May 4

Dr. Barry Smit, Canada Research Chair in Global Environmental Change, Professor of Geography, University of Guelph
http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/faculty/smit.htm

Barry Smit shared with delegates his perception of international developments in climate change impact and adaptation research, and the parallel developments in Canada. He proposed a look at the purpose and potential application of the ideas and research that emerge from this conference.

The question, How serious is climate change? is driven by policy (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol). Smit asked “How close are we getting to dangerous interference?” He explained that if climate change impacts are such that food production is in danger and economic sustainability is impossible, for example, then the international community must take action.

Given these real and potential impacts the question What to do? arises. First, there is mitigation. The second response is adaptation, where people adjust their lives to reduce vulnerability. “Adaptation is not new—it is as embedded in Article Four of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as mitigation,” said Smit, noting there are many other explicit commitments to adaptation.

The notion of adaptation fits readily into management of coastal zones, agriculture, and water resources. Even in initial drafting of the Convention, it was recognized that adaptation is not separate. Instead it was envisaged right at the outset that one has to deal not only with the long-term changes in temperature but that events such as droughts are also part of the equation.

Vulnerability is a recurring issue and, therefore, adaptation should be directed at the most vulnerable. So why not focus on resilience and adaptive capacity? Smit said that adaptation is in the Convention as it will reduce vulnerability.

The question, What to do about climate change impacts? implies that research must have a different orientation. For instance, the question in Bangladesh is how to improve social and economic conditions for the population rather than that asking how much the sea level will rise. An assessment of climate change impact is different than assessments of what can be done, emphasized Smit.

In discussing the practical applications of studies and how their effectiveness can be assessed so that they assist in actual decisionmaking, Smit outlined the following research approaches: impact assessment, adaptation options, vulnerability indices, and adaptation process. While more than one approach can be employed, each is quite distinct.

The key element of impact assessment is a climate change scenario that looks 30 to 100 years ahead and relates norms in temperature, for example. From that, biophysical and socio-economic impacts are considered. One can also assume some adaptation to impacts. Impacts that remain are the residual or net impacts—some people call this vulnerability.

“How much of a change would adaptation make to the seriousness of climate change?” asked Smit. If one takes the adaptation options approach, the question becomes which options to employ in “a whole suite of possible adaptation measures.” Prairie farmers, for example, can use crop irrigation, insurance, and diversification. The measure of choice can be determined through its cost, effectiveness, and implementability.

Smit said that this exercise is easily done but “it doesn’t make a lot of sense since these options are being contemplated or are already employed by both policymakers and farmers.” Furthermore, they cannot be evaluated as single stimuli; it makes more sense to connect them to existing decisionmaking processes on farms.

Vulnerability indices compare regions, districts, areas, groups, sectors, or countries to determine the most vulnerable, the targets for adaptation. Several models of vulnerability capture the essence of this approach where vulnerability is related to either exposure or sensitivity and to adaptive capacity. Bangladesh, for example, has a different adaptive capacity to flooding than Florida. Bangladesh also has greater exposure to flooding than say, Switzerland. “We are not making judgements but trying to understand the nature of adaptation,” clarified Smit.

Vulnerability indices provide an idea to target adaptation work—or do they? Smit noted that in Canada, decisions have been based on such indices but there have been no resulting actual adaptation initiatives.

The combined vulnerability and adaptation process attempts to answer the following questions: What causes vulnerability? What are the adaptive capacities? How might one improve that capacity to better deal with exposure and risk? What structures are already in place?

The vulnerability approach is fundamentally different from climate impact assessment as it starts with the community. Past and current exposures are ascertained to find conditions that matter to the community. Adaptive strategies to these exposures are also determined. In assessing future exposure, physical and social scientists are involved to determine adaptation capacity in the future. This approach is relevant to the decisionmakers since it actually analyzes adaptation capacity and how it can be improved. This approach considers adaptation as part of the existing risks. For example, drought in the Prairies is already incorporated in adaptation approaches as they exist now.

Furthermore, variability and extremes are not separate, said Smit. Climate change includes changes in average conditions and extremes, and is recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The implication of the vulnerability approach is that it is finding some climate conditions that are important for communities but not captured in other models. For example, the changing winds on the sea ice near Arctic Bay profoundly affect the community. Thus, from the point of view of the people affected, it does not matter if the change is caused by climate change or variability.

Smit noted that some United Nations programs fund projects for climate change impacts but not for climate variability. In Bangladesh, for example, problems with crab growing and water supply are not a direct result of climate change but are related, and climate change will definitely make them worse.

In the end the perfect approach has to fit into the needs and reality of the situation, said Smit.

2005-04-05