extra work (e.g. cleaning up)
work with the weather' (e.g.harvest wetland for feed, silage failed crops)
use technological advances
increase bufferin g capacity (e.g. stockpiling hay, crop rotation)
reduce see ding or other inputs
use gover nment aid and programs
Crop Insurance and claims
alter a farm cycle or practice (³ one season)
use local associations and support networks (e.g.lobby effo rts)
market strategy (i.e. market early, use futures, alterna tive markets)
reduce spen ding, borrowin g, or do a job yourself
reduce tillage
match land use to agricultural potential (e.g.sow marginal land to pasture)
destroy inven tory
diversific ation
out of commodity
total
north farm
(n=30)
sout h farm
(n=30)
17
14
18
5
13
11
12
10
1
0
13
3
1
4
1
0
5
2
0
1
131
Total
(n=60)
33
16
7
19
10
8
4
5
13
14
0
8
9
5
5
6
0
0
1
0
163
50
30
25
24
23
19
16
15
14
14
13
11
10
9
6
6
5
2
1
1
294
Initial Findings: Responses to Non-Weather
Stresses
consolidated non-weather response (rank order)
increase her d size (note: BSE specific)
reduce spen ding, borrowin g, or do a job yourself
market strategy (i.e. market early, use futures, alterna tive markets)
reduce tillage
hiring outside help from within the local agricultural sector (e.g.local abattoir)
wait out
alter a farm cycle or practice (³ one season)
use gover nment aid and programs
use credit to access loans
work longe r or do extra work (e.g. cleaning up)
out of commodity
reduce see ding or other inputs
destroy inven tory
increase pro duction
Crop Insurance and claims
alter a farm cycle (²on e season)
invest in local slaughter capacity
increase bufferin g capacity (e.g. stockpiling hay, crop rotation)
Ō
work with the weather' (e.g.harvest wetland for feed, silage failed crops)
increase efficiency (e.g. test the soil prior to chemical application)
sell at reduced prices
use local associations and support networks (e.g.lobby effo rts)
match land use to agricultural potential (e.g.sow marginal land to pasture)
diversific ation
buy out partner
total
north farm
(n=30)
sout h farm
(n=30)
8
5
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
4
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
50
total
(n=60)
8
8
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
0
2
3
2
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
53
16
13
9
8
7
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
103
Initial Findings: Stress-Response
rank
weathe r 1
weathe r 2
top stresse s (n=30)
excess moisture (48)
frost (21)
weathe r 3
heavy rainfall (17)
weathe r 4
dry period (10)
top three impacts
late sowing or harves t (15)
unsown acre s (13)
increase in weeds (13)
lost yield (11)
lost grade (10)
lost yield or grade (9)
flooded out acres (8)
late sowing or harves t (4)
lost yield (4)
feed shortage, low quality (3)
weathe r 5
cold sum mer temperatures (10)
immature crops, disease (5)
lost yield or grade (4)
nonwe ather 1
low commodity prices (17)
nonwe ather 2
nonwe ather 3
high input costs (16)
BSE (16)
tight margins (4)
cash flow problems (3)
tight margins (5)
decreased the value of herd (11)
top three responses
employ a standard fa rm practice (17)
work longer or do extra work (7)
get outside help from within the local agricultural sector (6)
market strategy (i.e. feed market cash crop) (3)
use government aid and programs (i.e. Crop Insurance) (3)
Ōwork with the weather' (i.e. failed crops equal feed) (2)
alter a farm cycle (²on e season) (6)
work longer or do extra work (5)
get outside help from within the local agricultural sector (4)
increase buffering capacity (3)
Ōwork with the weather' (i.e. harves t wetalnds for feed ) (2
alter a farm cycle (²on e season) (2)
reduce spending or reduce tillage (2)
reduce spending or reduce tillage (5)
increase herd size (7)
market strategy (4)
increased herd size (9)
reduced income, cash flow (7) get outside help from within the local agricultural sector (3)
Initial Findings: Raw Policy Data
response category (table 2)
respondent #
Crop Insurance
3
2
7
17
25
21
29
47
50
43
45
51
54
subtotals
Govern ment and crown
corporatio n programs (other
than Crop Insuranc e and
loans)
north: 13
subtotals
Loans (ban k or MACC)
north: 5
subtotals
other programs and policies
north: 1
subtotals
totals
north: 1
north: 20
7
18
25
44
51
29
37
53
44
24
28
31
54
55
19
33
43
spe cific name of policy
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance
southwe st: 10
CAIS
CAIS
CAIS
CAIS
BSE program claims
BSE program claims
BSE program claims
FIPP
NISA
Riparia n Stewardship
southwe st: 5
bank/crediting agency loan
bank/crediting agency loan
bank/crediting agency loan
bank/crediting agency loan
southwe st: 3
agroche mical company claim
Ducks Unlimited seed progr am
home insurance
southwe st: 2
sout hwest: 20
times
used
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
40
Status and Next Steps
The Bad News:
 Synthesizing Raw Field Data from Manitoba: explaining NS differences
 Saskatchewan field study starting now.
 Resilience Synthesis and Policy Analysis starting now on
limited field data (one province)
 Project scheduled to end March 31, 2007
The Good News:
 The project lives on as an input to a large comparative
Canada-India comparative project on “Adaptive Policy”
funded by IDRC:
www.iisd.org/climate/canada/adaptive_overview.asp
 Early outputs from the linked IDRC project released at
COP12 in Nairobi earlier this month.
 The Prairie Climate Resilience Project will be completed in
fy 07-08
Phase I Report and Website
Equilibrium and Non-equilibrium
Agricultural Policy
Theme
Liveli hoods and
resource
management
Institutions
Conventiona l Views
Single use, sectoral view of
resources; resources as
commodities; production
focus
Static, rule-based, formal,
clear boundaries, fixed,
exclusivity
Legal frameworks Formal legislation; fixed
rules and procedures
Development and Blueprint approach; li near
planning
poli cy model
Knowledge/p ower Science as arbiter, single
source of authoritative
knowledge; confli ct, dissent
and debate underplayed
Risk and
Measurable risks and
uncertainty
predictable outcomes;
assumptions of ŅnormalÓ,
ŅstandardÓpatterns
Governance
Separation of levels, local vs
global; rules and formal
institutions of governance
Emerging Views
Multiple users, complex and
diverse li veli hoods
Dynami c, overlapping,
heterogeneous, socially defined,
emergent from adaptive practice,
flexible
Evolving law in practice,
multiple systems, legal plurali sm
Adaptive planning, flexible,
responsive, learning, non-li near
poli cy; negotiation, adaptation,
discretion key
Multiple sources; plural and
partial perspectives; confli ct,
dispute and dissent inevitable;
negotiated understanding
Uncertainty and ignorance;
temporal variabili ty and spatial
diversity
Integration of l evels; multi-level
governance, messy interactions,
negotiation of out comes
Source: Scoones, 2004