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 WorkshopNovember 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 ManitobaBrian Abrahamson, PFRA-AAFC (retired)Darren Swanson, IISDJim Hiley, PFRA-AAFC EdmontonAl Howard, PFRA-AAFC ReginaJohn Fitzamaurice, PFRA-AAFC WinnipegWade Nyirfa, PFRA-AAFC ReginaRyan 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 threatto ecosystems from climate change and nutrient pollution.”

Nitrogen Flows

Global Temperature past/projected

Climate Change: Projected Moisture Deficit 2050 (CGCM1)

Moisture Deficit 1961-1990

Nutrient Stresses Emerging:(Recall the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)

Capacity to adapt to change

Social-ecologicalsystem

Change/Stress/Shock

Sustainability“Resilience”

Memory, institutions

Innovation,learning

This is what we (think we can) measure

These are the policy dynamics

we’re trying to understand and

influence

A Resilience Theory Framework [Berkes et al,2003]

“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

ExposureAdaptiveCapacity

Adaptation occurs continuously;(successfully and unsuccessfully)Ongoing successful adaptation is resilienceObjective: identify, learn and replicate The policy environment that creates these successes.

Historic climate stressFuture climate stress

Case Study Identification with Vulnerability Space Mapping

Climate Exposure Index

Ad

apti

ve C

apac

ity

highlow

high

low

Lessons learned from these case studies:what policies and practices are impeding resilience and adaptation

what policies and practices are impeding resilience and adaptation

what policies and practices are promoting resilience and adaptation

Project Schematic: identifying the strong signals

Vulnerability Analysis

Where are the key lessons to be found?

Resilience AnalysisWhat is working,

what isn’t

Adaptation PriorityAnalysis

Where and how?

Key inputs

Climate Exposure data

AdaptiveCapacity data

Climate Exposure Index

Ad

ap

tiv

e C

ap

ac

ity

Case study identification

Future ClimateModels

Current PolicySynthesis

Key outputs

Policy Recommendations:influence the APF

Stakeholdernarratives

Measuring Adaptive Capacity

Economic Resources

Technology Information, skillsand management Infrastructure

Data Sources

2001 Census of Agriculture, 2001 Census of Population, 2005 Stat istics Canada report on É

Institutions and Networks

Equity

AdaptiveCapacity

Diversity ofEmploymentopportunities

Income generation Relative to summary

expenses

Income generationRelative to capital

investment

Off-farmearnings

Technological exposure

Computer technology

Water accesstechnology

Technologicalflexibility

Experience and wisdom

Soil resourceManagement

practices

EnterpriseInformation

Management

EnvironmentalManagement

practices

Transportation network

Surface waterresource

Soil resource

Groundwaterresource

Access to agriEducation institutions

Email use

Social capital (viaInformal networks)

Internet use

Distribution of Income in the

Agri . population

Access to healthAnd social services

Employment opportunities

Distribution ofIncome in general

population

Ind

ex

De

term

ina

nts

Asp

ect

s

Adaptive Capacity Mapped

Climate Exposure Mapped Growing Season Precipitation Coefficient of Variation

(%)

Adaptive Capacity

Climate Exposure

Candidate Sites Selected

Site Selection for Resilience Analysis

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: Stressesshocks and stresses (rank order)

farm north (n=30)

farm south (n=30)

farm total (n=60)

excess moisture 48 60 108 low commodity prices 17 22 39 high input costs (i.e. fuel and chemical) 16 19 35 heavy rainfall 17 16 33 BSE 16 15 31 Frost 21 6 27 drought (³ one growing season) 5 15 20 dry period (² one growing season) 10 10 20 cold summer temperatures 9 3 12 late snowfall 3 5 8 heavy snowfall 4 2 6 wet fall 2 4 6 weather variability in general 0 6 6 increase in machine costs 2 4 6 warm winter temperatures 4 1 5 hail 3 2 5 rural depopulation 3 2 5 bovine TB 3 0 3 rise in the Canadian dollar value 2 1 3 low buying power 1 1 2 rise in interest rates 0 2 2

collapse of pregnant mare urine industry 2 0 2 loss of business partner 2 0 2 high speed winds 2 0 2 fire/lightening 1 1 2 American protectionism 1 0 1 health care degradation 0 1 1 conflicts with other local industry 0 1 1 cool spring temperatures 0 1 1 high cost of freight 0 1 1 cost of supporting dependents 0 1 1 market downturn in bison and elk 0 1 1 dealings with policies and programs 1 0 1 Total 195 203 398

Initial Findings: Responses to Weather Stresses

weather response (rank order) north farm (n=30)

south farm (n=30)

Total (n=60)

employ a standard farm practice (e.g. cultivate, apply herbicide) 17 33 50 alter a farm cycle (²on e season) 14 16 30 hiring outside help from within the local agricultural sector (e.g.local abattoir) 18 7 25 wait out 5 19 24 work longer or do extra work (e.g. cleaning up) 13 10 23 work with the weather' (e.g.harvest wetland for feed, silage failed crops) 11 8 19 use technological advances 12 4 16 increase buffering capacity (e.g. stockpiling hay, crop rotation) 10 5 15 reduce seeding or other inputs 1 13 14 use government aid and programs 0 14 14 Crop Insurance and claims 13 0 13 alter a farm cycle or practice (³ one season) 3 8 11 use local associations and support networks (e.g.lobby efforts) 1 9 10 market strategy (i.e. market early, use futures, alternative markets) 4 5 9 reduce spending, borrowing, or do a job yourself 1 5 6 reduce tillage 0 6 6 match land use to agricultural potential (e.g.sow marginal land to pasture) 5 0 5 destroy inventory 2 0 2 diversification 0 1 1 out of commodity 1 0 1

total 131 163 294

Initial Findings: Responses to Non-Weather Stresses

consolidated non-weather response (rank order) north farm (n=30)

south farm (n=30)

total (n=60)

increase herd size (note: BSE specific) 8 8 16 reduce spending, borrowing, or do a job yourself 5 8 13 market strategy (i.e. market early, use futures, alternative markets) 5 4 9 reduce tillage 4 4 8

hiring outside help from within the local agricultural sector (e.g.local abattoir) 3 4 7 wait out 2 3 5 alter a farm cycle or practice (³ one season) 2 2 4 use government aid and programs 1 3 4 use credit to access loans 1 3 4 work longer or do extra work (e.g. cleaning up) 4 0 4 out of commodity 2 2 4 reduce seeding or other inputs 0 3 3 destroy inventory 1 2 3 increase production 0 3 3 Crop Insurance and claims 1 1 2 alter a farm cycle (²on e season) 2 0 2 invest in local slaughter capacity 1 1 2 increase buffering capacity (e.g. stockpiling hay, crop rotation) 1 1 2

Ōwork with the weather' (e.g.harvest wetland for feed, silage failed crops) 2 0 2 increase efficiency (e.g. test the soil prior to chemical application) 0 1 1 sell at reduced prices 1 0 1 use local associations and support networks (e.g.lobby efforts) 1 0 1

match land use to agricultural potential (e.g.sow marginal land to pasture) 1 0 1 diversification 1 0 1 buy out partner 1 0 1 total 50 53 103

Initial Findings: Stress-Response

rank top stresses (n=30) top three impacts top three responses late sowing or harvest (15) employ a standard farm practice (17) unsown acres (13) work longer or do extra work (7)

weather 1 excess moisture (48)

increase in weeds (13) get outside help from within the local agricultural sector (6)

lost yield (11) market strategy (i.e. feed market cash crop) (3) lost grade (10) use government aid and programs (i.e. Crop Insurance) (3)

weather 2 frost (21)

Ōwork with the weather' (i.e. failed crops equal feed) (2) lost yield or grade (9) alter a farm cycle (²on e season) (6) flooded out acres (8) work longer or do extra work (5)

weather 3 heavy rainfall (17)

late sowing or harvest (4) lost yield (4) get outside help from within the local agricultural sector (4)

feed shortage, low quality (3) increase buffering capacity (3)

weather 4 dry period (10)

Ōwork with the weather' (i.e. harvest wetalnds for feed) (2) immature crops, disease (5) alter a farm cycle (²on e season) (2) weather 5 cold summer temperatures (10)

lost yield or grade (4)

tight margins (4) reduce spending or reduce tillage (2) nonweather 1 low commodity prices (17)

cash flow problems (3) nonweather 2 high input costs (16) tight margins (5) reduce spending or reduce tillage (5)

decreased the value of herd (11) increase herd size (7) increased herd size (9) market strategy (4)

nonweather 3 BSE (16)

reduced income, cash flow (7) get outside help from within the local agricultural sector (3)

Initial Findings: Raw Policy Dataresponse category (table 2)

respondent # specific name of policy times used

3 Crop Insurance 2 2 Crop Insurance 4 7 Crop Insurance 1

17 Crop Insurance 2 25 Crop Insurance 1 21 Crop Insurance 1 29 Crop Insurance 2 47 Crop Insurance 2 50 Crop Insurance 1 43 Crop Insurance 1 45 Crop Insurance 3 51 Crop Insurance 1

Crop Insurance

54 Crop Insurance 2 subtotals north: 13 southwest: 10 23

7 CAIS 1 18 CAIS 1 25 CAIS 1 44 CAIS 1 51 BSE program claims 1 29 BSE program claims 1 37 BSE program claims 1 53 FIPP 1 44 NISA 1

Government and crown corporation programs (other than Crop Insurance and loans)

24 Riparian Stewardship 1 subtotals north: 5 southwest: 5 10

28 bank/crediting agency loan 1 31 bank/crediting agency loan 1 54 bank/crediting agency loan 1

Loans (bank or MACC)

55 bank/crediting agency loan 1 subtotals north: 1 southwest: 3 4

19 agrochemical company claim 1 33 Ducks Unlimited seed program 1

other programs and policies

43 home insurance 1 subtotals north: 1 southwest: 2 3 totals north: 20 southwest: 20 40

Status and Next StepsThe Bad News: Synthesizing Raw Field Data from Manitoba: explaining N-

S 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 Conventional Views Emerging Views

Livelihoods and resource management

Single use, sectoral view of resources; resources as commodities; production focus

Multiple users, complex and diverse livelihoods

Institutions Static, rule-based, formal, clear boundaries, fixed, exclusivity

Dynamic, overlapping, heterogeneous, socially defined, emergent from adaptive practice, flexible

Legal frameworks Formal legislation; fixed rules and procedures

Evolving law in practice, multiple systems, legal pluralism

Development and planning

Blueprint approach; linear policy model

Adaptive planning, flexible, responsive, learning, non-linear policy; negotiation, adaptation, discretion key

Knowledge/power Science as arbiter, single source of authoritative knowledge; conflict, dissent and debate underplayed

Multiple sources; plural and partial perspectives; conflict, dispute and dissent inevitable; negotiated understanding

Risk and uncertainty

Measurable risks and predictable outcomes; assumptions of ŅnormalÓ, ŅstandardÓ patterns

Uncertainty and ignorance; temporal variability and spatial diversity

Governance Separation of levels, local vs global; rules and formal institutions of governance

Integration of levels; multi-level governance, messy interactions, negotiation of outcomes

Source: Scoones, 2004