This document discusses three key issues around framing agricultural adaptation to climate change: 1. The relationship between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate variability, and how this relationship is framed in either scalar or experiential terms. 2. How adaptation success is defined, and whether the goal is persistence through change or transformation, considering what aspects of agriculture and lifestyle society wants to persist or change. 3. The relevance of different forms of knowledge, and how framing influences what knowledge is considered relevant to defining problems and solutions. The document argues that framing shapes how issues are approached and solutions developed, and inadequate consideration of underlying influences can result in problems being poorly defined and solutions that risk failure or worse

1. Agricultural adaptation to climate change:
Acknowledging different frames
Lauren Rickards, University of Melbourne
Co-authors: Peter Hayman, Richard Eckard

2. OVERVIEW
Ambiguity about CC adaptation and
the importance of framing
Three example issues
1. The relationship b/w anthropogenic
CC & natural CV
2. How adaptation success is defined
3. The relevance of different forms of
knowledge
Conclusions

3. OVERVIEW
Ambiguity about CC adaptation and
the importance of framing
Three example issues
1. The relationship b/w anthropogenic
CC & natural CV
2. How adaptation success is defined
3. The relevance of different forms of
knowledge
Conclusions

4. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
Adaptation is a continuous process of:
1. Signal detection
2. Evaluation of relative risks
3. Decision whether and how to act
4. Implementation of decision
5. Detection of relevant feedback
6. Re-evaluation of strategy
Each step involves framing and barriers

5. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
Moser S. &
Ekstrom, J. (2010) ‘[Climate change] adaptation involves
‘A framework to
diagnose barriers to changes in social-ecological systems in
climate change
adaptation’,
PNAS 107(51): response to actual and expected impacts of
22026-22031
climate change in the context of interacting
non-climatic changes’.

6. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
Moser S. &
Ekstrom, J. (2010) ‘Adaptation strategies and actions can range
‘A framework to
diagnose barriers to from short-term coping to longer-
climate change
adaptation’,
PNAS 107(51): term, deeper transformations, aim to meet
22026-22031
more than climate change goals alone, and
may or may not succeed in moderating harm
or exploiting beneficial opportunities’.

7. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
“Framing” shapes:
• what is noticed
• what /whose knowledge is ‘relevant’
• what research is conducted and how
• what risks are privileged, measured, addressed
• what options are considered ‘plausible’
• what outcomes are ‘desirable’ or ‘realistic’
• ie how a problem is defined and tackled

8. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
‘Inadequate consideration of underlying
influences’ results in poor problem
Cork, S. (2010) definition, which leads in turn to
‘Resilience of
social-ecological ‘problems being defined in terms of
systems’
In: Cork, S. (Ed) symptoms rather than causes’ and
Resilience and
Transformation: strategies and actions being formulated
Preparing
Australia for
Uncertain Futures.
which risk not only failing to solve the
CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne
problem but making it worse.

9. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
‘Inadequate consideration of underlying
influences’ results in poor problem
Cork, S. (2010) definition, which leads in turn to
‘Resilience of
social-ecological ‘problems being defined in terms of
systems’
In: Cork, S. (Ed) symptoms rather than causes’ and
Resilience and
Transformation: strategies and actions being formulated
Preparing
Australia for
Uncertain Futures.
which risk not only failing to solve the
CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne
problem but making it worse.
ie. Maladaptation

10. OVERVIEW
Ambiguity about CC adaptation
Importance of framing
Three example issues
1. The relationship b/w anthropogenic
CC & natural climate variability
2. How adaptation success is defined
3. The relevance of different forms of
knowledge
Conclusions

11. ANTHROPOGENIC CC vs. NATURAL CV
CC is seen as: a problem for the distant
future, difficult to detect, complex to
understand, clouded by uncertainty
and controversy…
Relative to immediate climate
extremes and other pressing issues, it
doesn’t rate

12. ‘Scalar’ and ‘experiential’ perspectives of CC
Global, long term climate All other pressures
change
Climate variability Climate variability
All other Climate change
pressures
A - A scalar interpretation: B - An experiential interpretation:
Climate change as envelope Climate change as signal
12

13. ‘Scalar’ and ‘experiential’ perspectives of CC
Global, long term climate All other pressures
change
Climate variability Climate variability
All other Climate change
pressures
A - A scalar interpretation: B - An experiential interpretation:
Climate change as envelope Climate change as signal
Focus on future exposure Focus on current vulnerability
to climate impacts to all risks
13

14. ‘Scalar’ and ‘experiential’ perspectives of CC
Global, long term climate All other pressures
change
Climate variability Climate variability
All other Climate change
pressures
A - A scalar interpretation: B - An experiential interpretation:
Climate change as envelope Climate change as signal
Risk: overlooking constraints on Risk: overlooking need for major
adaptive capacity and ongoing role of CV and anticipatory change
14

15. ANTHROPOGENIC CC vs. NATURAL CV
How we respond to climate extremes
and variability influences/represents
our response to CC
Positive influence: adaptive capacity
Negative influence: negative resilience

16. The vexed
issue of
disaster
response
Source: US National Drought Mitigation Centre, http://www.drought.unl.edu/plan/cycle.htm

17. Photo from Andrew Campbell

18. OVERVIEW
Ambiguity about CC adaptation
Importance of framing
Three example issues
1. The relationship b/w anthropogenic
CC & natural CV
2. How adaptation success is defined
3. The relevance of different forms of
knowledge
Conclusions

19. HOW IS SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION DEFINED?
If adaptation is about ‘persistence
through change’…
• What do we want to persist?
• What do we want, or are we
willing, to change? And what will we
Rickards, L. and
Howden, M. (under be forced to change?
review)
‘Transformational
adaptation’
Crop and Pasture Forced change = less options
Science

20. Source: Howden S.M., Soussana J.F., Tubiello F.N., Chhetri N., Dunlop M., Meinke H. (2007)
Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 104:19691-19696

21. HOW IS SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION DEFINED?
Irrespective of climate change, do we
need to change?
Current adaptation deficits
are substantial

22. Successful adaptation along a particular pathway
of development may at the same time decrease
resilience, and eventually lead to crisis.
Adger et al 2009

23. HOW IS SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION DEFINED?
Sustainable adaptation
Equitable adaptation
Revolutionary adaptation
CC as a catalyst for addressing a host
of existing issues and legitimating a
step change in how we farm

25. HOW IS SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION DEFINED?
Sounds good
… but what is the cost of change and
who is going to bear it?
Adaptation is costly
Transformational adaptation is
especially costly and risky

26. The coping cascade: erosion of capital
Based on Pelling (2011), Nelson et al (2007) and BCG (2008)
Absorb stress and Financial Expend savings
extra work Human and social
and physical and accrue debt
Reduce short-term
Erode/sell non-productive
social expenditure:
goods
Eg. socializing
Withdraw long-term Erode/sell productive
social investments: goods
Eg. education
Break up social Enter into high-
units: selective risk livelihoods
Natural migration (temporary,
Permanent)
Rely on “Destitution
but Do not replenish And
devalue or repair Actively substitute
natural capital for Household
natural natural capital Collapse”
capital financial capital 26

27. Adaptation:
A Coping-Transformation Continuum
Negative Incremental Transformational
No change
change change change
Accept negative Attempt to address
long-term effects long-term effects
Transformational
Erosion of Maintenance of
existing activities improvement of
existing activities
existing activities
& structures & structures
& structures
Short-term survival Long-term adaptation
Decline 27

28. OVERVIEW
Ambiguity about CC adaptation
Importance of framing
Three example issues
1. The relationship b/w anthropogenic
CC & natural CV
2. How adaptation success is defined
3. The relevance of different forms of
knowledge
Conclusions

29. FARMER EXPERIENCE vs. SCIENCE
Double edged epistemological sword
CC = radically new future
= past experience no longer
relevant?
But uncertainty also inherent to
scientific knowledge of future under
climate change

30. FARMER EXPERIENCE vs. SCIENCE
Challenge to local farmer
knowledge
- Familiar territory…
- Reinforcement of value of
scientific learning for farmers
- ‘Climate literacy’
- Suits current paradigms

31. FARMER EXPERIENCE vs. SCIENCE
But narrow interpretation of farmers’
understanding of past climate
Main lesson = climate is variable
The future is uncertain
Perhaps some cognitive adaptation
occurring in this emphasis

32. We just live in a variable climate. No two years are ever
the same. I haven't seen two years the same ever since I
started farming
It’s just the history of this area that there’s extreme drys
and there’s extreme wets and there’s not really that
much in the middle
We’ve had 100 years of extremes. There’s no such thing
as average. It would be a nice thing if it was.
From: Rickards, L. (forthcoming) ‘Critical Breaking Point? The effects of climate
variability, climate change and other pressures on farming families’. Report for
Birchip Cropping Group

34. FARMER EXPERIENCE vs. SCIENCE
Need humility on both sides
Work together
Temper concept of expertise
Adaptation is about social learning

35. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
What is adaptation?
Adaptation to what?
By whom?
Not
In which way? straight
Over what time scale? forward!
To what desired end?
To what actual end?
At what cost?

36. AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPATION
lauren.rickards@unimelb.edu.au